Rule Clarification

[Cerk Evermoore]

The phrasing in this ruling confuses me greatly and I agree with Scurvy Cur on all his points. I have no idea what the hell the rules are and this point, the only choice is not to engage in group / faction PvP until the rules are more clear to the playerbase. Because I don't think anyone wants to intentionally violate the rules, but this is all encompassing and if the effects of this judgement are going to be felt server wide. I feel I need to step back until the community decides what is or isn't appropriate.

I have no interest in being crucified because I ran into two people from the same faction in one surface raid. Or escaping a dangerous situation on foot only to run into them again at the next portal. Then they would be denied an opportunity to engage their target that I feel they rightfully deserve because but apparently you can't engage the same person twice in the same day.

Is this even the correct interpretation of the rules? I don't even understand. That's why I personally think it is best not to engage in faction pvp until things are more clear. Nobody wants to commit an infraction or eat a banhammer, and I am sure I am not the only one who does not understand what is going on and is confused.

[LittleWeasel]

This discussion is getting more convoluted and less clear as it goes on. I've been on the server since we moved from "No PvP without IC justification" to "No PvP without prior interaction", and I think this is the most labyrinthine interpretation I've ever seen of the rules of engagement.

I also don't see how it's possible under these circumstances to avoid having dozens of players inadvertently break the rules simply because they are unable to decipher who is covered and under what terms they may engage. I would instead suggest that we just formally enshrine the guidelines that have always existed, since they are straightforward, easy to apply, and make good sense. Roughly, they can be summed up as follows:

"Unless waived, no participant in any PvP conflict may interact with any other participant in that conflict for 24 hours once that conflict has concluded. While it's never been a hard and fast requirement, we've always vaguely encouraged the loser to avoid creating further situations that involve interaction with the other side."

And

"There must be prior interaction (aside from when the assassin exception replies) before PvP begins. However once it has begun, any observer may join in."

These have always been pretty clean cut and easy to apply.

Everyone knows who participated in a conflict: It's the people who cast spells, make attack rolls, buff and heal their allies, etc. It's not the bystander who was in-party and two maps away, or the guy who saw the fight about to break out and ran off.

Everyone knows afterwards that it makes sense for the loser of a fight to take a step back and avoid the winner for a while unless the 24h rule is waived. Everyone also knows that sometimes this guideline needs to flex: it's bad form for the winner to make it impossible for the loser to avoid contact.

Everyone knows that it's stilted and awkward to require characters to attempt to inject themselves into an ongoing fight by interactively conversing with the participants, but that it's also awkward to tell a player that their character cannot rally to their friend's defense if they see them under attack.

There are, of course, some determinations to be made about what constitutes an interaction, what constitutes a participant, and when a conflict is concluded. These are things that have been well and fairly settled by our DMs in the past with mostly sensible results (ex: walking away from someone after they attempt to engage you in dialog may be an interaction in some circumstances, people who stand on the sidelines and buff active combatants are also participants, etc.). That's part of what DMs are for: figuring out which conduct fits into the framework of a clean engagement and which does not, with an eye to making sure rulings are sensible and both discourage attempts to cheese the rules while not punishing good faith attempts by players to keep it clean.

Thank you Survy. The Team is fair, and isn't out to "smite everyone by the letter of the rule."
The Rules Reminder was just that: A Reminder, to please be aware of it, particularly in regards to the 24-Hour-Rule. It is not difficult to after a round of PvP is done briefly look at your PCs clock / Phone / other time device and know to cool it for 24 hours.

As for stealthers / passers-by coming upon PvP/Battle already in action, I admit to being too black&white here myself and learned that in the past it has indeed been ruled, that during a battle already in action, and if your character has reason to jump in - they may do so, for it is impractical to expect typing in such a situation.
I will edit my previous posts to reflect that.

[MalKalz]

This discussion is getting more convoluted and less clear as it goes on. I've been on the server since we moved from "No PvP without IC justification" to "No PvP without prior interaction", and I think this is the most labyrinthine interpretation I've ever seen of the rules of engagement.

