PvP Rules Change?

[Harroghty]

Right now the PvP rules state that any spellcasting will begin PvP from a rules perspective:

Combat begins when any of the involved PCs cast any spell (on themself or another involved PC)

- help player killing

The problem with that statement is that it assumes the spell is either a buff on one PC or an attack upon another. What happens if a PC casts a spell upon another that has negative affects, but does not begin combat? Is that still PvP if the caster does not intend to fight? It is according to the rules as they are written now, but I would like to pose the question for discussion to the player base. Should that begin PvP from a rules perspective or is that something different?

Feel free to vote and/or discuss below. Polls are open for seven days.

[Harroghty]

As fodder for debate, what is the benefit to role-play if a PC can cast a spell with some negative affects instead of just attacking? e.g. using silence and walking away

[Hrosskell]

What is considered a "non-combat" spell in this regard? If it confers a penalty, it is then a tactical combat spell, I would think. Whether the intent of the caster is to fight or not, an aggression (for example, a vindictive curse--neither with intent to stun, or kill) still demands opportunity for retribution; the afflicted character would likely respond to it with violence. From a strictly rules point of view, "PvP" is opening of hostilities of any lethality. I'll with-hold my vote until a clarification arises, however.

[Ami]

In my opinion, once both players have confirmed OOC that PVP may occur, then it's free reign and PVP can begin whenever. So, yes, any spellcasting after confirmation of PVP should be considered a hostile action.

[Harroghty]

Hrosskell: I guess that's the question. I always think that players can clear up a lot OOC, but that doesn't always happen. So if two PCs have not declared that PvP is likely, but there is some enmity between them is it PvP (from a rules perspective) if one tries to use a spell to resolve the issue without combat?

I would imagine silence or web as examples.

[Aishe]

In my opinion, once both players have confirmed OOC that PVP may occur, then it's free reign and PVP can begin whenever. So, yes, any spellcasting after confirmation of PVP should be considered a hostile action.

This. Once Confirmation occurs, the bell has rung.

[Hrosskell]

Those spells, while they don't deal damage, are MAJOR battle control tactics. I think that if you do something that would cause me to knock you on your rump, it's a PvP aggression--if spitting in someone's face can cause a bar room brawl, a simple 'silence' could start a war.

[Zethanon]

I do think the first spell cast should be initiation. As a fighter, I don't have the ability to detect what sort of spell you're casting or are about to cast - it could be an instant death spell or it could be a buff, I'll never know - but also as a psychopathical Cyricist, I suspect everyone's out for my blood. Typically, you can tell when PK's about to happen based on conversations IC and, as always, there should be the OOC throw up of "Hey, we're about to throw down." which doesn't happen as often as it really should. Someone says, "I'm going to kill you." or draws their weapon at me or anything else like that, I take it as a sign of hostility. A priest/wizard's main weapon is their mouth, so when they start casting it's who knows what.

To reiterate, I do think the first cast is the first initiation.

However if that rule changes, you'll have people wandering about pre-buffed far more frequently than you already do which is another delicate topic of discussion for people.

So if two PCs have not declared that PvP is likely, but there is some enmity between them is it PvP (from a rules perspective) if one tries to use a spell to resolve the issue without combat?

I would imagine silence or web as examples.

In that instance? Yes, it's a hostile gesture, both in an attempt to overpower/overtake the enemy. Poor form if OOC discussion has not happened.

[Estrild]

In my opinion, once both players have confirmed OOC that PVP may occur, then it's free reign and PVP can begin whenever. So, yes, any spellcasting after confirmation of PVP should be considered a hostile action.

I clicked "no" because I don't know how to read, but I agree with this. I always understood PVP to have begun once everyone was OOCly on the same page, since talking about it OOC is one of the required steps. I'd be furious if someone spelled up/spelled me down before communicating.

[Mele]

I am of the opinion that a non-combat spell should not be considered PVP as to leave characters with hostile actions to take that are NOT PVP.

Ex: Joe is level 23. Bob is level 50.

Joe says to Bob 'You are a poo poo head!'
Bob casts insanity on Joe.
Joe flails around yelling about the faeries!

Joe insulted someone much stronger than him of questionable alignment without being killed because there was an rp option.

[Harroghty]

So is the answer that we should just expect people to talk it out OOC just about every time there's spelling happening between two potential combatants?

