Consent- Discussion

See this first--http://aeria.omgforum.net/server-and-community-information-f22/consent-and-you-d-t1934.htm#21781

Discuss.

Consent should be removed WHEN DODGING A PK WOULD BE ABSOLUTE BS.
Also to do with grievous injuries, an adminge should be asked about them, whether or not a char could survive them.

That is pretty much it.

Consent should be removed when:

- The victim powerplays
- The victim fails to use common sense (IE: laughing / spitting in a guy's face when he has a revolver up to your head, running away when someone is typing a /me, etc.)

Quote :

running away when someone is typing a /me

Not so much, but I think you're right otherwise.

ALL PK's should be under consent under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

One example is an RP DM, I can just say I sneak behind you with a Satan revolver aim at your head without you notice and pull the trigger. And according to this rule, I HAVE to be PKed. That's bullshit, absolute bullshit, since you can't even counter act.

Henceforth, you should add a rule, no attack can be a PK or unescapable in any way, without the victim knowing clearly and approving of such action taking place.

Also, no gangbanging for a PK either. I saw many people do this, it's very unfair for other players, it's not right, and it's certainly immature. Example, what happened to Marcus Kai'ven, hate the character all you want, but the PK was pretty much bullshit.

Kam is right. Now one should have the right to kill off your character forever unless you're abusing the consent rule. Otherwise we'd be children bullying other children on the beach, kicking down their sand castles after they spent hours on the thing.

I see your point, kama. But sometimes, unfair tactics are required to perform a PK. And as long as it has admin approval, it's no big deal. Life isn't fair. But yeah, removing the consent rule for stuff like that, I wouldn't approve of.

@ Pat: Yeah, okay. Still, running away while typing a /me is so annoying.

Quote :

Kam is right. Now one should have the right to kill off your character forever unless you're abusing the consent rule

I.E;
If you've been put into a situation where you should've been PK'd more than a few times, and always deny the PK and run away, you should be forced to accept the PK. Because that's just abusing the consent rule.

Mack wrote:

Quote :

Kam is right. Now one should have the right to kill off your character forever unless you're abusing the consent rule

I.E;
If you've been put into a situation where you should've been PK'd more than a few times, and always deny the PK and run away, you should be forced to accept the PK. Because that's just abusing the consent rule.

No, because there should be no PK situations on the first place. NO ONE should do absolutely super awesome killing damaging super attacks that are insta kill because that's the exact definition of overpowering.

All aggressions should have a potential of being blocked, no attack can be insta hit or insta kill. Else, it's gonna cause ALOT of trouble.

This is the exact reason I wanted to put my hit/miss based attack system.

But then everyone can just run around and do anything. There'd literally be no death until you go. "Meh. Bored of this character. Someone kill him. I don't care."

Sure, you might have put alot of work into your characters. But they're still supposed to die. And if it's the same for everyone, it can't really be unfair.

And if you've been put into multiple insta-PK situations, your character is meant to die for a reason. I.E; he's an arse who thinks he can do anything against anyone and get away with it.
If your character does the right things, then he shouldn't end up in such situations.
Every action has a reaction.
And if your character hasn't done anything wrong, then he's just at the wrong place at the wrong time. As Munroe said. Life isn't fair. Do you think murder victims were expecting to die?
It adds diversity to the RP. Simple as.

And the definition of powergaming is going beyond the limit of your powers. For example, a dwarf lifting a dragon by the tail and swinging it around a few times. Or a novice firemage throwing massive fireballs around like sweat on a hot day.

Mack wrote:

But then everyone can just run around and do anything. There'd literally be no death until you go. "Meh. Bored of this character. Someone kill him. I don't care."

And that's the way it's meant to be unless your character breaks an OOC rule. There's always injury, though.

Mack wrote:

Sure, you might have put alot of work into your characters. But they're still supposed to die. And if it's the same for everyone, it can't really be unfair.

And if you've been put into multiple insta-PK situations, your character is meant to die for a reason. I.E; he's an arse who thinks he can do anything against anyone and get away with it.

There are MANY reasons why you could have been attempted to be PKed several times, amongst them, overpowered character on "fury mode", OOC rage, stealth attacks, gangbanging. A clear example is Zaku, he was attacked nearly every day, he got attempted to be PKed atleast 9 times, and that all happened not because Zaku was overpowered, at all, not because the character itself looked for it (most of the time), but because of outside reasons.

If we start enforcing such rules, it's gonna get alot more unfair to do combat, and people will start finding ways to either revive themselves on totally bullshit ways, or flat out avoid fights, and that's not the idea.

Mack wrote:

If your character does the right things, then he shouldn't end up in such situations.

Sometimes characters can't or won't do the right thing, and the relativity of what's wrong and what's right is something we use alot on RP. If your character wants to save someone from a bunch of guys killing an innocent person, even though knowing it will probably bring his own death, is it not right to help the victim?

Mack wrote:

Every action has a reaction.