I also don't see how it's possible under these circumstances to avoid having dozens of players inadvertently break the rules simply because they are unable to decipher who is covered and under what terms they may engage. I would instead suggest that we just formally enshrine the guidelines that have always existed, since they are straightforward, easy to apply, and make good sense. Roughly, they can be summed up as follows:

"Unless waived, no participant in any PvP conflict may interact with any other participant in that conflict for 24 hours once that conflict has concluded. While it's never been a hard and fast requirement, we've always vaguely encouraged the loser to avoid creating further situations that involve interaction with the other side."

And

"There must be prior interaction (aside from when the assassin exception replies) before PvP begins. However once it has begun, any observer may join in."

These have always been pretty clean cut and easy to apply.

Everyone knows who participated in a conflict: It's the people who cast spells, make attack rolls, buff and heal their allies, etc. It's not the bystander who was in-party and two maps away, or the guy who saw the fight about to break out and ran off.

Everyone knows afterwards that it makes sense for the loser of a fight to take a step back and avoid the winner for a while unless the 24h rule is waived. Everyone also knows that sometimes this guideline needs to flex: it's bad form for the winner to make it impossible for the loser to avoid contact.

Everyone knows that it's stilted and awkward to require characters to attempt to inject themselves into an ongoing fight by interactively conversing with the participants, but that it's also awkward to tell a player that their character cannot rally to their friend's defense if they see them under attack.

There are, of course, some determinations to be made about what constitutes an interaction, what constitutes a participant, and when a conflict is concluded. These are things that have been well and fairly settled by our DMs in the past with mostly sensible results (ex: walking away from someone after they attempt to engage you in dialog may be an interaction in some circumstances, people who stand on the sidelines and buff active combatants are also participants, etc.). That's part of what DMs are for: figuring out which conduct fits into the framework of a clean engagement and which does not, with an eye to making sure rulings are sensible and both discourage attempts to cheese the rules while not punishing good faith attempts by players to keep it clean.

This has hit the nail on the head with what is expected, the ruling. What was provided by LittleWeasel was further clarification.

Why was clarification necessary? It seems it recent history that too many groups are failing to comply by it and a reminder was presented. We apologize if any confusion was made, but please read above and read over what LittleWeasel further explained.

Thanks.

[Sockss]

Perfect! I understand that, thank you!

[Twily]

Above all, it's case by case.

The DMs will judge as to whether something is or isn't against the rules, and if you heavily disagree with a DMs ruling or feel you were treated unfairly by the DM, you can pass the case to Spyre for review.


LittleWeasel said allow for interactive roleplay before joining in-progress engagements, I think 'Allow' is the key word there.

A TL;DR to the below example:
You see in-progress fight:
You do not try to RP, Attacker does not try to RP: Attacking them is probably fine.
You do not try to RP, Attacker tries to RP: Attacking them is probably bad.
You try to RP, Attacker does not try to RP: Attacking them is almost certainly fine.
You try to RP, Attacker tries to RP: RP before attacking is probably best.


Example:
A warlock storms into a settlement with demons chasing after some injured person who is screaming for help:

Example1: you yell 'Stop!' and then they continue to try to murder said injured person hollering for help, you've just allowed for interactive roleplay and had them decide to not interactively roleplay with you. You should be able to attack, in this specific case, after disliking.
Even attacking before this could be acceptable(assuming you dislike before attacking), depending on the specifics to the situation.

Example2: You attack before yelling Stop or similar, and you see them immediately stop attacking in an attempt to surrender as a result of your joining the fight, mercilessly slaughtering them might not fly so well.

Example3: You attack before yelling Stop and they turn and attack you in response to joining the fight, I'm pretty sure there's no issues to be had there if you kill them.

Example4: You yell stop and they halt immediately, not attacking you or their victim. You should now have more interactive roleplay before any sort of attack occurs.

Example5: You yell stop, they do not stop and also attack you for joining, but later try to surrender when losing the fight, it's probably okay to finish them off if your character would do such(although I'd recommend accepting the surrender and seeing where it goes).

Mind you, I'm no DM, these examples are just based on my observation over the years.
And naturally, this level of interaction before PvP is far from acceptable in many if not most other cases, this is just focusing on one specific in-progress engagement example.