A conundrum of PVP on a RP server

[Grench02]

I was recently playing a low level character and got killed by someone who actually does a halfway decent job of RPing as a 'bad guy'. But, there is a bit of confusion, likely on my end, about how much RP is needed before someone can start slaughtering everyone around them. I am not intending this as a 'report'. That is why there are no names presented. This is so that I can better understand what the RP thresholds and rules for PVP are.

In this case, a 'bad guy' walked into a high traffic area outside the main gates of a settlement. They set everyone (4 or more) in the area to hostile, made a few bold - and well written RP - statements. Without anyone responding or changing ongoing actions, the 'bad guy' went on to start killing everyone around them.

This brings two questions to mind.

1. Is there any requirement to have the 'potential victims' respond via RP prior to opening the can of whoop on them? Or, is a lack of response or lack of change in ongoing actions (ongoing buff chains for example) qualified as 'consent' for PVP?

2. Right now there is no viable defense that can actually dissuade an 'evil' player from slaughtering others - regardless of RP. Other characters can be killed, captured, collared (yes, additional RP required), held for ransom and otherwise terrorized. There is no mechanic for actually punishing the culprit even if they are killed or captured. I.e. nothing to make an associated cost to counter the behavior. This strikes me as a bit of an imbalance - unless I'm missing something in how the mechanics are laid out. Is there anything that the 'potential victims' can actually do to counteract 'bad guy raids of one' that can sneak about and slaughter low level characters doing writ work? I.e. do 'potential victims' just need to all start logging out of the server every time a, 'known killer' shows up? There really isn't much else that they seem to be able to do in this situation.

Please educate me around how this is supposed to work? Thank you.

[three wolf moon]

Yes. Pre-PvP roleplay must be interactive. However, buffing (or otherwise preparing for combat visibly), activating a lens/attunement potion, or moving away/running is considered a response, so that's a caveat. How much of a 'response' is given is a gray area--pre-PvP roleplay is typically encouraged to create as much roleplay as possible, but this is usually a roleplay consideration, not one explicitly spelled out in the rules as written. If you feel that there wasn't adequate pre-pvp rp (especially if you were not given a chance to respond) report it. It doesn't require much effort to send a screenshot and a short summary of why you felt it was lacking to the DM team and they'll have a look at it.

As for in character consequences for the evildoer in question, that's really up to your character. Keep an attunement potion or portal lense on hand for a quick escape. Spread the word to do-gooders with speedies and push the settlements to do something about the menace. Get a group of fellow victims together and pool money for a bounty on them. Hire a capable bodyguard. I realize none of these things are certainties, but that's just the way it is.

Again, if you feel that the person in question is not providing adequate roleplay before PvP, please report it to the active DM team.

[Grench02]

Yes. Pre-PvP roleplay must be interactive. However, buffing (or otherwise preparing for combat visibly), activating a lens/attunement potion, or moving away/running is considered a response, so that's a caveat. How much of a 'response' is given is a gray area--pre-PvP roleplay is typically encouraged to create as much roleplay as possible, but this is usually a roleplay consideration, not one explicitly spelled out in the rules as written. If you feel that there wasn't adequate pre-pvp rp (especially if you were not given a chance to respond) report it. It doesn't require much effort to send a screenshot and a short summary of why you felt it was lacking to the DM team and they'll have a look at it.

Then in this case my character's ongoing chain (started pre-RP) buffing of themselves (was preparing to walk a warded package) not stopping instantly when the 'bad guy' demands attention from the edge of the screen means not responding and non-change in ongoing otherwise non-directed actions translates as a 'hostile response' allowing the 'bad guy' to race over and slaughter someone? That is a bit of a thin tightrope. It means there is no 'way out' short of logging as any and all 'responses or actions' from the 'potential victims' can be interpreted widely as potentially hostile/consenting.

As for in character consequences for the evildoer in question, that's really up to your character. Keep an attunement potion or portal lense on hand for a quick escape.

Either of which is an action - which you mentioned above as a response that qualifies for PVP. An expensive option for sub-epic characters. Is a lens even usable with someone nearby having already flipped everyone to hostile? Certainly unusable with a warded package.

Run away? Not with a warded package. Moving away at all is apparently a response to RP justifying PVP?

Stand there and ignore the RP from the PVP aggressor? Apparently that isn't working either as failure to 'take notice and respond' is a justification.

Spread the word to do-gooders with speedies and push the settlements to do something about the menace.

