For the record....

[.Stinky Pete.]

To avoid difficulties of this nature in the future, quick slot the attack "sword" so you can whack the button instead of "right click, don;t panic, pick sword, hope to hit, repeat until someone is dead.

[k9mouse]

To avoid difficulties of this nature in the future, quick slot the attack "sword" so you can whack the button instead of "right click, don;t panic, pick sword, hope to hit, repeat until someone is dead.

that good for a melee classes, but for magic classes need all they quick slots and sometimes make them red before certain spells work on them

[viobane]

To avoid difficulties of this nature in the future, quick slot the attack "sword" so you can whack the button instead of "right click, don;t panic, pick sword, hope to hit, repeat until someone is dead.

Good point, SP. I was still wondering if this is a rule someplace or not...

[k9mouse]

Good point, SP. I was still wondering if this is a rule someplace or not...

i don't think so, if they pp, pvp (in char or nor) or kill steals, they are opening them selves for attack....

[wdpepsiman]

there is no such rule

best advise i can give is always be prepared no matter what.

[Wing--Zero]

To avoid difficulties of this nature in the future, quick slot the attack "sword" so you can whack the button instead of "right click, don;t panic, pick sword, hope to hit, repeat until someone is dead.

that good for a melee classes, but for magic classes need all they quick slots and sometimes make them red before certain spells work on them

For the mage class they have AoE spells that dont require dislike. not to menchin 90% of mages on blackstone are pure casters with a ab of 30s-40s. For the few that have a decent ab I would say go with SPs idea b/c its a good one.

[Ipsissimossity]

Also, let's not forget that most spell casters are able to cast Darkness, Invisibility, Greater Sanctuary and/or Time Stop. Having either of these hotkeyed will give most casters enough time to refocus, so to speak.

On the matter itself, regarding whether or not one should go hostile before attacking: I hope that's never made a rule. It would completely ruin the aspect of such as assassinations. And of course, if the said attacker is a good sport, he'll give his victim a chance to, either in character or out of character, figure out why he did what he did.

As long as I'd know that I was killed for a reason, I'd not be too upset about it. After all, this is a community where we all have to give a little of ourselves to ensure fun for everyone.

[ST_DM_Myle]

If your attacked via radial, the attacker is still required to seek consent.

When someone seeks consent from you, then you can state an agreement stipulation that you be set to dislike before hostilities begin.

If the attacker thinks your the kind of lamer who would take advantage of that kind of courtesy, then I would question the validity of their interest in interacting with you in the first place and just deny the consent...
since they are obviously, exactly the kind of lamer who is just interested in using their own OOC advantages against you.

It only takes a brief moment to set the hostility setting. While it is not REQUIRED in the rules..... YOU are within the rules to REQUIRE use of the hostile setting when you consent to PvP.

Sometimes, players can empower themselves with a reasonable request. Players do not always have to have rules worded specifically for every possible situation to be empowered by the rules.

Myle

[Ipsissimossity]

If your attacked via radial, the attacker is still required to seek consent.

It only takes a brief moment to set the hostility setting. While it is not REQUIRED in the rules

Without having read this particular rule, from the way you articulate it, I presume one is not required to go hostile, but is required to ask if whether or not the opposing character is willing to part-take in a PvP interaction.

If the attacker thinks your the kind of lamer who would take advantage of that kind of courtesy, then I would question the validity of their interest in interacting with you in the first place and just deny the consent...
since they are obviously, exactly the kind of lamer who is just interested in using their own OOC advantages against you.

First of all, I'll take the liberty of assuming that what you mean by this is that the player requesting permission to enter a PvP interaction with another, should be questioned in regards to his or her intent, if he or she is to doubt the opposing player's reaction to a direct 'heads up' to an upcoming attack ? Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but to deny people the right to doubt, or to say that they shouldn't interact with someone if they have doubts about their intentions, I would think that you're basically telling people never to interact with anyone, ever again. And though I'm more than happy to respect every opinion, I don't think following that exact way of life would keep a roleplaying-community on its feet. But then again, I could be wrong.

However, I do not believe that this is where the problem lies. I believe that the grey area was if the player getting the 'heads up' will take advantage of the warning or not, and not if whether or not the player warning the opposing player will consider said player to doubt the possibly attacking player's perception on whether or not you're going to take advantage of this situation. Because I suppose one would have to be somewhat clairvoyant - in the more mythical sense of the word - to be able to do such.

Though, this is not why I quote you on this. My question here is the following: If you do not believe that a player's interaction with another, in a role-play manner, can affect the other player and his or her perception on how to interact with other characters; why do you continue to have a DM status ? For your own sake, I mean. If you do not believe that one player can affect another, I suppose this goes for yourself aswell, even though you are a DM. And if that's the purpose of your position, though it is impossible to achieve - in your opinion - I don't see why you'd waste your time. But then again, I suppose you can still enforce rules and get respect for your position. So come to think of it, I apologize. To be in a position of power is nice and I guess that is more than enough for a lot of people. Though, if wanting to have more power is the requirement set for a player to become a dungeon master, I'm amazed by the current amount of DMs. I suppose I should have more faith in people if such a small amount wants more power.

