Fontan is having a serious debate ooc and IC right now concerning people whose accounts were deleted and then restarting with their old characters.
Is this acceptable?
Fontan has long allowed such things as the players wish to start off where they left off. Should we allow this or put a stop to it?
It is acceptable. I've done it myself. Bumped a few rocks on the road of proving that this really is the same family, but in general people accepted it without a complaint.
Ah you mean, recreating the same *characters*. Dunno how that is viewed, but I am not sure how you could rp your old geezer when the game says he's 25.
People have been doing it as long as I've played the game. Personally, I've always frowned upon taking that road. If your family was deleted then you should just be honest and start a new one from scratch, not try to ride on the fame of the old account. The game displays you as a new one so you should go along with that. Your character ages won't match etc.
There's just a whole lot the game says that gos against starting a new family and playing it as an old one.
I did it and it was accepted about 2 years ago.
but I created a good RP explaining what happened to my character.
He was murdered but a body was never found and he lost his memory and lived as a peasant for a time till his memory returned... that kind of thing.
Now we have a well known character that has returned as a new noble portraying his old character, most of the realm accepts him back with open arms but a couple players say that this is not possible. and are complaining that he was given position as Vice marshal straight away.
Quote from: katayanna on April 07, 2012, 08:41:29 PM
Now we have a well known character that has returned as a new noble portraying his old character, most of the realm accepts him back with open arms but a couple players say that this is not possible. and are complaining that he was given position as Vice marshal straight away.
Myah, that's the problem with doing it. People tend to use it to snatch back old positions and then the new guys are left out. That's why I think it's wrong and should not be accepted.
This is, and always has been, something that has to be handled more-or-less IC, by the players involved. And a lot depends on the specifics of the case: I've seen people create new accounts, with completely different family and character names, and then claim to be the previous character. Not the reincarnation, a relative or anything, but the same character.
That's not reasonable.
Re-creating an account with the same family name, and the same character name, and claiming to be the same character, can work. It works best if the character on the old account was not old, and did not have large amounts of honour and prestige, because the new one obviously will not.
Re-creating an old character on the same account he was originally on is a similar issue to the above.
Re-creating an account with the same family name, but new characters, shouldn't cause any problem, in my view.
But the bottom line is: No player or character is required to accept this. Nor are they required to reject it. Even if some members of the realm accept it, others are free to declare that the returned player's characters are insane or impostors, and maintain this belief.
Quote from: Arrakis on April 07, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
Ah you mean, recreating the same *characters*. Dunno how that is viewed, but I am not sure how you could rp your old geezer when the game says he's 25.
I always found that pretty lame, saw some influential fifty/sixty year old characters deleted and recreated later on, with the same name and body of 17 year old. I was new to the game then, and it pissed me off immensely that that character basically just rebooted and was treated the same way, given back all his titles, etc... So much for turnover in realms.
People have the right to accept or decline his role play. For example, when one of my characters ran for the Pontifex of Ibladesh he was assaulted by the other throne pretender with claims that he isn't really of Arrakis family, and that this guys who is running is just a phony. I was a bit pissed for that, however, he did IC, fairly and in the end it gave me some very interesting experience. Of course, he got utterly defeated and I won the elections since the majority of players accepted my role play. :)
As far as I am concerned as long as these accusations are handled IC, it is good. Although personally I'd have a real hard time believing that legendary character returning as a beardless boy and would probably object that. However, you can always say he was reincarnated. -chuckle-
Recently, I rejoined the game and formed my family with the same name as my last account. Personally, I don't really like to see my family's history lost and I'd prefer to continue my family name, despite it losing all its fame and prestige. I've created new characters, who despite having the same names as some of my previous characters, are in now way affiliated to them other than being related and having passing acquaintance. After all, names were frequently reused, and if I want to create all my character's named "Steve", what's wrong with that? Unless of course, they are all poorly roleplayed as being identical in every way.
Quote from: Lefanis on April 07, 2012, 08:48:09 PM
I always found that pretty lame, saw some influential fifty/sixty year old characters deleted and recreated later on, with the same name and body of 17 year old. I was new to the game then, and it pissed me off immensely that that character basically just rebooted and was treated the same way, given back all his titles, etc... So much for turnover in realms.
You bring up a valid point.... When I recreated my characters I made the old and not young for just that reason.. there was only a few years difference in the character ages and he lost all titles and had to earn everything back from scratch... I too am against "rebooting" your characters just to get a younger version....
I brought back my family not too long ago. I think it should be handled with the utmost care. I personally enjoy rping so I rped my way. However, I did not go the same realm I grew up in I actually preferred to fight against them. Seeing it from a different perspective opens one eyes. Sure some people knew my character's family name others did not.
Never recreate character names granted I did one but I forgot to put the II on his name to distinguish him. Still working on getting that changed... granted some of them share the same alcoholic tendencies. I have played them of as children or relatives of the fromer 3 brothers I created.
I would like to get Tom's take on it as he sets the rules.
I resurrected my family when I returned to the game because I hadn't finished with their tale. I've never felt bad about resurrecting the three sisters Dubhaine and their prophet brother, nor has it bothered me that events have seemed to naturally cluster about them: it's just who they are. To the best of my knowledge this return hasn't detracted from anyone else's fun.