Real time for the 'bad guy' to get away with it: 30 seconds.
Real time to organize a response to a 'raid of 1': 30 minutes. Odds of the bad guy even being still on-system by the time a response can be organized: 1:100. Odds of finding the bad guy: 1:10,000 or so?

If settlements organize a force to go hunt the 'bad guy' they need a team. Someone who can scry or at least track, someone who can cast true seeing, at least one 'tank', and they have to travel quickly enough to find the 'bad guy'.

Raid rules: If a surface settlement or other do good group organizes the three or more individuals required to have any chance of 'doing something' and their quarry slips into or lenses to the underdark settlements, the mission ends there as further action constitutes an unscheduled raid.

Assuming the 'do good group' is highly organized and manages to corner the 'bad guy' (highly unlikely, but okay) then manages to subdue them before they log (unlikely) and gets a lasso on them to drag them to a cell (right...) they can then ask for a relatively small fine. They have no actual means of punishment at the end of a multi-hour multi-player highly coordinated effort - there isn't anything they can actually do that would even slightly deter the behavior.

Get a group of fellow victims together and pool money for a bounty on them. Hire a capable bodyguard. I realize none of these things are certainties, but that's just the way it is.

When those being hunted are still working writs, there simply isn't enough coin to pay a bounty, let alone the ability to get to Tradevar to place one. Having higher level characters pool together to place a bounty is just as likely to result in tacit meta gaming as 'bad guys' trade kills to collect each other's bounties.

Hiring a body guard isn't a great option either as one suitable to being able to have a chance to protect anyone won't be able to be in party while writs are being worked - and will be bored to tears >99% of the time.

I'm not sure what the right answer is, but right now it's all in the 'bad guys' favor. They get to choose who to confront, where to do it, and what gets interpreted as a PVP enabling response or non-response. Effectively they get to play apex predator at the watering hole and there isn't a thing their 'potential victims' can realistically do - or not do.

I'm not opposed to proper PVP for non-predation based RP. It is the unaccountable predator/prey nature of these recent encounters that is troubling.

Maybe we need a mechanical answer to curb predation? Something like: If you kill someone in PVP who is 10 or more levels lower, you loose 10% of the XP difference between your character and theirs?

The obvious flaw to that idea is how would a high level deal with a low level pickpocket or other annoyance. Who flagged hostile first could be a trigger in how it gets applied?

[JubJub]

One person attacking a whole area is usually a grey area since it means more folks and possibly NPC's must be given time to rp and respond. PVP should also have a point and rp reason to it, it's usually pretty clear if it's someone just out looking to kill people. Not to mention in and near settlements the NPCS need to be taken into account if they plan on a mass slaughter of folks. Also if I want to attack you and others are about it doesn't give me a green light to simply hellball the whole area and everyone in it because I want to kill you. it's usually best if someone is going to approach a settlement to alert a dm first.

[Irongron]

I think finding any kind of common ground on the question of PvP is extremely difficult, as there are players that abhor it under any circumstances, just as there are those, like myself, who would count some PvP among their most enjoyable moments while playing Arelith.

I really don't mind their being a competitive element to conflict, and I think that 'trying to win' be it through one's RP or via PvP can be a perfectly valid, and enjoyable, aspect of online play - but pointless one-sided PvP, without any surrounding narrative, happening at the outset of an interaction rather than at its climax definitely leaves a sour taste, and heroes an villains alike are equally capable of acting that way.

[Mattamue]

This may sound cynical, but this is the prisoner's dilemma. When you're a potential pvp situation there is no incentive to be the ooc vulnerable party. All it can ever mean is that you are not taken advantage of.

[BoredGM]

I think level limits and ignoring people who don't wish to engage in it are viable considerations.

[Grench02]

Something that occurs to me. Arelith regulars go out of the way to ensure that social RP interactions are mutual and consensual. *Would offer his hand to shake* The bar for slaughtering someone seems to be much lower?

In the case of predatory PVP, it feels as though one (or more) player(s) is(are) forcing their chosen story line onto those they encounter.

Note: I am making a distinction between consensual RP based PVP and predatory PVP. One is fun for all involved. The other can ruin or at least delays some random other person's story/plan. "Participate in my story or die," doesn't leave much wiggle room for those small parties or solo characters working writs or looking for cooperative play.

[Royal Blood]

I think the ability to opt out of encounters you just don't want to partake in really nullifies the essence of an RP server. It would create horrible OOC situations where you'd just have to let someone walk by because they're like "Nope, not today i'm doing writs" *Drow war party goes home and sulks* That's just cheesy, imo.

