There's really not much that has changed. If someone is open they're basically saying they consent to any pvp at any time, and cannot report for it.

You can type PROFILE to check someone's profile or for info on how to change yours.

---

Rev. Reene

Kssarh says, "She has many talents."
>
Kssarh says, "Some of which can be discussed in public."

>No, you were just ignorant before. If anything, the rules have been loosened.<

You're probably right. I used to get in a lot of conflicts, just never once had they resulted in a GM intervention. They just took care of themselves. I just don't remember nearly as much wording or specifics going into the policy on it. I'm probably reading too much into it from the excessive wording and examples in there now.

Thanks for the profile tip.

>>I used to get in a lot of conflicts, just never once had they resulted in a GM intervention.

I hear this from a lot of old players. It leads me to believe that the DR population way back then were not nearly as report-happy as they are now. Fortunately, I think the GMs aren't as harsh about it in recent days (I could be wrong though).

---

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

-GM Abasha

The worst part of consent policy is the statute of limitations dealy they have going.

So even if you do manage to catch up to someone that murdered you for no reason, your consent is probably long gone.

---

Rev. Reene

Kssarh says, "She has many talents."
>
Kssarh says, "Some of which can be discussed in public."

If you're open, someone can murder you, even repeatedly, and you will be told "tough" if you try to report.

Closed is the same PvP consent policy we've always had.

Guarded is meant to be looser, but the policy for it is not actually different. Theoretically if a dispute falls within a grey area, the GM will be able to take their "guarded" stance into consideration and opt not to warn the person being reported.

The lack of a concrete policy distinction between Closed and Guarded leads a lot of people to treat them the same, which isn't unfortunately incorrect in many cases. However, the inability of many DR players to be classy and respectful is what has lead to the use of PvP Open as a systemic punishment by GMs.

---

Rev. Reene

Kssarh says, "She has many talents."
>
Kssarh says, "Some of which can be discussed in public."

I really think the idea of Guarded needs to be fleshed out, it is a valid rp option and is should not give the protection that it currently does to the people that entrap others so they may report.



Miv
I would rather have an intelligent enemy than a stupid friend.

Wow, really? People just bait other people to report them? I'd say get a life but ah...i guess we're all glued to a computer playing an extremely advanced D&D. I suppose the chanced of us starting our own list of players that want to be open to PvP but handle it among ourselves would be too difficult. Would be interesting tho, basically be able to handle our business ourselves (like it really should be) and if someone tries abusing it set a list-wide huntdown on them, or just as a whole ignore them completely. I dunno it just seems ridiculous there has to be so much ifs thens buts put into it, but im sure that opinions been aired 1,000 times already so blah blah blah...bring back permadeath and let it get 'handled'.

I set all my characters to open and almost never run into trouble. When I get into fights, sometimes people are a little more eager to jump in and help their friends kill me, but I rarely die more than once or twice in a conflict, and it's nearly always something I chose.

The thing is, dying doesn't lose you much unless the person is camping your body or graverobbing you. That kind of behavior is fairly rare, but when it happens, you are still able to seek help from a GM or other player. I tend to go with the "one death and the fight is over" system because no matter which way it goes, I can still walk away with fairly little hassle.

What I see a lot of is people who want to RP these belligerent and tough characters, but personally can't deal with the idea of PVP. It's funny to watch, but in all honesty the game is less fun if people are coming away with hurt feelings--I feel a lot better about killing someone if I know they're laughing on their end about it. I think the mentors ought to do some OOC PvP lectures or something.

At any rate, try to have your characters' behavior reflect their PVP stance. If you're PVP closed, you should either avoid making threats and beating your chest, or find a way to do it that doesn't result in people coming to kill you.

A friend told me that an Empath doesn't need consent to sic an avenger on another player and that siccing an avenger on another player doesn't grant consent on the Empath.

This position strikes me as being inconsistent with policy. Will a GM please answer the following questions?

1. Does an Empath need consent to sic his avenger on another player?

2. If an Empath makes his avenger attack someone, does the player have consent on the Empath?

3. If a player attacks an Empath's avenger (without provocation), does the Empath have consent on the attacker?

4. If an area effect spell (such as Ball Lightning) hits an Empath's avenger, does the Empath have consent to attack the caster?

Thanks!

---

Teilan: PHA = Healer Union. They charge for healing based on your injuries. We will now pause while everyone gives their opinion on this.

>>******** i think this covers the healing of people involved in the fighting ****************

>>Obviously, we cannot cover every possible scenario that will arise. When one player attacks or kills another without a determinable cause, that is potential grounds for unconsented PvP. This includes players getting involved in conflicts that do not involve them in any direct fashion.


Ok I have a question... Was having a discussion with some people about empaths and clerics getting targeted during encouters with others.

From the above statement, I would say healing and aiding a living person would warrent consent in a conflict.

What about healing and raising a corpse?
Does consent end as soon as 1 of the involved parties die?

>> <<Does consent end as soon as 1 of the involved parties die? >>

>>Depends on how consent was granted. If, for example, one of the people was granted consent on the other by way of theft (item or otherwise) then consent can last until the return of the item(s) or acceptable compensation is given.


No, it wasnt theft. it was a bunch of over skilled people who like to abuse their skills... Randomly killing, so when people showed up to try and stop them from doing so... and they ended up dying. The empaths and clerics trying to heal the defenders that died, got targeted.

If you're healing someone who's in the middle of a conflict then you're participating in that conflict.

<<The question is about the corpses. Does healing corpses provide consent?

I can't think of a circumstance where simply healing a corpse would grant consent.

That said, if you're talking about the scrap in Lang last night it was basically a small war. There's a ton of scroll, running, fighting, etc. Sometimes it can be hard to remember who's open and who's a reporter. There was a triage room with a banner up 99% of the time.

>>URAKI: From the above statement, I would say healing and aiding a living person would warrent consent in a conflict. What about healing and raising a corpse?

If an Empath knowingly interferes with an ongoing conflict by healing one of the (living) combatants, his opponent will have consent against that Empath. However, once a combatant dies, his opponent doesn't have consent against an Empath or Cleric who heals or raises the corpse. (This is true even if one combatant has perpetual "theft" consent against the deceased.)

>>URAKI: Does consent end as soon as 1 of the involved parties die?

Generally, consent ends upon the death of either party. However, if consent arose from theft, the consent persists until the stolen item/money is returned to its owner (or both parties agree to end the conflict).

---

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!