<<Does TKS grant consent under the current policy? This seems like an interesting issue that should have and official "weighing in."

It has had an official wieghing in. Pretty much what the GM in the log said is the official policy on it. There's been a lot of discussion about it in the past over in the Moon Mage folders. A.k.a. the 'HOW MANY MOAR!!' threads.

I believe it basically goes like this: If the caster is hunting in a hunting area and you happen to pass through and get hit, it doesn't grant consent. If, however, you return to the room and decide to RP something out or whatnot, if they cast it again while you're there and it hits you then that grants consent since they're now aware of your presence. Note that since TKS has a duration, if you run back immediately after getting hit and get hit a second time from the same cast that still counts as part of the non-consent granting hit because there's no way to prevent the second hit either. Intent can change this of course, for example if they gweth that they're going to stand at the entrance of goblins and see how many noobs they can hit that would obviously be a consent granting cast for passers-by.

If its being used in a high traffic non-hunting area like the NTR or the streets of Crossing then of course all this doesn't apply. Intent is also the primary consideration in this, since there's no need to be casting it on a major traffic route.

All that said, I just gweth or yell that I'm using TKS and to be aware that I'm using it the area. Giving the heads up tends to make people much more reasonable if they get randomly hit.

-Evran

Move Emalerje to the town of Dirge, eh!

<<You post this as if killing you wasn't a reasonable response.

Its not if its your immediate knee-jerk response. Reasonable people understand that accidents happen, especially with a spell that cannot be controlled. Even if you roleplay a knee-jerk character you can still live completely within policy by telling them that you are going to kill them the next time anything so much as flies in your general direction the next time you pass through their room. At that point it becomes their choice to continue to use it or not at their own risk.

I.e. Give them a chance to turn it into something more involved than 'omg ur random spell nicked me so now ur dead! rawr!' Most of the people complaining about reporters make the argument for the reporters to try to RP the situation out instead. But the flip side of that is equally important as well, because in order for them to RP something out there has to be an opportunity offered. Instantly going for the jugular does not allow for that and as such is not being honest to the stance of asking others to RP stuff out.

<<So I can actually take the first room of hunting ground A and cast TKS all day and no one can do anything about it if I'm closed to PvP.

You clearly took away something different from what was written. You seem to have missed the high traffic part of it as well as the intent part. All someone would have to do is ask you to stop casting the spell, even if they haven't been hit, and you've now been given notice that consent will be granted if they are hit.

<<I can attack a person who casts ES on me which does no damage, but I can't retaliate injury or death from an AoE?

The key thing you're missing that differentiates the two is that the former is cast on you explicitly, the latter in the case of TKS is not in the control of the caster if you are just passing through. It is this difference that creates the grey area. If you're standing in the room and they cast it, or you warn them that you're in the area and don't want to get hit by their spell then yes its the same situation as the former since the potential of hitting you is concrete in that situation.

This is all moot anyway, since in a couple of months the spell is changing to the CL model of an instant cast AoE with the option to limit it to engaged critters at the caster's discretion via CAST/CAST ALL options.

-Evran

Move Emalerje to the town of Dirge, eh!

I think TKS should fall under the same rules as someone setting off a trap from a box..

The expressed intent in design and form of TKS is to harm everyone/thing in the room and anyone/thing that enters. Casting that spell is clear intent to harm.

Yamcer

---

"You know, while I understand the importance of seeing the (personal) validity in other's arguments, it's impossible for me to believe fully that others are correct. If their argument was correct, I'd change mine." - My GF

For the first time in all the time I've play DR, I agree with Yamcer.

Every magic using guild have one-target TM spells available to them. Although TKS operates the way it does because it's intended, the person that decides to cast it knows fully well that they can hit another character when it happens. IMO, intention or no intention is irrelevant. I rarely ever intend to hit multiple targets with roaring (including the lethal one), but if I make a mistake I caused an inconvenience to their character. I'm willing to accept whatever retaliation they may have in whatever form.