If you exist in Arelith then you consent to having to deal with the consequences of existing. If you don't want to get mugged then stay in the city! Or if you're afraid of drow, don't travel the roads at night. Take steps to be proactive I guess.

PVP by its nature is predatory. Sometimes you get stuck and it's like okay I don't have any options. That's just sorta life : /. Arelith is an RP server first so I think having the option to say "Sorry I am grinding atm I don't want to rp/pvp" it's just not the place for it? Though I get it 100% sometimes you just wanna wack monsters! But I don't think it's true to the essence of the server to allow opt outs of encounters based on personal preferences. (Minus of course capture/torture sort of stuff everyone has their own limits there that should be respected.)

[Dreams]

I really don't mind their being a competitive element to conflict, and I think that 'trying to win' be it through one's RP or via PvP can be a perfectly valid, and enjoyable, aspect of online play - but pointless one-sided PvP, without any surrounding narrative, happening at the outset of an interaction rather than at its climax definitely leaves a sour taste, and heroes an villains alike are equally capable of acting that way.

^ This is great, and I 100% agree.

Being killed by monsters (or players) is a risk of living in this crazy adventure world called Arelith. Your character should be aware that monsters or bad people may kill them. Use this wariness in your RP! Take precautions. If you don't enjoy PvP? Find ways out of it yourself. It's not always down to whether the other party is giving you chances or not, it is more about whether you realise the opportunities you already have. You can talk your way out of it. You can run. You can hide. You can use items to escape. You can fight your way out. You can trick the opponent. You can lie to them. You can do anything IC. All it takes is a tiny bit of preparation and all of these options will always be there. It is incredibly rare for these options to all be absent.

[White_935]

I think finding any kind of common ground on the question of PvP is extremely difficult, as there are players that abhor it under any circumstances, just as there are those, like myself, who would count some PvP among their most enjoyable moments while playing Arelith.

I really don't mind their being a competitive element to conflict, and I think that 'trying to win' be it through one's RP or via PvP can be a perfectly valid, and enjoyable, aspect of online play - but pointless one-sided PvP, without any surrounding narrative, happening at the outset of an interaction rather than at its climax definitely leaves a sour taste, and heroes an villains alike are equally capable of acting that way.

I generally am of same opinion, i love how arelith is, while it can be at times frustrative, it would be negatively in response if there was no risk for your character.. and PvP can often lead to memorable moments, but it falls down to why, how .. and the story around it.

So when it comes to just bashing a newbie, or such often pointed out issues.. "Be nice" is a both as rule.. and am motto people should keep in mind..

[BoredGM]

I think the ability to opt out of encounters you just don't want to partake in really nullifies the essence of an RP server. It would create horrible OOC situations where you'd just have to let someone walk by because they're like "Nope, not today i'm doing writs" *Drow war party goes home and sulks* That's just cheesy, imo.

If you exist in Arelith then you consent to having to deal with the consequences of existing. If you don't want to get mugged then stay in the city! Or if you're afraid of drow, don't travel the roads at night. Take steps to be proactive I guess.

PVP by its nature is predatory. Sometimes you get stuck and it's like okay I don't have any options. That's just sorta life : /. Arelith is an RP server first...

Being killed by monsters (or players) is a risk of living in this crazy adventure world called Arelith. Your character should be aware that monsters or bad people may kill them...

I generally am of same opinion, i love how arelith is, while it can be at times frustrative, it would be negatively in response if there was no risk for your character.. and PvP can often lead to memorable moments, but it falls down to why, how .. and the story around it.

So when it comes to just bashing a newbie, or such often pointed out issues.. "Be nice" is a both as rule.. and am motto people should keep in mind..

So in trying to look at what you all have been saying, I believe we might discuss it as such.
There might be a point of view of having Arelith be what we might call a "shared world roleplay". This SWRP might have the idea of players in such factions influencing or creating events, and other players/factions responding to said things.

What I would like to point out though is what I've been sort of saying all along. If you allow this type of Player on Player combat in this SWRP, then the problems I think understandably arise with some of the other systems here on Arelith. Writs in an area? Sorry, that's been conquered by the enemy today.
As another point of this, it seems to completely contest what the wiki says about cycling new characters with the delete character command. As your character grows in levels so does their ability to influence said events at large. Why delete your character in this system?

Yes, it might be such "real". It might be OOC, but OOC is already in spades with all of this.
But the question is, is this the game that is desired? The Shared World Roleplay where the drow conquering the Bendir roads will interfere with the writs or something else?
And of course recognize, you are saying to stop your writs or other such play. The other play is effectively halted.

