24 Hour rule and avoidance.

[Cerk Evermoore]

When you die in pvp, sometimes you end up in awkward situations where you see the guy who killed you 5 minutes ago. Usually because you both get dropped outside the Arcane Tower. My question is, when you deal with the 24 hour rule. Should the winner or the loser be expected to depart the area? Or how do you decide who should leave? This is not related to any in game events but I am curious what the community thinks.

[DM Atropos]

The loser is expected to find somewhere else to be. The onus to not interact is on them.

[Leshpar]

Its also possible to forgo the 24 hour rule if both parties agree to it through PMs. I've done this multiple times for rp. It can be good fun and that way the pvp progresses the story.

[MissEvelyn]

The most awkward one is when you don't corpse bash, because you want to be fair and nice, and then their friend raises them right in front of you even when your character told them to bury their friends outside of town. I don't even know what to do in that situation, but one thing is certain - I won't be quick to think lowly of corpse-bashers again.

[The Rambling Midget]

They still died in PvP. They still have to leave. If they come back, you kill them again, and flag down a DM.

[azrael_athing]

They still died in PvP. They still have to leave. If they come back, you kill them again, and flag down a DM.

I question this, especially the part where you kill them again. I totally understand the DM flag.

Really killing them again for returning to the scene would in some cases violate the most vague "Be Nice" rule, and also the PVP rule. As

Combat actions and political actions against other PC's (PvP) MUST BE INTERACTIVELY ROLE PLAYED. That means: you interact, they interact, BEFORE any battle occurs. No exceptions

, and you are not supposed to engage in RP again, therefore by logical progression, not in PVP either.

Unless you of course void the 24 hour rule, But then what's the issue?

[The Rambling Midget]

I should have clarified. "If they come back for more."

Meaning that you're not required to sacrifice yourself when they violate the rule.

[flower]

This is surprising statement because for years long dms multiple times stated both parties need to avoid each other, not use the rule to force other party to deny them access somewhere in module (by moving in on purpose).

[Nitro]

This is surprising statement because for years long dms multiple times stated both parties need to avoid each other, not use the rule to force other party to deny them access somewhere in module (by moving in on purpose).

It does make some sense though. If james the knight has a camp in the woods and dave the orc attacks it and kills James, having james return after respawning to force the orcs out would be strange.

Of course this doesn't mean that you can just raid anywhere and hang out forever to lock anyone out of that place, settlements still have NPC guards after all, but neutral locations it makes sense that the victor dictates whether they stay or leave the area. If someone is deliberately following a defeated person to make them move it could be reported to the DM's because that's clearly abusing the system and not following the spirit of the rules.

[Sea Shanties]

I thought they were supposed to avoid each other too, not just the loser. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with scenarios where the winner takes advantage.

I guess I get the point, the loser should be elsewhere recuperating, but at the same time we should be stressing that winning or losing PVP doesn't matter in OOC terms and winning or losing only matters in character not mechanically.

Still, not like I have a better solution!

[The Rambling Midget]

This is surprising statement because for years long dms multiple times stated both parties need to avoid each other, not use the rule to force other party to deny them access somewhere in module (by moving in on purpose).

It's situational, and I can count on my hands the number of times I've directly witnessed it being an issue. Most players are either very polite about it, or just take a break until things cool down. That said, if, for example, my Drow raiding party storms Guldorand, kills a bunch of people, including you, and decides to occupy the place for a while, YOU will remain elsewhere until WE are finished with our RP. Death isn't permanent, but it isn't meaningless, either. One of the primary purposes of PvP is displacement. Other characters who were not involved can come and kick us out, but not those killed, unless it's been 24 hours.

If the displacement is seen to be OOCly malicious, or without RP justification, the DMs can come in and make a spot ruling.

[DM Atropos]

This is surprising statement because for years long dms multiple times stated both parties need to avoid each other, not use the rule to force other party to deny them access somewhere in module (by moving in on purpose).

It's situational, and I can count on my hands the number of times I've directly witnessed it being an issue. Most players are either very polite about it, or just take a break until things cool down. That said, if, for example, my Drow raiding party storms Guldorand, kills a bunch of people, including you, and decides to occupy the place for a while, YOU will remain elsewhere until WE are finished with our RP. Death isn't permanent, but it isn't meaningless, either. One of the primary purposes of PvP is displacement. Other characters who were not involved can come and kick us out, but not those killed, unless it's been 24 hours.

If the displacement is seen to be OOCly malicious, or without RP justification, the DMs can come in and make a spot ruling.

This. The winner cannot hunt the loser down, but it is the loser's job to go lick their wounds elsewhere.