I think fair is fair, and rules should proceed that way accordingly, not because of fear that allowing consent to the victim could open up a whole can of new worms (I'm intentionally trying to be hit for consent now!!). However, just as much as I could intentionally let myself to get hit, someone could park themselves and kill others from AoE abilities. If the person chooses not to use an AoE ability, nothing will ever happen. If they do, risk should be there.

>>Let it go folks. If you get tks because you walked into a room, shrug it off, if it did that much harm to you, you probably won't win anyway.

Again, intention is irrelevant. The inconvenience is placed on the person who was killed/hit, so why should they be forced to shrug it off?

---

Individuals, families, countries, continents are destroyed at the heavy hand of Vinjince.

-GM Abasha

>4) Area Effect -- There are a variety of processes in place that will affect everyone in a room when utilized -- not only spells, but Barbarian roars and Bardic enchantes. If you happen to walk into an area effect, you do NOT have consent against the person who is the source. If one is used for the EXPRESS INTENT of harming you and/or everyone in the room, then that CAN give consent against the caster/singer/roarer.

i think this sums it up rather succinctly and while i believe TKS should have been made available in such a way that i don't hurt my group when i hunt with it, i deal with the reality of what TKS is. if you walk into a room with a mage who cast it prior to your entry, while unfortunate, i don't lay blame at the feet of the moon mage for it.

Damian, a voice from the distant and long-forgotten past.
AIM:DamianDR

>4) Area Effect -- There are a variety of processes in place that will affect everyone in a room when utilized -- not only spells, but Barbarian roars and Bardic enchantes. If you happen to walk into an area effect, you do NOT have consent against the person who is the source.

People don't "walk into" instant effects.

Also, this clarification doesn't exist for setting off traps which seems more than slightly inconsistent.

Also, these news items - 5 24 and 5 25, are outdated. Someone should update them at some point so they actually mesh with how mechanics work now/have worked for years and years. If the item for inner fire hits remains, what else is wrong?

It puts GMs and players alike in a poor situation when documentation used for rulings is clearly years out of date.

I am --- Navak

<<People don't "walk into" instant effects.

Also, that phrase for true instant effects simply refers to bad timing. You walk into the room just as the AoE is cast.

-Evran

Move Emalerje to the town of Dirge, eh!

what i'd like to see is some type of adjacent room type messaging so that you don't just "walk into" a maelstorm.

course, it would be the casters responsiblity not to cast in a room you can't "see" from adjacent areas, i.e. by a gate,trail, path, or portal etc.



Explore the Final Frontier - the unknown calls

<<[This discussion] is all moot anyway, since in a couple of months the spell is changing to the CL model of an instant cast AoE with the option to limit it to engaged critters at the caster's discretion via CAST/CAST ALL options.

Why did the spell get changed in CL's case, but policy changed for TKS? Am I misremembering that the policy used to be you had consent if someone cast any spell on you whether it was harmful or not?

>Why did the spell get changed in CL's case, but policy changed for TKS?

War Mages used to nuke people with Chain Lightning all the time before that spell was changed, and the exact same policy protected them from consent back then too.

>Am I misremembering that the policy used to be you had consent if someone cast any spell on you whether it was harmful or not?

Key words: On you.

~ Pansophist Kougen

"Tell me thy company, and I'll tell thee what thou art." - Miguel de Cervantes

<<>Also, that phrase for true instant effects simply refers to bad timing. You walk into the room just as the AoE is cast.
<<I don't agree with you at all as there is a substantial difference between entering a room where an effect is already active or already activated, e.g. fire rain or enchantes, and "bad timing". There is no "bad timing" defense for cast area.

I feel like doing a /headdesk here. No one is making this claim at all, least of all me given that I'm pointing out that TKS gaining a CAST AREA/ALL option in a few months will eliminate any accidents.

It is completely 100% possible to walk into indiscriminate target instant AoE abilities that don't have the CAST ALL/CAST AREA option due to bad timing. Your roars included. In fact, it has happened to me with you personally several years ago when moving through your room during an invasion and your roar immobilized me. I just picked myself up and moved on when it wore off, since it was obviously an accident. Situations like that is what that policy item covers.

