Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Issue being that them defending their summons in view of the guards makes them break the rules, and you retaliating likewise makes you a rule/lawbreaker as well. I think that's the dilemma which is the reason for the topic in itself, the fact that you can not actually do anything but go to the reporting-stage in theory.

I mean, you could just kill the summon, then let them kill you and report them afterwards, but...that feels weird from an RP perspective, too, if they refuse to just send the summon away.

For the rules:
There's a bit of judgement in play here so it's hard to make broad sweeping proclamations about summons as the laws of the land change. I'll use BG as a frame of reference though:

It's illegal to summon anything at all (via the laws of the land). If you do so without first contacting the DMs to control the NPCs, you are godmodding. Period.

I do not see this as justification to PvP the person though, as that is still godmodding the guards.

If this scenario came across my desk, both parties would be getting talked to about rule-breaking.

DM Theophanies wrote:For the rules:
There's a bit of judgement in play here so it's hard to make broad sweeping proclamations about summons as the laws of the land change. I'll use BG as a frame of reference though:

It's illegal to summon anything at all (via the laws of the land). If you do so without first contacting the DMs to control the NPCs, you are godmodding. Period.

I do not see this as justification to PvP the person though, as that is still godmodding the guards.

If this scenario came across my desk, both parties would be getting talked to about rule-breaking.

Is killing the summon okay in this situation?

aaron22 wrote:You gotta give them a chance to defend the summon. Just up and killing the summon is ridiculous.

RP?

you should try it.

Well, I think you're misunderstanding my request for a rules clarification as me being pro-PvP or advocating for mindlessly aggressive RP. As I said before, I'm pretty averse to PvP. I actually agree that attacking all summons on sight is ridiculous. Nonetheless, I'd still like to know what the OOC rules are.

As far as attacking summons on sight, I'd say it definitely depends on the summon. Devils and demons could be attacked on sight (again, not saying I necessarily would do that, but it would make sense for them to be attacked on sight), but it wouldn't make sense for angels to be attacked on sight in lawful lands.

I am actually glad we're talking about RP, because the sight of angels should be a cause for awe and reverence for a lot of good-aligned characters, ICly speaking. And yet angels are thrown around as a casual RP prop or summoned for grinding. That is why I started this thread.

A cleric's Planar Ally spell would summon an angel who is presumably willing to help out. And that willingness doesn't seem plausible if they're just hanging out for campfire RP or something.

Come to think of it though, there IS a difference between Planar Ally and Planar Binding. As I understand it, Planar Binding can compel the summoned creature to obey the summoner. So I think angels could be kept in for Planar Binding (even though the PnP version of the spell allows the summoned creature to keep trying to resist the spell). However, if a good-aligned character figures out that the angel is being held against its will, PvP might be called for. I think that would be pretty appropriate RP.

DM Theophanies wrote:For the rules:
There's a bit of judgement in play here so it's hard to make broad sweeping proclamations about summons as the laws of the land change. I'll use BG as a frame of reference though:

It's illegal to summon anything at all (via the laws of the land). If you do so without first contacting the DMs to control the NPCs, you are godmodding. Period.

I do not see this as justification to PvP the person though, as that is still godmodding the guards.

If this scenario came across my desk, both parties would be getting talked to about rule-breaking.

Excellent, thanks for the clarification. Should the rule about consenting to PvP if you break the law be removed?

Also, I second Winterborne's question.

If it is in front of the guards, then no. Best thing to do is to take screen shots and report the rule-breaking to the DM team.

If there was a DM present, then of course they can control the guards. A quick message in the DM channel should give you confirmation or not.

I just find it's often a case of godmodding more than doing anything with consent of a DM and I would discourage further rule breaking. Typically I advise the DM team to handle these cases with OOC consequences instead of any IC action because I hold the philosophy to not reward rule-breaking with any attention, postive or negatively IC. So from that philosophy I also advise players to not attack and deal with the rule-breaking OOCly by documenting and reporting.

As for consenting to PvP I think it's still valid to remain in the rules. The only issue is that now the godmodding rule is still in the way vs if it happened in the wild with no guards (making it another scenario all together).

Aren't we all looking at this from the wrong angle? Isn't the root of the problem a 'munchinism' mindset that doesnt desire or respect the limited immersion our game & setting platform provides for us? Rules don't mean anything to players that don't care for them, neither does enforcing them as fiat.