[The GrumpyCat]

To back up on what Atropos says and Midget says:

After PvP, both parties should, indeed, seek to avoid the other - whether winner or looser.

The parties should not, in any way, be rping with one another (unless the 24 hour rule is waved, in which case ignore all of this)

Of course there are times when, via bad luck, they may find themselves in the same area.

In that case, it is mostly the responsiblities of the LOOSER to depart the area as quickly as possible NOT neccesarly the WINNER.

Basicaly - engage common sense and empathy.

If you've lost a pvp battle, then don't go to places where your enemy is, don't hang around where your enemy is, respect the fact that you were the /LOOSER/ in that conflict, and treat your death as a serious event.

If you're the WINNER in that battle, - you won. Don't hunt down your victim for seconds. And if you see them 'just walking by' let them, so long as they're not lingering and causing trouble.

If things get hazy, conctact us and we'll judge it on a case by case basis.

[Germain]

Hey hey folks...

Coming from a much more PvP oriented server (albeit more subduing then outright killing) I've been pleasantly surprised on how much of a none issue this usually is. However... having spent some time in Skal recently, I've seen multiple cases of someone being PvP killed in the village square and then dragged 10 1/2 feet to the right before the shrine and raised. 4 out of 5 times the two parties immediately go back to RPing etc...

Would it be possible to put an OOC reminder (sign maybe) in the Fugue where players end up?

[Durvayas]

The only time I ever see this be a mildly awkward issue is Andunor, because the hub is, well... the hub. Common courtesy seems to be that whoever was there first gets to stay, and the new arrival to the area is rules bound to not bother them.

So if A duels and kills B, and then B is in the hub six hours later and A walks in, A goes about his business without bothering B, because it makes no sense for B to end all currently ongoing RP to leave, especially if B is with a large group. It makes no sense for A to 'chase' B out of the area since they can't RP together, and it is commonly accepted to be a dick move to try, especially an area as heavily trafficked and as important as the hub, where the only UD speedy messenger is and the primary portal where people gather parties to go dungeoning.

Exceptions to this are wartime in the hub, where the losing party is expected to roleplay logically and clear out if more opposing side PCs roll into the area, because even if you've fought someone in that group, unless you've fought all of them, the others CAN engage your PC in PvP (within reason; this has, in the past, been abused to chainbash specific people by engaging them several times in the span of a few hours, and crosses into griefing very quickly. If your team has already killed someone today, your faction should generally not kill them again unless they provoke PvP) and really, your PC shouldn't be putting themselves in a situation where they might engage two or more enemies alone, thats just bad tactics.

So if A, B, and C are in a faction, and A kills D, they should be following the 24 hour rule, and done interacting for the day unless agreed otherwise.
D should actively avoid all of them for RP conflict reasons(like licking their wounds after their previous defeat), and B and C should not actively hunt D (its not very sporting). But, if D provokes either B or C to a fight, they're fully licensed to kill D again.

A and D CAN fight again in the same day, 24 hour rules aside, if D, E, and F are in a faction, and B&C and E&F run into eachother spontaneously and A and D are both with their respective groups; In this situation it doesn't make sense for A and D to suddenly leave and sit out of the fight. This one one of those rare case-by-case moments you'll want to run by the DMs after the fact.

[flower]

it is not the only UD messenger and neither the only main portal.

you need to walk like 3 screens from hub to reach them.

[Blood on my Lips]

The Arcane Tower actually presents an awkward situation. Imagine you are a wizard and Tower member that has a quarter there. Someone kills you in the Tower. The respawn point is right outside the Tower. You are now suffering from death effects/stat loss. You're a wizard and likely overloaded and unable to walk. Your quarter is inside the Tower. The portal is inside the Tower. Your killer is inside the Tower.

[Borin Drakkmurl]

This is where stuff like "bending your rp" for the sake of the greater good comes into play. If you focus more on the fun everyone is having rather than the (very easy to fall into) trap of winner vs loser, this kind of situation can be easily solved.

Also, I doubt any dm would be upset if one player sent another a tell and explained the situation and they both agreed to some ooc tapdacing in order to just make things easier for each other.


This is why the be nice rule is intertwined in every other rule and policy on the server. Just try and help each other out. Specially your "enemies."

[The GrumpyCat]

This is where stuff like "bending your rp" for the sake of the greater good comes into play. If you focus more on the fun everyone is having rather than the (very easy to fall into) trap of winner vs loser, this kind of situation can be easily solved.

Also, I doubt any dm would be upset if one player sent another a tell and explained the situation and they both agreed to some ooc tapdacing in order to just make things easier for each other.