[Estrild]

So is the answer that we should just expect people to talk it out OOC just about every time there's spelling happening between two potential combatants?

Maybe I'm an outlier, but I've always discussed it and had it discussed with me before it was even at the stage of spells being cast, like back in the "Just warning you, this is VERY LIKELY to turn into PK" stage of RP.

So... yes. If you're shocked that it turned into PK, I think you or the other guy did something wrong.

[Hrosskell]

So is the answer that we should just expect people to talk it out OOC just about every time there's spelling happening between two potential combatants?

Personally? I think that's unnecessary and breaks the flow of the game. There's the complaints process for people who think the minimum amount of RP and a chance to dip (not OOC chatter of "HEY I INTEND TO KILL YOU") was met. That model forces people to flee from an OSAY, not a smote, and not in-character logic. It also precludes the notion that you can push someone to the point of standing up against your beliefs/for their own.

It's just really clear to me when aggression occurs, I think. If you put your hands on (or spells about, or sword in) someone else, it needs RP to support it, and it opens the door for retaliation.

I am of the opinion that a non-combat spell should not be considered PVP as to leave characters with hostile actions to take that are NOT PVP.

Ex: Joe is level 23. Bob is level 50.

Joe says to Bob 'You are a poo poo head!'
Bob casts insanity on Joe.
Joe flails around yelling about the faeries!

Joe insulted someone much stronger than him of questionable alignment without being killed because there was an rp option.

Personally, I view this as PvP. It's more tasteful, but Joe should still have the option to strike at--however vainly--his tormentor, because that might be what the idiot/insaned lad would do.

[Harroghty]

The osay requirement was born of many complaints in the wake of PvP combat. Would that we all had a good working relationship with every other player and could avoid that, but the evidence is to the contrary.

Unless we want to make the game open to PvP at all times without comment, but that's another conversation maybe.

[Parsley]

These spells even if not damage dealing are aggresive in nature, the caster should expect retribution. It should be left to the caster and victims either continue the fight, use appropiate killmodes or flee.

I would also add that in the moment a caster it's buffing someone or himself with risk of pvp it's fair game attack him other than that it's like "I will await until you finish buffing yourself so you can hit me better"

[Alitar]

I strongly feel that it should be considered a player versus player action to cast negatively on another player. Not long ago someone cast Waves of Exhaustion on me in the middle of Waterdeep with no notice and minimal roleplay, it certainly felt as though the other player should have considered that it was a PvP act, as I surely did.

[Ungtar]

I would expect that if I cast a hostile spell on someone then a violent retaliation may occur. I can't see how it would be otherwise.

Plenty of other ways to get out of pk if you don't want to participate, from just walking out of the room (they should not pursue you if actual pvp has not been initiated) to a recall spell or faith faction. If they pursue you down to kill you anyway then it's complaints time, though that may or may not yield satisfactory results.

[Larethiel]

I think that a non-combat spell can be a combat-spell depending on the situation. If there is enmity and tension and someone gets cursed or webbed or silence, it is a hostile action and a reply according to that can be expected. I am of the view that there should always be the option for an involved party to rp their way out of a PvP situation, even if it may or may not evolve into a serious PK without having to use a spell at all. It will always depend on those involved and the individual situation at hand though.

[Harroghty]

So it seems as if people are agreed (2 to 1) that any negative spell cast on another should be construed as PvP. At least so far.

What are the benefits or consequences of the OSAY requirement? Is it a break in RP? Is it helpful?

[Lirith]

I voted yes.

For me, the osay does break RP, even when I am only a bystander. However, it only breaks RP in those situations where it's being RP'd fully anyway. For me, it's redundant in those types of situations since it's pretty obvious what is going on but I appreciate that not everyone is of the same mind. I still think it's an important step in case someone isn't aware of what can happen, but there are some situations where I might not think it was necessary. It's impossible to draw a line between there being enough RP to make it unnecessary and there not being enough to require an osay warning since everyone is different. If I'm involved in hostile RP that is escalating and being fully played out, I don't personally feel that I need any sort of warning OOC.

In the interests of keeping everyone happy and to avoid complaints, I think some form of OOC confirmation is needed. I would probably prefer an otell rather than osay but that's just personal choice since I prefer as minimal OOC as possible. I don't think I would be fussed if someone didn't OOC confirm to me provided they didn't just walk up and attack.