-Evran

Waiting for Results..............................................................................................................

<<It is those exact situations that policy forces your character to act in a specific way. Considering that policy allows retaliation for botched room effect traps where a random number generator can decide your fate. This type of inconsistency in letter and enforcement of policy that really sticks in my craw.

I see no inconsistency. Pop that box in an out of the way area, and if you happen to blow it just as someone happens to walk through it would not automatically grant consent just as if you had cast TKS in the same situation. Pop that box in a high traffic area or in the same room as someone already there would grant consent just as if you had cast TKS in that situation.

<<4) Area Effect -- There are a variety of processes in place that will affect everyone in a room when utilized -- not only spells, but Barbarian roars and Bardic enchantes. If you happen to walk into an area effect, you do NOT have consent against the person who is the source.

The policy refers to 'processes' not just spells or abilities. I.e. AoE traps would fall under this.

Of course, there is lots of room outside of that policy depending on specifics to the situation, many of which is certainly grey area. This is why I am more than happy that TKS is gaining the option to either CAST or CAST ALL.
-Evran

Waiting for Results..............................................................................................................

>I just picked myself up and moved on when it wore off, since it was obviously an accident. Situations like that is what that policy item covers.

That is assuming that you entered my room and I didn't enter yours, and several other items.

However, attacking Navak in that situation wouldn't have been a problem with me and given that I've been consistent on that point for a decade or more I don't think it's a very good example.

I was unable to find any instance of when I was in a room when Evran was immobilized by a roar unless it happened before early 2004 so if it did happen, you were likely hidden or invisible as well.

The explanation for why policy works like this is not consistent from how it has been explained thus far. Having to utilize cast instead of cast area or sing quiet instead of sing loudly substantially changes the behavior of the player and the effectiveness of the spells.

One would have to hold the position that cast and cast area are roughly the same and do not make much difference in player behavior or spell effectiveness in order to argue that position.

I am --- Navak

I was slapped and thumped yesterday, but thanks to a critter box I was sadly without use of either of my hands for Malkien to show his "appreciation" of the act. This person immediately moved after doing the acts, and when I located them about a half hour later they were in a different province.

How long, reasonably speaking, do I have consent? We're both set to Guarded. If I see him again RL months from now, can I randomly gank him? I know some issues of consent (like graverobbing) don't really have a limit on time frame, but I'm not sure for a thump.

Basically, I'm working under the assumption that when I do kill him months from now, he will probably report. My only real concern is if the good Judge and Abdictator GM will frown heavily on me saying 'he thumped me months ago and ran, so I killed him the first opportunity I got.'
*******
Malkien

>>How long, reasonably speaking, do I have consent? We're both set to Guarded. If I see him again RL months from now, can I randomly gank him? I know some issues of consent (like graverobbing) don't really have a limit on time frame, but I'm not sure for a thump.

>According to the rules, you have a "reasonable amount of time."
>In my opinion, a few days is probably the limit, months is probably not.

Reasonable amount of time takes reasonable amount of effort into consideration. If this person doesn't log in again until July 2013, you will still have consent if you find them the next day. However, if you go out of your way to avoid them for six months while you attempt to outtrain them, this isn't going to work.

~ Pansophist Kougen

"Tell me thy company, and I'll tell thee what thou art." - Miguel de Cervantes

>Reasonable amount of time takes reasonable amount of effort into consideration. If this person doesn't log in again until July 2013, you will still have consent if you find them the next day. However, if you go out of your way to avoid them for six months while you attempt to outtrain them, this isn't going to work.

Pretty much this.

If you are bothered enough to act upon your consent, you need to go track them down and act upon it.

One thing that we can look at when these situations come up is how often the two parties are logged into the game at the same time. If you were both in for the same two hours, you had plenty of time to reach them anywhere they happen to be.

Thanks!
Lyneya

Of course in six months if you really needed consent, this seems like the type of person it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to pick a fight with.

Just saying...