This is why the be nice rule is intertwined in every other rule and policy on the server. Just try and help each other out. Specially your "enemies."

Yeah, this basicaly.

I get awkward situations happen. In the tower situation, either just log off for half an hour, and then return and hope your killer is gone. Or if you really want to jump back into things, send a polite tell to the player saying something like, 'Hay, I'm not asking you to wave the pvp rule or anything, but do you mind if my character quietly toddles on around you so they can get to their quarter/the portal and be away from you? Thanks.'

If you were killed to prevent you reaching an area/thing (e.g. the portal) then best stay away from there and respect your loss.

As above said, use common sense, respect the loss, but also be gracious with others when they have lost, and work to make sure they have fun if you can.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

The Arcane Tower actually presents an awkward situation. Imagine you are a wizard and Tower member that has a quarter there. Someone kills you in the Tower. The respawn point is right outside the Tower. You are now suffering from death effects/stat loss. You're a wizard and likely overloaded and unable to walk. Your quarter is inside the Tower. The portal is inside the Tower. Your killer is inside the Tower.

You can always hop over to Mayfield's Inn, but this does still present the possibility of seeing your killer if they flee from the tower while you're walking slow.

[Atlantahammy]

The Arcane Tower actually presents an awkward situation. Imagine you are a wizard and Tower member that has a quarter there. Someone kills you in the Tower. The respawn point is right outside the Tower. You are now suffering from death effects/stat loss. You're a wizard and likely overloaded and unable to walk. Your quarter is inside the Tower. The portal is inside the Tower. Your killer is inside the Tower.

Thiis is sorta why we have rules in the tower, and don't allow fighting, (That and it being annoying, and rude, and there are children in there, just not as actual NPCs) and generally why we kick out the aggressor, not going to kill students and be allowed back in an all, ya know? :p

[The GrumpyCat]

(That and it being annoying, and rude, and there are children in there, just not as actual NPCs)

For the sake of argument, if you cannot see any -visable- child npcs in the area, please do not say that there are children there.

There arn't.

For the sake of argument, all the students are 18+

If a Dm wants to bring in child npcs for a certain event, that's fine. But this sort of thing shouldn't be used as a 'shield' from IC actions.

[Atlantahammy]

(That and it being annoying, and rude, and there are children in there, just not as actual NPCs)

For the sake of argument, if you cannot see any -visable- child npcs in the area, please do not say that there are children there.

There arn't.

For the sake of argument, all the students are 18+

If a Dm wants to bring in child npcs for a certain event, that's fine. But this sort of thing shouldn't be used as a 'shield' from IC actions.

From what I understand, past tower members where told by other dms in the past there where child students running around the tower, just that actual npcs can't be added in?

Like this is even emphasis with Westin.
I am now confused?

Also no one said ANYTHING about them being used as a shield.

[The GrumpyCat]

I'll double check with the Devs/rest of the DM team about that, and get back to you with a more firm response.

Forgive me if I misconstrued by the context was:

Thiis is sorta why we have rules in the tower, and don't allow fighting, (That and it being annoying, and rude, and there are children in there, just not as actual NPCs)

Insinuating that you ICly do not allow Fighting in the Tower becuase
a) It is annoying (ic or ooc?)
b) It's rude (ic or ooc?)
c) There should not be fighting because there are children in the Tower.

so I, perhaps mistakenly, got the impression you were saying that you were treating the existance of children as ther eas an IC matter, and citing it as a reason why there should not be fighting, ICly. which is, as afore mentioned, something of a shield.

if I've misunderstood I do apologise.

Ok - mechanicaly speaking if you can't see any child npcs - there are no child npcs. The other Dms have confirmed this.

If you want to say, in a general sense, that there are children around, then that's not a huge issues.

But try not to bring in situations that would result in children being hurt.

Imagine it like this: Let's say a band of Drow stormed the tower, and yelled out that they were covered with tiny babies, bound to them by string. And that if any of you cast any spell on them, it would hurt the babies, thus making you awful awful people ICly.

Now consider it from another angle.
A band of Paladins storm the tower, angered thta you've been doing XXX, and you go 'Oh no, you can't do that, because we have children around! And if you attack us you're hurting children, thus making you terrible, terrible people!'

It's basicaly the same thing.

So if you want to vaugly rp that there are some students that are chldren around - we can't stop you. But do not use said children as a moral shield.

[Queen Titania]

WYSIWYG.

No one should be using mechanically non-existent children as a reason for no violence in a place, or as a defense against any consequences.

You should avoid even emoting the presence of children, if possible.