[Disillusionist]

I've played perma- and non-perma MUDs, and I never once considered that aspect as a final arbiter of staying in character. You either stay in character or you don't, and if you don't, blaming a feature is sort of fatuous.

Take non-perma MUD A. There are priests there who can raise the dead. That is the world, and a condition of it. You adapt your character concept to it, or you're imposing values the world doesn't possess. All it takes is some serious consideration as to what that world would be LIKE. No longer will "I keel you!" suffice for conflict resolution, at least, not as a stand-alone solution. In a world where death has less meaning, there is a much greater challenge in character-v-character conflict to hit them where it hurts. Wars are different. Instinct sets are different. Death may simply not be the best way to settle things. In fact, if it's what you rely on most heavily, then you're a misfit to that world, and -should- go play something else. You're not up to its challenges. It isn't -worse- by its nature, so long as the world makes consistent internal sense. Hell, if that's the nature of the world, don't take the guy's life. Take his wife. See how that feels in the drama department.

Take perma MUD B. Okay, there's that adrenal thrill that every single thing you do might well spell the end for your character. It's real-world-ish, and it sure makes things tense. Except that one of the things some people play -games- for is so they can situate themselves where something as capricious as real-life death, which quite frequently has no discernible meaning whatsoever, isn't going to ruin your gaming experience, simply because some pinhead mistook your for someone else. Where's the story in that? The building tension and conflict? Your hours of work, which might also be months, gone in a puff of bong-smoke at the hands of some roleplayer who didn't read your descript closely enough. Sure, it's realistic enough, and it can produce some added dimension to drama, absolutely. But an honest participant or observer should acknowledge, it can also be completely senseless, random, meaningless and banal, just like real life deaths. Where's the drama?

I've also seen perma-death fans hedge their bets over time. Rather than losing a great character concept, or even a satisfyingly decent one because of a random quirk of some RPer who just decides today he doesn't like bards, I know perma-deathers that dole out the same concept, if a bit masqueraded, over a parade of characters. The homogenization is inevitable over the course of most RPer's careers, simply because of imaginative limits. Whether that limitation is seen in the course of a single eternal character or is parceled out over a legion of different ones has no genuine impact on RP. RP is RP.

I can play in either, and become completely emotionally invested in either, so long as my character is an organic outflowing of the world he's in. It's really that simple. It's a matter of choice, and both can have the exact same results.

I just get tickled when I see elitism masking as purism. A snert RPer is a snert RPer, alive eternally, or dead a billion times.

A brilliant RPer is a brilliant RPer, whether housed in a single body, or distributed over many. It's that simple.

Give me a purist every time.

A good RPer admits that mostly, the 'best' features of a mud are the ones they like best, and it's utterly subjective.
An elitist pretends they're being interviewed by Microsoft.
Elitists. Yeesh.