[Tarkus the dog]

It's very common for neither the bad guy nor the good guy to get any actual character development during their PvP crusades since this is entirely up to the player playing them meaning that terrible roleplayers ( quite a bit of them out here ) will more or less have the same thing being thrown your way to the point where Lord of the Rings Shadow of Mordor may start to seem pretty familiar. Interestingly enough if you play a bad guy who keeps getting himself comically killed over and over again you will be praised by the community, however god forbid you decide to run in circles for 10 seconds when Hero McTrueStrike comes charging your way and then whoop his Snuggybear and the rest of his squad then apparently you're just there to stack up PC heads.

The players of Arelith have come up ( over the years ) with the following solutions to counteract both the bad boys and the good boys of storytelling:

1. The good old move that I like to call "Elven alarm bell" where all the elves of the server miraculously appear the moment you take two steps into the Arelith forest and you just so happen to have a naughty thing scheduled for that evening. Suddenly you are surrounded by 10 PCs, some of which whom you've never seen in your life before and one of them is now calling your a character b*#$h which is entirely in character too ( and very elven like ) and not motivated by OOC implications! Your options ( most of the time ) are to die on the spot or go be evil ( or good! ) somewhere else. This tactic is not race restricted, mind you, regardless of the nickname, so anyone can ( and do! ) apply it so watch out for that one if you find yourself playing a known big bad.

2. The "I'm not stuck here with you" move: Don't you love nothing more than when you log into your dusty old character for no reason in particular, just to be suddenly flexed on by a random self-proclaimed badass. It's more comedic when it's them pulling the trigger ( by doing the "whoops, I dropped my EDK on accident" which pretty much means that the PvP is on ) and then filing a player report against you later on and sending it to the DMs after being properly and hilariously beaten to a pulp ( along with the dragon !) by your character which just happens to be spellsword demigod ( or really whatever the meta is at the point in time of you reading this post ).

In other words, if someone wants the PvP so badly - then get good at it and give it to them. They might not enjoy it as much as you will but hey, it's their fault for thinking your character was a level 15 easy pickings.

3. Do none of the above and be lucky enough to run into a villain played by a solid player. Something on the server that you'll learn really quickly is that big bads who are indeed big and bad don't need PvP to prove it, but also just so happen to know how to utilize it if someone pushes them in that direction. Mind you, I'm not talking about the Cult of Personality type of players that are merely pretending to know what they are doing but in reality rely entirely on a gank squad of death ( mostly played by better PvPers than them ) for others to take their character seriously, be it them playing a goodie or a baddie. I'm talking about Arelith veterans who will let a level 15 win a 'PvP' just to get the story going in the right direction. You'll recognize them easily and if you're femdom enthusiast like me ( or any sort of dom, really! ) you'll have a very entertaining time if you both allow each other to play your characters to the fullest. Sadly, there aren't many players out there who don't mind keeping their cool whilst the self-proclaimed big shots entertain themselves by throwing around edgy lines. It takes a lot of hole jumping for them to find the hole that just so happens not to be a murder hole, and by a murder hole I mean a "I just metagamed that you're a warlock, so me and all of my discord friends are going to hunt your character any time we see him on", but instead one filled with players who put other's character's before their own. Some say it's worth searching, and some like me have given hope a long time ago. Or simply don't need no hole jumping and already know what's the situation. That said, these sort of players most likely won't be running around hostile'ing people and fishing for PvP but there you go.


But yeah, you said it best yourself. There's nothing much to do about someone running people down if they have... Cough cough... 'Good enough of a Roleplay reason' to do it and there's absolutely no way for their character to suffer any consequences if they fail in their slaughter unless they implement those consequences themselves. Funnily enough, you yourself can also use this against them! It's quite both ironic and hilarious when later on they try to paint you as the villain after they've bashed 10 people and rolled a 1 to an implosion which you "accidentally" threw their way. Other than that, I was going to say "Oh there's also the DM team that you can talk to who will happily look into the PvP-mongers for you although that's probably not the solution you're looking for" but seeing as certain players who should be banned are still playing, that may not be the case. If you don't enjoy playing a victim, get better at PvP and whoop some Snuggybear. Unironically that's the best answer you'll get. Welcome to Arelith buddy.