Indeed the Colonies might be that much duller if the rightful Duke of Alowca hadn't returned from exile to become ruler of Minas Thalion :)
The case currently under discussion in Fontan has mostly caused waves because the character who's returned was swiftly appointed vice-marshal of an army by one of my characters who knew him well. If that sucks for people who've joined the realm in the period since the other player deleted his account then I'm sorry, but OOC grievance has no place IC and IC there is no better candidate for the job as has been made very clear to the critics. It's also the only way I can think of IC to counteract a general who insists on bypassing the realm's Marshals, a problem which has lead to at least two acrimonious threads here on the forum regarding Clans and who is or isn't a member of one.
Tim pretty much said it: We don't have official rules on this. Basically, if someone does this in a way that you find acceptable, then go with it. If he's trying to pull a cheap trick, don't accept it.
QuoteThe case currently under discussion in Fontan has mostly caused waves because the character who's returned was swiftly appointed vice-marshal of an army by one of my characters who knew him well. If that sucks for people who've joined the realm in the period since the other player deleted his account then I'm sorry, but OOC grievance has no place IC and IC there is no better candidate for the job as has been made very clear to the critics.
I think you missed the point. It's not an OOC grievance -- it's
you using an unreasonable OOC basis to appoint someone. Basically "there is no better candidate" because you know the player. I personally really hate OOC appointments that have no basis in RP at all. The turn-around in positions is slow enough as it is, without OOC appointments
Now recreating the same family name is fine, but trying to RP the same character with same name but with 17-year old noble is just wrong. For example, he won't be able to command SF forces at all due to lack of honor/prestige, no matter how experienced you claim him to be.
And then you have Sanctus Acies:
QuoteWe believe that part of the soul will never make it to the "Hall of Heroes" but that part will be reborn in a cycle of life being added to your family when a new Noble comes forth to take your place, certain memories and actions will be the same as the family member departed.
I always found it funny that Indirik complained about the CoH when he had his character join SA.
Retaking the family name? That's fine, though I would personally rather see cadet branches replace the old family line.
Replaying a character? Well, I suppose it's alright so long as the previous character wasn't executed or otherwise killed. Though rerolling a character just because they were old seems tasteless.
As to the Fontan situation? A new character that none of your family has had interaction with? Poor role-playing. A character that immigrated and has a history that other characters in your family may have known? That is far more understandable. Especially if they have a letter of introduction from your kin.
The Acies "reincarnation" method where dead characters can simply be remade? Completely tasteless and against good roleplaying sense. Personally, I think if my character ran across this instance, he would likely view it as a grieving family member who lost their mind. Or a possession, in which case my priests would have to drive the spirits or demons from the body!
Quote from: AlexR on April 08, 2012, 02:20:57 AM
I think you missed the point. It's not an OOC grievance -- it's you using an unreasonable OOC basis to appoint someone. Basically "there is no better candidate" because you know the player.
Actually I don't know the player, but my character does know the family of his character and in a medieval world where pedigree was everything it would be quite natural to expect even a young knight of impeccable lineage to demonstrate known virtues, even if our cynical modern minds see the flaws in that argument. Were she to appoint a 17 year old of his lineage as vice-marshal that would be entirely consistent so long as the virtues she seeks are the virtues that lineage possesses.
However in this case she has met him in the field and believes that he is the very same knight who until recently served as a vice-marshal and a member of her military council when she was minister of defence. The fact he is now in somewhat more robust health than before is certainly an intriguing puzzle, but it is far from unprecedented.
@dracotanos: I didn't care for Sanctus Acies either. :P Balkeese joined it as an "FU" to CoH. But I think that was long before you joined BattleMaster, even.
As to the original topic, I don't care if you remake a family. Go for it. I dislike it when people recreate a character. I don't care what your RP about it is. Just make a new character.
Also, about the Sanctus Acies "reincarnation", I don't read it the same way as DracoTanos does. I don't think it is intended to allow you to just restart the character all over. And I don't think anyone has ever done that. Ever. Slamming them based on your interpretation of what their theology allows, when that hasn't ever actually been done IG, is pretty unfair, and far off the mark.
Explain the now paused Eagles Reach Rebirth, whose previous character died as a Hero in battle and then used that clause to remake Eagles Reach and have him go the path of SA priest?
He was also the head priest for along time, wasn't he?
As per the interpretation, I actually showed it to several people, RP buddies who have yet to join BM, and they all immediately picked up on it as an excuse for metagaming at best.
Quote from: Lefanis on April 07, 2012, 08:48:09 PM
I always found that pretty lame, saw some influential fifty/sixty year old characters deleted and recreated later on, with the same name and body of 17 year old. I was new to the game then, and it pissed me off immensely that that character basically just rebooted and was treated the same way, given back all his titles, etc... So much for turnover in realms.
It used to be that you couldn't have so many paused characters at the same time. Unless the beer is altering my memory that is.
Not to mention that the game doesn't give the option to start at 50 years old. Imo, you should be able to create a character as old as the oldest chracter you've ever had...
So far as I know, Eagles Reach Rebirth was not RPd as a reincarnation of the original character. Maybe it was in Caligus, but not in the religion. Nor do I think anyone else ever RPd a reincarnation as the exact same character. But maybe they did, who knows? There are all kinds of people that RPd all kinds of ridiculous things. Look at the "shadow of" and "lillith/lilllith/lillith's ghost/etc." characters we've seen around the game.
For all the things you /could/ castigate Sanctus Acies for, and there are many, some vague reference to reincarnation that, so far as I know, was never used seems pretty lame.