Slightly different idea:
Assuming this is acceptable, you could put your amnesiac's chosen name as your real name, as long as it sounded real enough.
"John Doe," quite stereotypical, can see why you'd go for it, but what if instead your character realises that and decides to use something more authentic?
Backstory: Waking up, no memory, don't know your name, meet some people who explain to you that you're in a zombie apocalypse, nice one, and that there's been various groups of armed people who'd be weirded out by your use of a pseudo-name.
You go to a bathroom to find a mirror, look around, see a sink. Sink sounds like Sid, let's go with that. On the sink, it has "Armitage" written on it. Sid Armitage.
Obviously you can choose the hoops you jump through to come to this conclusion, whether you put it into your backstory or it happens in-game, but the result is the same: You're an amnesiac with a less-than-sketchy name that doesn't immediately point out you've lost your memory and that you're ripe for the picking if someone enslaves you since you don't know who / where to go to if you escape.
Up to you.
Edit: Throw the real name into the back story so that you have it, but for all intents and purposes your character's chosen name is the "real" one as that's what they'll be referred to, what they'll put on permits, etc.
Gonna write a quick reply for this because I've been thinking about this kind of topic a lot recently but I don't have much time.
I've been spending time in a different RP, a rebirth of one I used to play years ago, since the RP is much more popular and community much less toxic than it used to be since it went private.
It's also a survival-based RP set in the snowy hell of Greenland. Anyone can fight, anyone can die and you roll up brand new characters should your main one(s) die.
People love it.
It's based on the "Play to lose" mentality, which I find strange enough personally, but it works because people will create in-depth characters, commit to stories and plots, and then die in realistic and timely manners.
It results in the fabled "Selfless RP" that people talk about here, caring more for other's fun rather than your own, but in reality everyone's having fun because everyone is invested in the overall story, rather than their characters, though they still add depth and detail to their characters.
Slight difference here: The focus is on the characters, rather than the story, so most is invested in their own and not others. It's not a flaw in the system, it's a result of the system.
Of course I get what the overarching point here is, so I've come with ideas:
1) Retract the restrictions (Plus other changes)
What others here have said, remove the rules that disallow random robberies, tighten the rules on bad robberies. Robberies will result in roleplay and anything that doesn't will get reported, eventually removing people who commit BadRP as a factor. I'd also suggest creating guidelines that, if adhered to, would fully assure your innocence in a false report. That's up to the staff team, give the community what you look for in your `case-by-case` report analysis in a guide format, make it a part of the rules.
2) Give people a common enemy
As people have said, there's no fear or danger in DayZ right now because the zombies and animals just aren't enough of a threat to outclass other people. If there was such a threat, people could still commit hostilities but they'd be more likely to stick together out of safety.
I'd suggest Permadeath again but we all know how that goes, so I'll refrain from going down that route. Instead, a designated lore group to come harass / clear out the populace of Chernarus, whether they be healthy or infected. Make them dangerous and everyone else will steer towards each other and bundle up for protection.
In the RP I'm in, the common enemy is mutated animals (So the zombie equivalent, except they're actually dangerous). But that's not it, there's also a private military force operating in the region with instructions to snag, bag and tag natives/foreigners in Greenland and kill the guys who resist for as-of-yet unknown reasons.
People still fight among themselves, but they're more than happy to work together if it means they live to bicker and bite another day.
That's one for the lore team to figure out.
DayZ is suffering from a sincere issue regarding lack of admin tools, so it's extremely difficult / impossible to track people in-game and knowing their status, what they're doing, etc. For example, we could enforce the requirement to roleplay injuries after a death if an admin could see someone had died, invisibly teleports to them five minutes after their death and sees them sprinting along, having a nice chat with some guy on the coast.
But that kind of stuff doesn't exist as of yet, so making people actually roleplay properly isn't an option.
Coming from me, I don't like hostilities all that much. I'm quite the control freak and I don't like not knowing what's behind that tree before I walk past it, so playing DayZRP actually makes me anxious since I have no idea if I'm going to get stopped in my tracks for an hour by a bandit or if I'll be able to run all the way to Polkovo to help an injured guy. Simultaneously, the complete lack of danger is exhaustingly boring, I empathise with the people here who've said as much.