Personally I'd like to see a gentle shift away from what I perceive as somewhat of a police-state carebear situation where the first response of players is to 'dob' others in to the DM (police) team, although DMs remain at the centre of such situations. I'd like to see something far more nuanced and complex, a place where DM controlled guards can honestly say, "Damn this is out of our control and means! Get [insert guild/pc name (s) here] to deal with this!" All of a sudden the perpetrator finds themselves at the centre of an IC situation which can then have additional ramifications (ranging from fines, imprisonment, exile to execution or hired bounty hunters) and promotes overall RP across the board. What better way to cure a refusal of immersion than to immerse them into consequences in the setting!

That is essentially a DM approved KoS/PvP situation. That can get messy in the individual cases, an will lead to favoritism accusation, whether warranted or not.

Again, another problematic mindset. Isn't it utterly impossible not to show 'favouritism'? If a DM is spending time with a group or person, by implication they're not spending time with others. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with pursuing the logical extension of RP at someone else's expense? Especially if they deserved it from IC actions that warrant a reaction. How is it 'favouritism' for a DM RPed Fist Officer to go to the Temple of Mystra and say, "Priestess Neela, we've been having reports of extraplanars frequenting the farmlands. Can you get your people to check it out and assess the threat, if any?"

These entities don't exist in a vacuum. There's a complex interrelationship, or should be, and the DMs can bring that to life and promote RP between NPC-PC-Guilds by doing so.

DM oversight of PvP has been some of the most amazing RP I've both generated and been involved with. The issue always has been the maturity of players to run with a narrative, especially when they're on the receiving end. And cudos to the players who have been willing to do so for me. My turn is coming very soon.

DM Theophanies wrote:As for consenting to PvP I think it's still valid to remain in the rules. The only issue is that now the godmodding rule is still in the way vs if it happened in the wild with no guards (making it another scenario all together).

Understood. But the rule specifically mentions "within city limits" so it is a bit confusing:

PvP Rules wrote:If you commit an IC crime either within city limits or in front of witnesses, you are considered to have consented to PvP for the players who have witnessed or been a victim of the crime, and no RP out is required.

Does this mean that if there are no guards around, breaking the law is no longer godmodding, so you can also PvP without breaking the OOC rules?
If that is correct, then I have a proposed redraft of that rule:

So long as no NPC guards are present, if you commit an IC crime either within city limits or in front of witnesses, you are considered to have consented to PvP for the players who have witnessed or been a victim of the crime, and no RP out is required. However, if guards are present (East Gate District, Eastern Farmlands, etc.), committing a crime and PvPing are both considered godmodding.

@Tsidkenu: I started this thread with that idea in mind, but I can see why it would actually reward godmodders by treating their largely OOC actions as IC. Say for example that all nearby player-characters are lowbies, and they get rofl-stomped by the godmodder. We'll just have a situation where mechanically powerful characters can continue breaking immersion with impunity, and everyone will be forced to treat it as IC. I will admit that it does create for a more stale RP environment, but shifting law enforcement to player-characters would probably just end up rewarding powerbuilders.

Regarding the favoritism issue, I'd better not get into it too much. I'll just say that I think it's a good idea for DMs to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. Making an effort to keep the trust of the playerbase is important, especially on a server as large as ours.

Certainly, it is impossible to completely avoid favoritism. We are humans, not robots. But the DM team is very conscious of it, and the appearance of it, as it causes them a great deal of head ach when the accusations happen - again, whether they are warranted or not. And indeed, in my experience, the cases that have gotten most widespread accusations of favoritism are the ones where it has been the least justifiable. Where the DM team has been the most careful in situations that would end up controversial regardless of outcome.

And some of the worst of those unjustified cases burned out the targetted DMs so badly that they quit, to the detriment of the server. Great DMs lost to nonsense accusations.

Bringing in more avenues for such simply does not seem ideal to me.

@Charraj- regarding your proposed changes which I'll not requote since they are listed right above, I like your idea but on the other side of it; it seems like a solution looking for a problem.

What I mean by this is, if the players are 'in the wild' then they are well within their rights to have a cadre of devils/demons/angels/whatever following them around. I personally would take great offense to someone calling me out for summoning creatures that are mechanically viable in game. Especially so if I was a Thaumaturge or build that was reliant on them.

So this makes the entire argument collapse IMHO. If they are within city limits / view of guards then you cannot engage them IC'ly because its been clarified by Head DM. Conversely, if you are in the hinterlands then you are basically provoking a confrontation because they are within their rights to open gates to whatever beings they choose.

