[Lolzytripd]

It's just what's become expected at this point. People in this game want to end villains so that things become ok again. The antags are generally seen as an issue that must be fixed. I am not going to fight for my freedom when a whole nation wants me dead and wants to hunt me down and execute me. What is the point? It would just piss people off who want that character gone. It would make people frustrated. It's hard enough to get people to enjoy an antag before getting captured, I just don't feel like fighting against the tide just to get my freedom. That's why generally I just accept death. Hell, last time I got imprisoned I tried to bargain and there was no recourse, I had two bad options and that was it. Even if I got my freedom, it would be with great effort and to the great frustration of others. I just don't want to be that guy.

Idk how the future warden of meia will run things, but I've been amicable i think....

[Poruku]

You've been awesome logz. I wasn't really thinking of specific people, it's just a general sentiment. But for instance, even if the warden is chill with an escape, the nation leader might not be. Or the people who caught the criminal might be frustrated, etc etc

[Blissey]

I still think it should be more standard for antagonists to have a bit more leeway and free reign in the wilderness -- the farther from a proper establishment, the better (see: Geladyne, Telegrad, Duyuei, Meiaquar as definitions of proper establishments). However, if they perform crimes closer -- or within -- said establishments, it's kind of par for the course that they might get their teeth kicked in. It just makes sense.

Of course, there's something to be said about making sure you communicate your intentions with the highest authority of said establishment if you want to cause more over-reaching, meaningful, and engaging struggle and trouble -- trouble that could last a while without you being caught, or if caught, given a proper opportunity to escape (this happened in Duyuei with Ouroboros, though mainly because the player didn't want the character executed since they weren't done yet). I know I personally was always willing to play ball when I helped manage Duyuei, but for some reason that was never taken advantage of (no tea, no shade). I know Duyuei seems very unforgiving to antagonists, but we really were willing. I can't say much to this now, of course, since I no longer participate in Korvara. You just have to reason with them. To my knowledge, at least with me personally, this was never attempted.

That's just my thoughts. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that antagonists should be let go from prison willy-nilly, or because they're content generators, to echo Polly's words (still no tea or shade). At least, as far as people who've attempted mass murder, or regicide, crimes along those lines, should kind of expect to meet their maker if caught. I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, of course, or that it wouldn't or couldn't happen -- it just shouldn't be simple or for the sake of keeping the content going without meaning and a story truly being told through the antagonist's actions.

I've personally had no issues with your antagonists, Polk, by the by. I enjoyed Nizzik's arc. I think it was well done and it set precedent for certain things to develop in Duyuei as far as the Skouge and cryptkeepers go, believe it or not. I can't deny antagonists are dealt a very painfully short stick, but disbelief can only be suspended so much for certain actions committed by said antagonists, for whatever reasons they may have.

[Pyro]

Do you know what the definition of insanity is?
It's doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

From the perspective of someone who's spent most of Korvara playing a character who's main goal is to keep their faction afloat and presented in its best light (though this has caused some friction with certain groups), "ganktagonists" present something that is untenable from the perspectives of both players and nations. They're problem causers. That's not an issue, though. What does become a problem is that these characters are almost exclusively built around causing bodily harm to others. And it doesn't make much sense for the nations of G6 nor Korvara to sit on their hands with the knowledge that a serial killer is stalking their territory, or a group of bandits are robbing and pillaging their citizenry. Rarely are the crimes committed worth glossing over.

And they just. Keep. Coming. There is no end to them. You deal with one and then suddenly there's another one or two or three working together because the players didn't care to cover their tracks the last time and were killed for it.

But even further with this, even if they wanted to just let these groups have free reign, they're often considered incompetent and looked down upon for allowing it from an OOC and IC perspective. Very few people are interested in making this their IC, though many people's incompetence is rarely intentional. It is not necessarily the duty of the players to allow an opposing force to do as they want if it conflicts with their character's morals. More so the antagonist's to play smart and communicate OOCly.

Many of these "ganktagonists" are rarely done in a way that makes their approach viable. They don't cover their tracks. They wanted into public areas without a disguise. They don't offer any intrigue. They exist only to cause you bodily harm and it gets them put to the sword. Rightfully so. As Blissey said, there can only be so much suspension of disbelief. And this level varies, but for the most part, it's down to the player to supply why there should be any at all.

[Poruku]

Many of these "ganktagonists" are rarely done in a way that makes their approach viable. They don't cover their tracks. They wanted into public areas without a disguise. They don't offer any intrigue. They exist only to cause you bodily harm and it gets them put to the sword. 