[three wolf moon]

Yes, buffing or moving away is considered a response. It's because there are players who think that they can get out of PvP by no RP walking away. Or if they don't respond buffing/summoning whatever is okay. I've been in situations where "bad guys" were confronted and proceeded to chain-summon 3 other players, dragons, etc. All without a word of dialog. You see these things as bad, a disadvantage, etc, but this ruling is in effect to protect everyone, not just evil people.

If you're very concerned about not being able to flee, don't take the package/delivery writs. They've been high risk from the beginning, literally designed so that bandits/highwaymen/whatever have a reward for killing people carrying them. The reward they give isn't even worth it, I don't really know why they exist.

You don't have to place a bounty with the assassin's guild. You can set aside some gold and make a posting on message boards.

And again, if you feel unsatisfied with the conduct of other players, report it and move on. The DMs have always been committed to making the conflict experience fun for everyone. But it really seems like you're reaching to find fault in everything people are telling you, Grench02. I understand it's difficult sometimes to be in PvP because of the investment we all have in our characters, but it's best not to think of things like this through the lens of complete fairness. It's not fair. It's not meant to be fair. React IC, and try to have fun with it.

[Zavandar]

wooaaah

[three wolf moon]

a bunch of stuff

Are you okay? You've said quite a lot of mean things here and it seems uncalled for.

[UilliamNebel]

In this case, a 'bad guy' walked into a high traffic area outside the main gates of a settlement. They set everyone (4 or more) in the area to hostile, made a few bold - and well written RP - statements. Without anyone responding or changing ongoing actions, the 'bad guy' went on to start killing everyone around them.

My character was a part of it.

So here is my take for what it is worth.

Came up, saw the attack happen, character for IC reasons I took as having to get involved. Knew my character absolutely would have no chance, just mechanics wise. Either way though, due to my character's in game position, alignment, etc, he had to do something which in this case was a 'die trying' reaction.

No issues with the bad guy character's player, no fault here on him at all. They to were doing the role they have.

Now, I have asked, they have agreed, that my character will not be involved with theirs going forward.

Here is why I opted for such.

1, Actually the death resulted in an odd significant set back somehow with a rather important part of my character's gear coming up missing that will not be replaceable. This is no one's fault, just happened. It also just comes at a time as my character is struggling to get geared up to be able to participate and contribute in parties with his level peers. Odd I know, but believe it or not, gearing requirements are actually much lower for a mostly solo character devoted to stealth and ambush than the role need by a party of fast movers and down and dirty skirmishers when your character is a ranger. As crazy as it sounds, out solo even taking very high risk my character has died three times. In parties, its a 1 in 3 rate, in areas I usually solo with ease. So, TL:DR, purpose built character just not a good fit and disincentive to me as a player to participate on that basis.

2, Also had a significant financial set back and loss of effort over time for the two hours of IG activity my character was doing before this happened.

The above two, compounded, and the realities of the character to character mechanical situation, just made it not what I find to be enjoyable to roleplay or do in D&D. Further, just me as a player, has no actual incentive to be involved. My character has no real agency to make a difference on how things turn out here, they are at best an extra in a war movie who gets shot on screen to help bolster the actual main character's sense of jeopardy in the story. Sure, some will debate the 'truth' of this, but I remind you this is the sort of subjective judgement that we all ultimately as players must make for ourselves. There isn't a right or wrong here, just an honest 'am I enjoying this' question to be asked.

Now to the ultimate point, the best conclusion that could be reached, I feel did take place. Me and the other player had compromise. Really, it is the best thing possible here. And I wish them and everyone else with the storyline a great time going forward.

[Nitro]

essay

[Righ]

Are you okay? You've said quite a lot of mean things here and it seems uncalled for.

I've gotten a general sense of frustration regarding PvP on Arelith in my short time here. I think Tarkus is just venting some of that frustration.

He makes a fair point: In any publicly-accessible roleplay environment, there will be a certain percentage of participants that will try to title themselves as the Ultimate Powerful Coolguy, even though they've existed for a fraction of a fraction of the time many of the veterans have. Normally this is just chalked up to immature and inexperienced roleplayers, and ignored. In mediums like Neverwinter Nights and other combat-oriented games, we are given the advantage of being able to back up (or sometimes NOT back up) our claims of grandeur through good, old-fashioned PvP.

However, regarding the original point of this thread which has been answered numerous times already, Arelith allows a lot of freedom to its playerbase, which is both advantageous and damaging to the overall experience. Despite the laundry-list of rules and guidelines, it seems (so far, to me, once again I'm pretty new) that players are left to create their own adventures without needing a ton of active regulation or guidance. With PvP, this allows for some pretty unique and exciting scenarios, but of course also allows for less experienced or less mature roleplayers to do the bare minimum required before enacting their slaughterfest, if that's what they're into. It's a double-edged sword, and I don't think there's much that can be done without adding a lot more restrictions to PvP interactions, which would make for less satisfying experiences overall.