Am I misunderstanding something? Because it seems like it is pretty binary at this point. My original statement regarding the IC behavior was entirely about the farmlands and places like that where I do see people wandering about with extra planar beings from time to time.

Oddly, I got my card pulled up recently for simply firing off Eldritch magic in the farmlands in character which is a far lesser offense than having an extra planar entity wandering about IMHO. Of course I'm going to kill the character that confronted me. But that is another story... (slowly tilts head towards evil RP thread)

It's exactly what i said on page 1...some people are just actively looking for reasons to just pvp/greive others for their own fun...

Well, I'll say for maybe the third time here, I'm not personally a fan of PvP. I'm not sure what else I can say. I understand that this thread's title might make it sound like I am a PvP junkie or something, but I consider PvP oftentimes an OOC hassle and I try to avoid it whenever possible.

Darkwind wrote:What I mean by this is, if the players are 'in the wild' then they are well within their rights to have a cadre of devils/demons/angels/whatever following them around. I personally would take great offense to someone calling me out for summoning creatures that are mechanically viable in game. Especially so if I was a Thaumaturge or build that was reliant on them.

I think maybe you are misunderstanding where I am coming from, yes. In the wilds, you are certainly within your OOC rights to open gates to whatever beings you choose. I agree with you there. But that is OOC. ICly speaking, however, it is entirely appropriate for a good-aligned character to call someone out for summoning undead/demons/devils. It might actually be poor RP for a paladin to ignore such a thing, for example.

TBH, I am a bit puzzled by your statement, "I personally would take great offense to someone calling me out for summoning creatures that are mechanically viable in game." I mean, we are in an RP server. Surely you aren't saying people should ignore your summons entirely? I am actually assuming you are NOT saying that, but I don't know what else you could mean by that statement.

Charraj wrote: I mean, we are in a MEDIUM RP server. Surely you aren't saying people should ignore your summons entirely?

Fixed that for ya. This is a critical distinction. I also get the impression perhaps you have been out and about much? There are LEGION amounts of extraplanar beings flitting about in all areas now. You would be a very very busy person if you took every single thaumaturge / summoner to task for inventorying their particular 'load out'.

What I mean is, and I'm uncertain how this is NOT clear? If I'm a Thaumaturge and someone ICly asks about the creatures I have, I would explain that my forte and mastery is controlling said creature and bending it to my will so it doesn't 'break loose' and cause hijinx. Either that is good enough, or we are going to come to blows over it. Then that loops back around into the 'looking for a reason to PvP' that several people have alluded to.

Were this a -high- RP server, this would be a much different animal entirely, but is not so there are some things that are routinely bent. This would be one of them. Doesn't mean you cannot ask the question or do anything ICly it simply means at the end of the day I'm quite doubtful if a Thaum / Summoner is going to reconsider his lifestyle and send his angels / devils / whatever away.

More clear now? Here to help...

The reason I was puzzled was because in your original statement in the other thread, you were advocating for people to handle things ICly:

Darkwind wrote:That is one way to handle it. Another way to handle it is IC'ly...

...

...So talk to the summoner IC, make them aware of the issue, and act accordingly afterwards.

So I was honestly unsure of your position when you then said:

Darkwind wrote:I personally would take great offense to someone calling me out for summoning creatures that are mechanically viable in game. Especially so if I was a Thaumaturge or build that was reliant on them.

I was thinking, "Wait I thought Darkwind prefers to stay IC?" So that is why I asked what I asked. I was not trying to be sarcastic or flippant, it was an earnest question to better understand your viewpoint. Which you then explained, so thank you.

I would agree there are now many extraplanar beings flitting about. I would prefer to handle things ICly, like you originally suggested, but I also agree some people would be OOCly offended, like you also mentioned. That is why I suggested re-skinning some of the summons. Then Thaumaturges can have their mechanically viable options, but it would not call for an adversarial IC response.

Until/unless that happens, I don't think medium RP means ignoring ICly objectionable summons. Indeed, the server rules say, "This server is considered "medium RP" and thus while some OOC behavior is permitted (such as grinding monsters and quests for experience/loot), when interacting with others please stay in-character (IC)..."

As a final note, it is certainly not my intention to offend you or upset you. It IS my intention, however, to advocate for people staying IC, even if they run into people while grinding. It sounds like we might be more or less on the same page about that, after you clarified your position.