As much as I dislike excessive hostility, some people enjoy it and it's not my place to tell them what they should and shouldn't enjoy.
As much as I like it here, the game in its current state isn't for me and I have a tough time enjoying myself or the company of others when I play for various reasons, so I've been on both sides of the coin now and I understand.
The rules are strangling this place. @Rolle, if you won't listen to me then please heed the words of these experienced and active roleplayers. Hostility is as much a part of DayZRP as anything else is and it needs the free-form freedom everything else has. You have systems in place to deal with excessive or outright bad hostile roleplay, so let the systems function, let the staff do their work so that the players can do what they enjoy.
Lance Donovan's link is the same as James Porkins'. Here's Lances' link: https://www.dayzrp.com/characters/display-5861/
I might come back and add some feedback or other just to fill this post out a bit.
So I read up to about the start of page 4 and felt like I was the only one who watched the video, so I figured I'd make some notes:
23 mins: Gets shot
24-30 mins: Descends into delirium as his injury is untreated. Asks for a tourniquet some time during this
31 mins: falls unconcious
31-39 mins: Random medical applications
Late 39 mins: A tourniquet is finally applied
42 mins: Smelling Salts used, th3inory comes to but is strange from blood loss.
45 mins: Pulse checked IRP, th3 explains his blood loss predicament OOC (Since the doctor would know)
46 mins: Some arguing, the doc references his earlier blood and saline usage, th3 replies that "a 7.62 to the leg is not trivial", corrected to 5.56
48 mins: Arguing over the size of the exit wound
49 mins: more OOC
49:28 mins - Falls unconcious again
50 mins: Force fed pills, which doesn't work due to lack of water
51 mins: fed water, coughs violently, still passed out
54 mins: Same OOC arguing from 46 mins.
56:28 - Executed
So that's roughly 7 minutes awake, 11 minutes unconcious, 7 minutes awake, and exactly 7 minutes unconcious.
It's easy to paint the guy as "doing nothing" and "stalling RP" for half an hour or an hour when he's not here to defend himself and personally I don't like that.
To my contribution: RPers have always been in control of their character for as long as they're able to RP. Simple as that. If everything could be decided by action and not emoting without OOC consequences then it would be. @Rolle By all means, rewrite the rules to suit your vision, just be clear on what you want before you do that. You know me, I'm on the side of "over-excessive hostile RP is inhibiting" and we can all see you are too. WIth that in mind, saying people should use action instead of emotes as it'll bring IC consequences is a baity statement when there are OOC consequences for doing such a thing, both in regards to people potentially breaking rules and getting banned and that by accidentally killing someone, you put them back on the coast and end whatever roleplay was happening with that person instantly.
If you refuse to believe it happens as often as people say it does, that's your prerogative, I don't know of any official statistics for accidental kills, but you're one player with 17h since that time keeping was implemented and just one of the people disagreeing with you has over 700 hours on you. As for me, I wouldn't really know, never hurt anyone in DayZRP, but I know I wouldn't risk punching a hostage because I can't see what their bone stat is and in the line up of 49 punches they've taken previously, mine could be the one that ends them. Then where would I be? In a report, maybe.
Any decent person is here to roleplay and as we're all putting in the effort to create stories, it's considerate to not put another roleplayer in such a situation when there is no need for it. People fighting and killing and executing is one thing because they're trying to kill each other, but HostileRP and Torture is different because, as the emotes imply, they're not trying to kill each other.
As a recommendation, if you're really doing this, change the rules so that people can't be punished for accidental kills, then you'll get people torturing each other properly. Or if you want to see people actually killing each other and lacking consideration for their fellow players, you should go to the public servers.
I'll subject myself to beanz to be showered in this thread.
... Wait a second.
I originally came to post the image of Ella hiding under the building equipment in Berezino that I thought I took but turns out it was really bad.
My character's eyesight sucks.
I have a slightly different take on the group than ahem Kattica does, seeing that wanting to prevent death typically makes you the good guy.
I'm not sure if it's what you intended (it likely is) but I like how the Solute focuses on dissolving conflict. Heh.