My only thought would be to create some avenue for RP feedback. I see there's a "Kudos" section for praise and positivity, but there isn't any place that I can see for constructive criticism. Of course there would be the risk of it turning into just flaming and offensive posts, but I think some people just don't realize that the kind of roleplay they enact just isn't jiving well with others, or might even be hurting the experience of others, and by talking about it in a constructive way, it could lead to some positive growth and change.

Or maybe I'm just too hopeful.

[Anomandaris]

I was recently playing a low level character and got killed by someone who actually does a halfway decent job of RPing as a 'bad guy'. But, there is a bit of confusion, likely on my end, about how much RP is needed before someone can start slaughtering everyone around them. I am not intending this as a 'report'. That is why there are no names presented. This is so that I can better understand what the RP thresholds and rules for PVP are.

In this case, a 'bad guy' walked into a high traffic area outside the main gates of a settlement. They set everyone (4 or more) in the area to hostile, made a few bold - and well written RP - statements. Without anyone responding or changing ongoing actions, the 'bad guy' went on to start killing everyone around them.

This brings two questions to mind.

1. Is there any requirement to have the 'potential victims' respond via RP prior to opening the can of whoop on them? Or, is a lack of response or lack of change in ongoing actions (ongoing buff chains for example) qualified as 'consent' for PVP?

2. Right now there is no viable defense that can actually dissuade an 'evil' player from slaughtering others - regardless of RP. Other characters can be killed, captured, collared (yes, additional RP required), held for ransom and otherwise terrorized. There is no mechanic for actually punishing the culprit even if they are killed or captured. I.e. nothing to make an associated cost to counter the behavior. This strikes me as a bit of an imbalance - unless I'm missing something in how the mechanics are laid out. Is there anything that the 'potential victims' can actually do to counteract 'bad guy raids of one' that can sneak about and slaughter low level characters doing writ work? I.e. do 'potential victims' just need to all start logging out of the server every time a, 'known killer' shows up? There really isn't much else that they seem to be able to do in this situation.

Please educate me around how this is supposed to work? Thank you.

This sounds like an unsanctioned raid given there are NPC's around (most likely). If that's the case, it's a rule break (not for limited RP but the situation & location).

It is very uncommon to be randomly pvp'd for NO reason. Usually, it is at least somewhat a consequence of your behavior. If you run into some maniac and get mouthy, showing anything but absolute deference and compliance, you are increasing your chances of dying. Well, maybe your character's values or principles prevent you from doing so (as in the story here). Great, you die. That's what makes this fun, you have a difficult, very real choice to make with consequences. It'd be like saying "why is every guy I date a total jerk, I must be cursed?!" No, you're picking them.... If this kind of stuff is following someone on every PC, in every settlement or faction, they probably have something to do with it.

I don't think PVP on an RP server is a conundrum at all. Dealing with stuff we don't like is part of RP. Being tossed out of a city and humiliated or ostracized from a group because I did something evil is all RP. That may be far more frustrating and stressful for me as a player than "dying in PVP." I don't need to "get good at PVP" to enjoy Arelith. But I can't expect I can RP telling a necromancer he can't be somewhere, rudely toss a pirate out of a bar, or be super confrontational without the risk of someone disagreeing violently.

This may seem insensitive or tick people off but it is reality. We are the only ones responsible for our personal experience. Take responsibility, chill out and let it go. This is a game and if you're not having fun, it's not because one person is preventing you from having fun, it's because YOU are preventing you from having fun. Someone killed you and you lost a few hours of gold you farmed? Been there, it sucks and I was frustrated, but move on. Even if that person was a TOTAL rule breaking jerk (and they do exist) it does not define your experience unless you let it. Reporting abuses is critical but the quickness with which our community is inclined to report something because "they don't like" is excessive. PVP has been taken OOC into the reporting realm and we all could do with having a bit tougher skins.

Lastly, the fact that people just get away with terrible behavior all the time like this (IC or OOC) is simply not true. Entire factions get mobilized against another faction or PC, DMs intervene when characters or players exhibit continued abusive behavior, everyone eventually get their just desserts. People roll that character because they end up perma-hunted, with no friends and aren't having fun. There is always a balancing of the scales, the server is not ruled by a single PVP godlike overlord. If you are being "ICly" harassed and feel you have no agency, get creative. Go to some LG order and ask for help. Create RP for other people. I promise you there is a solution!