First of all, being caught is never a matter of "not covering our tracks". We usually get caught when people really want to hunt us down. We allow it because there's no point in hiding forever when people are hunting us down.

Secondly, getting caught due to wandering in a public area without a disguise isn't that common. Usually, we get caught because we lose a fight, or someone calls for help. It has happened twice in the past that I wandered into a public area though. The first time was because the card gang just didn't give a fuck, and it was about time to end their story. The second time was because I forgot we were wanted in that part of the world. You can hardly blame the antag for getting caught anyway, when you're the one who wants them to get caught.

Thirdly, the part about "not offering any intrigue" is completely false. I offer intrigue as much as possible. I do my best to provide stories and clues to follow, even sometimes involving NPCs to deepen the plot. That's not always possible though, because the amount of intrigue I can provide depends on people's interest. All my antagonists have a proper story behind them that can be tackled. And going against those antags always comes with intrigue if the heroes are willing to play ball.

Fourthly, the reason why we often go for bodily harm is because there is basically only two things we can do. Robbery, or harm. I prefer robbery, but harm is good too. Going for anything more complex is difficult. For instance, it's impossible to be a member of a faction and be some kind of corrupt official. People won't let you do it. I would love to hear your suggestions on that front. Antagonists can have a wide variety of motivations and ways to operate, but at the end of the day, combat and conflict usually mean harm.

Fifth, I think it's a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. You say yourself that you cannot tolerate any criminals in your territory, even considering it something your character would take personally. That's just your character's perception of it. Any nation will have criminals, the antagonists are simply the ones played by players. And the reason they die so quickly is because people like you want them gone/dead immediately, as they are an affront to the peace and order of your faction. And of course I will usually make another one later, because I enjoy(ed) playing those characters. 

Overall, if you're willing to share your recipe for a viable antagonist, I'm all ears.

[FaeLenx]

That's just my thoughts. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that antagonists should be let go from prison willy-nilly, or because they're content generators, to echo Polly's words (still no tea or shade).

It's not willy-nilly. It's adhering to the same rules as everyone else. People who play characters who cause problems are still just people playing characters like everyone else. They can't hold someone else indefinitely in a cage. They can't be held indefinitely in a cage. The exact cage doesn't change much to the way the rules are written at the moment.

[Blissey]

That's just my thoughts. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that antagonists should be let go from prison willy-nilly, or because they're content generators, to echo Polly's words (still no tea or shade).

It's not willy-nilly. It's adhering to the same rules as everyone else. People who play characters who cause problems are still just people playing characters like everyone else. They can't hold someone else indefinitely in a cage. They can't be held indefinitely in a cage. The exact cage doesn't change much to the way the rules are written at the moment.

Ah, okay. Well, I don't particularly agree with the rule in its current iteration, anyway. Though I don't necessarily have any better ideas, so I won't push the envelope. It'd be up to GMs and Dev, anyway, if enough people ever wish to amend it.

It is what it is, at the end of the day. Character autonomy is important, but sometimes people do stuff that strips it away, and while they may not always know what they're doing, in the end consequences are important to keeping a story going.

[Autumn]

Complications with the Marauder event aside for the time being, which trust me I have some opinions about. I believe that antagonists and villains who sorta just exist to run around and find people to mug can be considered realistic, but un-practical to the overall state of the game. Let me explain my thoughts, I'm sure everyone feels this way but antagonists should exist to fulfill a narrative gap or purpose, it's a co-operative experience where we are all attempting to write characters in satisfying ways to ourselves, that is why its important to gauge our interactions with other people on a case-by-case basis. 

This also means to challenge those characters in individual ways, and I think running around and lobbing people's arms off is not a good way to do that, you're just causing undue stress in doing so, people start worrying about being optimized for PvP or are focusing down on something that already happened, and I know this happens because this has been expressed before in a few chats. You could argue quite a few things about the permissions that these folks are supposed to throw around to prevent these things from happening, but in reality many of these people are either anxious about denying the opportunity to the other player(s) or are very dedicated to the dynamic and natural interactions without interference on an OOC level (I am the latter.)

Unfortunately I don't think that random encounters call for good narrative typically (there are exceptions), I think investment is a very powerful tool to entice player engagement with eachother, this often means that villains need to be written in a way that is likeable or interesting, this further often means that antagonists need to be written 10x better than your average Telegradian hick shooting shit for a good laugh and a good time (nothing against those people.)