Negotiations, compromises, creative thinking. I would actually want to get in on this, the problem-solving part suits my character (and myself). Tbf, generic goals, yeah, but sometimes you need them to be generic so they can be applied dynamically. Rather than put every new situation you want to deal with as a goal, you could keep a list of quarrels that you've settled underneath the first IC goal. In time, it would become an example of what your aims are on its own.
As for the turning hostile part, we've seen it happen a lot, ICly and OOCly when people get frustrated with the occurrences in-game. Fangs were fear mongers at first and then kind of tried to settle down, but I think it was a bit late for that. Anarchy started out aiming to be the people for the common man and people didn't trust them. Rather than wait and earn trust, they turned hostile and forced people to their RP hotspot.
Please don't do either of those, especially since Day 300 is about a month and a half away. If the characters founding this group really are serious about settling the problems between major groups and people in an Apocalypse, they'd have some serious moral standpoints that wouldn't wear away after a month. It's as much about roleplay and realistic immersion as it is about being a good idea in general.
Also knowing what situations you can get into and which ones you should leave to be resolved. While a sound instruction, sometimes mixing it up makes for a better recipe than following the cookbook. OOCly, you could know not to get involved with something because it'll make it worse, and then have the group interfere with the best of intentions and roleplay out the ensuing chaos.
The reasoning for the group is a very solid standpoint, morally, ethically and sensically. It's an Apocalypse, you don't want people dead, and there's very few people who care about that with the capacity to do anything about it on a larger scale, a void which this group could fill.
This is your decision, personally I'd stray away from using violence as a means of resolution, namely because this is a non-permadeath RP where violence rarely fixes more problems than it causes and (from a roleplay standpoint) all of our characters are well aware that hostile groups tend to have more bloodthirsty killers in their reserves and the angrier they get, the more they let loose and the more casualties that occur, which you're trying to avoid.
For the village, people have permanent spots, maybe try a more flexible approach of setting up in certain areas near/away from known conflict and letting people know so they can come along or send representatives? That way you have less to be upset about if an angry client runs you out of town and the lack of permanency will deter robberies since you won't be a consistent supply of free gear.
Yeah, I know I wrote a lot, there's not much detail in the OP so I wanted to give you the cells to flesh out your idea if you wanted to take any of my suggestions on board. Plus I know you're good for reading my longer posts from previous interactions, @N-Tox
Gonna add that, especially at this point, it seems like a stretch to argue that it was an initiation. The guy was pleading with Dusty not to go out.
Nobody adds that much concerned-bordering-on-panicked upward inflection in their voice if they're initiating, it sounds closer to the tone you'd use when someone's one step from ledge-to-ground or about to shoot themselves in emotional agony. In other words, about to get hurt very badly, which they're trying to prevent.
People could use it to keep someone around in order to initiate, but there's little point discussing that seeing as Despina got lit up before that could occur.
@UndeadRP You were the one who fired first and obviously thought it was an initiation during the moment. Do you think any differently after seeing the verdict and/or any of the stuff in this thread or do you still consider it an initiation? It'd be cool to get your thoughts.
We were talking on this a while ago, glad you found a good analogy for it, it was annoying to explain "removal of benefits from A =/= increased benefits for B".
I can't think of anything to add but this is pretty damn good, so I just wanted to show my support. +1
You post a Hardcore Survival group.
7 hours later, a serial killer group, who will inevitably be hellbent on making your life miserable, is posted.
Talk about timing.
I really like the idea of this, but you may invariably get some people who disagree when you say their death should be permanent and leave the group because of the sheer amount of danger you lot are consistently gonna be in, as you alluded to. Saying that, may want to clarify how strict those permadeath rules you have are.
Other than that, yeah, like this idea, I just think you're gonna have a hard time because of it.
Tried MMO-hosted TextRPs, they can get... Finicky. Specifically requiring certain amounts of progression in game to access the places people RP. It can be quite off-putting if you don't actually like the game, just wanting to RP. @RogueSolace might be able to tell you about SWTOR RP, if she's not busy. I've had better experiences with that one specifically but the community is in an entirely different timezone to me so I've rarely been able to play with them.
Edit: Why the hell would anyone suggest Second Life? Okay, granted, 0.5% of the player base may possibly be considered okay people.
I'm just kidding, but the things you hear about it... It has its reputation for a reason.