My experience may be unique, but I don't think so. After years of playing here the frequency with which people supposedly run into unfair experiences that "ruin" their experience, far outstrip the reality of the situation. Often (not always) it is people engaging in conflict, losing and not liking the result. It's a personal bias against how it went down that makes them upset, were the rolls reversed, they would be 100% satisfied how things went down. That's normal, we're humans, but recognize it, take a breathe and game on!

[The GrumpyCat]

I've mentioned this on other threads, but I'll bring this up here as a point of conversation.

Essentialy when considering... well many mechanics really, but especialy PvP/Death there is a line to consider.

One one side is 'It's my characters story. I don't want people interfereing with it in ways I don't like. So we should (for example) only be allowed to pvp if the other person gives permission.'

On the other extreme is: 'PvP needs consequences and importance, death should mean something. Ergo let's introduce a 1MoD for pvp. You die in PvP? You die perminently.'

The problem with the former is that it creates, as others have pointed out, frustration and poor narrative. For example - Let's imagine you're playing a Banite and a uh... Elven Cleric of Corelleon rocks up and goes. 'Haya! Bane is so lame! He's dumb You're dumb too! 'We're gonna beat your bums out of town yeah! *slaps the banite around the face a few times* Bane is a big dum dum! Bane is a big Dum dum! Bane is a big Dum dum!'
Banite- [Tell] - 'Permission to attack?'
Elf [Tell] 'Nope!'
Banire: Stop that!'
Elf: 'Nope!' *pisses up the wall of the Banite church* 'That's how much I respect you! Hahaha! You can't do anything to me you big fat yellow bellied fool!

Or even
Guard: 'Oy! I've spotted you pickpocketing people! Stop that! ([tell] - Can I pvp you?)
Pickpocket: Oh go away fool! ([tell] Nope.)
*Pickpocket resumes pickpocketing, knowing that no one can stop him*

Policing such a thing would be possible on a smaller server perhaps, but I've a feeling that policing it on a server arelith's size would be nie impossible, and would create a lot of friction and wierdness.

Going to the other side- some would argue for more consequence.

And y'know? In the perfect world? I... get that? In the perfect world where everyone PvPed for great reasons, and there was always rp and 'outs' from it, and everyone was concerned about narrative and the fun of others? I think it might work really well.
But again, Arelith is a huge server and, whilst we have a lot of awsome players I'd be a fool to say we didn't have some... not so awsome ones. So we have to accept that any consequence we slip in - will be abused and misused.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't put in consequences, of course not. But it does mean it has to be carefully measured and thought out.

[BoredGM]

So first to Jorden...I didn't write those other posts. Tarkus, Grench, Righ, etc. I think that you are basically ignoring the evidence right above you about what is happening. I have seen it occur often in game myself. An "enemy force" or "deadly opponent" is on the move when I've wanted to do something else, and has affected others in game in a way they didn't really want to have happen.

Secondly, the pvp on an rp server is a conundrum thing...
So like I said, combat has a goal. When you fight in nwn until someone falls, the system itself does not by default roleplay. Thus, when these sort of things happen in game, the game does not default roleplay and mostly no roleplay has occcured. The level 5-10 going about doing their writs when suddenly ganked in a few seconds situation, there is no real roleplay happening. I thought we agreed on that?

Now for the rest of what you said and to address Grumpy's post, what the posts are going on about is player conflict. Player conflict and the out of game conflicts.
If a necromancer shows up in a settlement and the players games are being disrupted by their presence - such as in your example - I think many people might say the proper response IS NOT to just in game serve up some pvp death or other such things.
These problems have gone on with tabletop historically as well. What did people do? As far as I know, they've usually stopped playing evil go it alone thieves in a party of paladins. Something about it not being as fun.
So if a necromancer shows up in a settlement like Cordor or Brog, or an Elf Champion of Pelor shows up in a village dedicated to Bane, I would say it is not a viable solution to just continue slaying them. This process has happened before in rpgs, and it hasn't survived.

But moreover, as an additional problem the same slaying willy nilly that you want to have happen as a result of player conflict is now halting the play of others on the server who are enjoying themselves. IMO, It's not their fault if they want to go on an adventure and then someone ganks them like a demented ninja in Neverwinter Nights.