If we started using thermodynamics on Olden, ALOT of things wouldn't exist, for example, magic.

Mack wrote:

And if your character hasn't done anything wrong, then he's just at the wrong place at the wrong time. As Munroe said. Life isn't fair. Do you think murder victims were expecting to die?

Thing is, we're not pretending to be in real life, and RP isn't a representation of life. If we start going like that, expect people to go on PK sprees because they're pissed, and everything would just not work the same way it is.

Mack wrote:

And the definition of powergaming is going beyond the limit of your powers. For example, a dwarf lifting a dragon by the tail and swinging it around a few times. Or a novice firemage throwing massive fireballs around like sweat on a hot day.

So isn't doing a massive mega insta kill attack overpowering? An attack that is able to kill someone straight ahead would be far more amazing than a dwarf lifting a dragon by it's tail, in my opinion, and far more unlikely to happen.

If you're PK'd for OOC reasons, or very daft IC reasons, you should very well be able to avoid the PK. But if you start a fight, you're gonna have to count with someone pulling out a hidden dagger and stabbing you in the gut.
But if you start avoiding PKs even with very good IC reasons, you should have the right to deny PK taken away from you.
It seems the most fair, in my opinion.

Mack wrote:

If you're PK'd for OOC reasons, or very daft IC reasons, you should very well be able to avoid the PK. But if you start a fight, you're gonna have to count with someone pulling out a hidden dagger and stabbing you in the gut.
But if you start avoiding PKs even with very good IC reasons, you should have the right to deny PK taken away from you.
It seems the most fair, in my opinion.

Don't see why a character has to be PKed anyway if it isn't because the character maker wants to.

And if you're going to a fight, you shouldn't expect to die, you should expect to be injured, heavily. If either combatant dies, the other should be left in pretty rough shape then. We're pretty much doing a movie, not a reenactment.

Who is there to judge if an IC reason for a PK is good or not? At which times do you and do you not have such rights? How many times can you deny a PK, and if you're using a number to describe how many times, how can you guarantee the last time to be PKed is going to be PK worthy, or more worthy than previous attempts?

It seems alot more fair to me to simply not meddle with things that WILL cause inestability, because what you're proposing is very similar to the unspoken rule we use right now. What is equal is fair.

If you get shot in the face, you're dead. Slit throat, you're dead. Nothing amazing or unbelievable about it.

I'm not saying we should be PKing people left and right, but there are circumstances when this is reasonable and circumstances when it's not. Common sense is an important factor in deciding this. A character who laughs when some guy aims a revolver at him is going to get shot in the face. A character who's dumb enough to insult a group of five armed people is going to get ganged up on. If a mess of evil people plot to kill someone in the guard, and gang up on him, tough luck. The battle between good and evil should have losses on both sides. It's nothing personal, just RP.

Think about the people trying to make the PK. How is it fair for them to always fail and look like an idiot ICly, just because such-and-such won't consent to a PK and is thus immune to fatal injuries?

And overpowered characters, that pretty much can't be PKed anyway, should have this right removed from them, for fairness purposes.

Quote :

And if you're going to a fight, you shouldn't expect to die, you should expect to be injured, heavily.

I'm saying that if you initiate a fight, you're going to have to count on the fact that you might be PK'd.
If you start a fight you can't win and get PK'd, you've got only yourself to blame.

Quote :

Who is there to judge if an IC reason for a PK is good or not?

We are. The admins. Simple.
If someone's characters kills you for fun, that's not reasonable. If the character has been harassing them for a longer time ICly and won't stop, then that's a good IC reason.

Quote :

At which times do you and do you not have such rights?

When you start denying PKs because of OOC reasons, even when the PKer has good IC reason.

Quote :

How many times can you deny a PK, and if you're using a number to describe how many times, how can you guarantee the last time to be PKed is going to be PK worthy, or more worthy than previous attempts?

We don't need a set number. You'll notice when a character has survived too many near-death moments. And when the player has been denying because of OOC reasons. And if the last time isn't PK worthy, then you've got yourself to blame for wasting your right to deny PKs.

Quote :

What is equal is fair.

It would be the same for everyone. Not just a select few. Not even the head admins will be excused from this.
So that would make it fair.

Well, I've proposed this to you guys before. Establish a priority system for players. Players are allowed to set a certain number of characters as In-Disposable, meaning consent-only kills. When I first used this, I set the limit at two. For every consent-only character, one must have a disposable character as well at all times. So, if someone had two characters that can't die without consent, then there must be two that can die without consent, and players have to accept the fact that sometimes they lose something permanently, but at least they won't lose what's most important to them.

This is the system Phoenix has been using for a long time, and it's worked rather well.

For Olden, I would suggest raising the maximum number of Indisposable characters to 3 because of the sheer number of characters people have.

The player him/herself can decide if they want indisposable characters themselves, right?

Oh, of course, the only part the admins enforces is that for every Indisposable character, they need a disposable one, and after 3 indisposables, they can only make disposable characters until an indisposable dies or is abandoned, etc.