[ST_DM_Myle]

If your attacked via radial, the attacker is still required to seek consent.

It only takes a brief moment to set the hostility setting. While it is not REQUIRED in the rules

Without having read this particular rule, from the way you articulate it, I presume one is not required to go hostile, but is required to ask if whether or not the opposing character is willing to part-take in a PvP interaction.

If the attacker thinks your the kind of lamer who would take advantage of that kind of courtesy, then I would question the validity of their interest in interacting with you in the first place and just deny the consent...
since they are obviously, exactly the kind of lamer who is just interested in using their own OOC advantages against you.

First of all, I'll take the liberty of assuming that what you mean by this is that the player requesting permission to enter a PvP interaction with another, should be questioned in regards to his or her intent, if he or she is to doubt the opposing player's reaction to a direct 'heads up' to an upcoming attack ? Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but to deny people the right to doubt, or to say that they shouldn't interact with someone if they have doubts about their intentions, I would think that you're basically telling people never to interact with anyone, ever again. And though I'm more than happy to respect every opinion, I don't think following that exact way of life would keep a roleplaying-community on its feet. But then again, I could be wrong.

However, I do not believe that this is where the problem lies. I believe that the grey area was if the player getting the 'heads up' will take advantage of the warning or not, and not if whether or not the player warning the opposing player will consider said player to doubt the possibly attacking player's perception on whether or not you're going to take advantage of this situation. Because I suppose one would have to be somewhat clairvoyant - in the more mythical sense of the word - to be able to do such.

Though, this is not why I quote you on this. My question here is the following: If you do not believe that a player's interaction with another, in a role-play manner, can affect the other player and his or her perception on how to interact with other characters; why do you continue to have a DM status ? For your own sake, I mean. If you do not believe that one player can affect another, I suppose this goes for yourself aswell, even though you are a DM. And if that's the purpose of your position, though it is impossible to achieve - in your opinion - I don't see why you'd waste your time. But then again, I suppose you can still enforce rules and get respect for your position. So come to think of it, I apologize. To be in a position of power is nice and I guess that is more than enough for a lot of people. Though, if wanting to have more power is the requirement set for a player to become a dungeon master, I'm amazed by the current amount of DMs. I suppose I should have more faith in people if such a small amount wants more power.

Can you retranslate this into something with less double meanings and fewer retracted comments and just make a point?

Myle

[Fenrip]

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal!

"I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera...â€

[Wing--Zero]

If your attacked via radial, the attacker is still required to seek consent.

When someone seeks consent from you, then you can state an agreement stipulation that you be set to dislike before hostilities begin.

If the attacker thinks your the kind of lamer who would take advantage of that kind of courtesy, then I would question the validity of their interest in interacting with you in the first place and just deny the consent...
since they are obviously, exactly the kind of lamer who is just interested in using their own OOC advantages against you.

It only takes a brief moment to set the hostility setting. While it is not REQUIRED in the rules..... YOU are within the rules to REQUIRE use of the hostile setting when you consent to PvP.

Sometimes, players can empower themselves with a reasonable request. Players do not always have to have rules worded specifically for every possible situation to be empowered by the rules.

Myle

So basically your saying within this post is that you must put a player on hostile after them giveing or asking for there consent? If so (and correct me if im wrong) that is ridiculous! I think everyones going a little to far with consenting if thats the case. Its one thing to get consent but, now your telling me someone can complain to the Dms that I didnt put them on dislike before attacking them? The next thing were gonna start seeing is that you have to fill out a application, give 2 forms of ID, have a 5 day waiting period than you may start asking for consent.

[dm_xeen1]

PVP is what it is let us not get to carried away with all these semantics.

as stated before if someone shows or rp's hostile intentions, pp, curses ic/ooc then you have given consent to PVP and it really is that simple.

if you choose to give a warning after any of the above then do so if not you are under no obligation to do so based on the pc's actions or statements.

it really is that simple folks.

just use common sense

[k9mouse]

So basically your saying within this post is that you must put a player on hostile after them giveing or asking for there consent?

i agree one must get consent (this should be the number one step ), but one can attack any way one wants with or with out putting on dislike first

[temordae01]

Yep. With Alana's RP with Dread the other night, I made sure in no uncertain terms WITHOUT putting him on dislike before combat that I was consenting to PVP. I believe "Come along or else" is pretty self-explanatory. By the way, that was an awesome slaughter afterwards! The Regulators will be back.