As has been said before about these types of player conflicts, it might end up being the case such that people want to play different games.
If a person wants to go on a power fantasy adventure with a party in Arelith, what you all are saying is that play is not as valuable or can be overridden by the mass pvp guild wars.

[Anomandaris]

So first to Jorden...I didn't write those other posts. Tarkus, Grench, Righ, etc. I think that you are basically ignoring the evidence right above you about what is happening. I have seen it occur often in game myself. An "enemy force" or "deadly opponent" is on the move when I've wanted to do something else, and has affected others in game in a way they didn't really want to have happen.

Not really my point. What I'm saying is that most consequences people experience IC are a result of their actions (at least to an extent) with the opposite being an exception to the rule. It's not a single player game so I fully expect my in game desires to be altered, interrupted or somehow affected by the other players & PCs around us.

The thing I do agree with wholeheartedly in your statement is that a lot of this is "player conflict." That was a lot of my point is that we always have the choice to take a breath, move on and realize it's not a big deal. We create a second problem when we get angry about something that really is inconsequential.

Also, I'm not advocating using pvp as an answer to everything or being quick with it. Most of my pvp interactions I was attacked first because I am usually more interested in the tension and dialogue. My point was regarding the "evidence" which is really just a bunch of anecdotes. People are salty because they lose. Then they blame the other person for being pvp happy and claim to be this innocent rp centric player.

The reality is they wrote a check they couldn't cash and then got salty about it (I'd say a majority of the time). Abuses do happen, people are jerks sometimes. But be cautious before you assume this as a massive problem rather than just people gripping because... well we're people. I'm not sure how much of what you're saying is bad experience from your past server, the mass PvP guild wars with random collateral damage are rare, and usually intervened on by DMs. This is not the norm.

So no.. don't just kill that necromancer. But don't expect someone not to kill you when you call them an animator scum who violates corpses. I'm definitely not advocating for more pvp as a resolution to player conflict. My primary PC is basically just a politician these days.. doesn't ever kill anyone. What I'm advocating for is for people to take it in stride when their decision gets them killed, because, 70-90% of the time, they earned it

[BoredGM]

Okay so first of all! My other server was absolutely fantastic! Thanks for asking! I can't recommend it enough!

JordenK, I really hope to have fun with you in game sometime myself as well . I hope you don't dislike our disagreement about this. But I'll just remind everyone reading one more time...it wasn't salty made up things. The evidence is not in doubt. That is my judgement on it. Everyone else can make their own.

So to use another example which I think might help, let's say we actually did play tabletop dnd. We were all happy and it was going great on an adventure with a party of divine do gooders. Paladin, Invoker, Clerics, Avenger. Then when we are playing dnd, the DM in this tabletop example says "Okay, you all are just killed by a rampaging Bugbear. You are all in the fugue plane, and we all have to wait a bit, and then go back to what we were doing before which takes up more time. *After waiting* Okay, what do you do?"
I think people might begin to see why people might start to gripe about this.

This is pretty comparable to what I am saying is happening on Arelith. Again, you can make you own judgements as to the validity of it.
Saying that we create a second problem when we get angry or we should expect our in game desires to be altered when it's the out of game desires not matching up I think is obfuscating the issue.

The way I understand this all is you decided to argue against the rule change of agreeing to play the same games by bringing up an aspect of faction play - evildoers and gooddoers - and saying that had to be dealt with as a part of the game.

I disagree. I do not think that drow need to be wandering around the outskirts of Cordor trying to get some rest at the inn, and then being quickly exiled. Just as many people would agree that a 4 person party of tabletop dnd does not have to be 2 drow and 2 paladins.
I'm not saying it's not a valid game. What I am saying is that the retorts to the rule change were an aspect of faction play that many do not consider to be necessary as their experience on Arelith.
It's okay to have all of this play separated, as we do with talking in the inn and going out to do writs.
But what I've been seeing and saying here is, that it is not separated. It interferes with each other.
On Arelith!

[Seven Sons of Sin]

If there's one 'crazy hypothetical element' I'd ever put on Arelith, it would be locking PvP and hostile actions behind a 30 RPR gate just to see what would happen.

I don't think anything tarkus said is wrong.

The "bad guy" in the OP's scenario sounds like a complete and utter tool. This kind of roleplay gets a pass by a lot of people because people think its a) setting appropriate, b) risky and c) instigating conflict.

I'd just roll my eyes and say, "What's the point?"

If character actions and PvP isn't meaningful, it dilutes the whole conversation. And brings us to these discussions we're having now.

Tbh, I'd probably report this 'bad guy.'