Its a bit of an unfair dynamic I feel like, but them's the ropes when it comes down to creating more engaging player experiences, and there are quite a few people more than capable of doing this, this is why I love Sawrock's antagonists despite being random encounter focused, because they're usually pretty interesting and have fun personalities, I mean we also know that Sawrock is one of the nicest members of the community otherwise too.

To summarize, causing player stress is very bad and will often lead to negative opinions about these sorts of things, when someone's only really creating characters to run around and PvP people and take their arms or limbs or what not instead of delivering anything substantial, of course these things can get very muddy. Forcing these events can be very unsatisfying when someone asks how they lost their arm and they just have to say something like 'I lost it when looking for a few plants in a cave somewhere.'

[Balor]

Overall, if you're willing to share your recipe for a viable antagonist, I'm all ears

The monkey's paw curls. 

I've never run into a problem with my antagonists, not that they are plentiful or many.  Nor have I made more than one a public figure, and his gimmick was just roasting people like a WWE heel until you either proved him narratively wrong, or ignored him.  

However I found that it's simple truly, the system by which an Antagonist becomes viable is merely the communication of intent and goals. Antagonists are not inherently violent or evil, but are simply bringers of change. Sudden and immediate at times. In the case of most SL2 antagonists they spawn into the world in secret, are ground from 1-60 in a few days, geared up and then set along the path. 

To interact and engage with people who've in contrast have spent several months working on their stories, characters and personal goals. The antagonist arrives as a supplement as well to several world changing events and Eventmin ran Antagonists that are meant to be global or local threats. 

The Heroes in these stories are expected to then allow a stranger or a new face, that may or may not have effort put into them, come and change their lives? Effect the environment around them without communication or established good will? 

I've never run into a hiccup, because when I run any antag, I reach out and have brief but transparent conversations about my goals, and desires but most of all what I wish to PROVIDE to the people eventually set to defeat my antags. Because the villain in the story is meant to provide a question to the hero, one they must find an answer to and grow as people. The goal of the antagonist is to HELP the Hero change for the better or worse. 

I find it incredibly discouraging that an Eventmin fails to understand that.  Who rather than taking the time to put in the effort to ensure what they are providing the community mechanically or narratively is rewarding. They'd rather systems be put in place that would allow them to sidestep that notion of accountability and cooperation entirely for their own fun. 

With that said, I'll be dippin' from this thread. With my two cents shared. I hope that despite the tone of my message it provides some perspective on the matter. I will also say that this is an applicable methodology to anything. The transparency of goals and desires is universal in all shapes and forms of Roleplay, whether it be SL2 or DnD. The collaboration of many minds to create a story mutually satisfying and fulfilling.

[Skullcatrons]

I intended to post my statement from discord because I forgor but anyways

---

The problem with antagonists and communication is that communicating is already a chore as it is. First of all, This is in Korvara. Do a community really need to communicate with nation leaders, or GMs to do anything remotely boardshaking or even be antagonist on behalf of? Are they forced to simply talk to GMs, or even anyone they try to victimize? Do antagonists have to sit and wait and talk to people until they finally get to be antagonists? Antagonism isn't supposed to be a job but another thing roleplayers are allowed to do on Korvara.


Korvara is taken to be this open ended sandbox in a lot of ways. The community is allowed and encouraged to do their own things with occasional drop from Dev's statement.

But yet we cannot. This became less an antagonist problem and became a literal issue of communication.

You want to start a business in a settlement, you better talk to the town leader for four hours. That is if you could schedule a meeting with them in the first place. You want to establish a village in possibly unclaimed land, surprise. The lands claimed. You'll have to negotiate, or be told to curb it and join the nation and cannot settle your own hub you wanted to do.

There's lot of promises to do things you wanted to do. But in the end, you're at the decisions of the nation leaders, the eventmins, and the GMs.

The problem has become thus: If antagonists have to communicate. It's already a part time job. If the antagonist has to schedule something ahead. Then at that point there's no point in being antagonist.

People will know your villainy is on a scheduled activity, and can plot ahead in accordance.

And another issue? About communication? What if you can't communicate with say, a nation leader. For instance, you're blocked by said nation leader on discord What are you supposed to do. Go to the GMs? Go to the eventmins? Pray to some possible luck of god that you encounter them IC? You're always at mercy somewhere along the line. And there'll always be someone wanting to protest your feelings on the matter.

Abandon the whole notion and go elsewhere? At that point you ultimately prove antagonism is a job. And not a fun one. And this villains are screwed over.