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

VinnytheSquid wrote:As a point of clarification, I thought an attack on somebody's summoned companion was consenting to PvP. At least I was told that by former staff (older regime). Is this now incorrect? In Molag's example, the necromancer has a choice. He or she could try to play it off or kill the rogue (or try).

I'm all for a rule stating that if you attack someone's summons you auto consent to PvP with them. As I said, I thought we already had that rule. It seemed to me that Krazy was asking for something broader than that rule, which I wouldn't support.

No you, have to give an rp out to someone that kills your summons

VinnytheSquid wrote:As a point of clarification, I thought an attack on somebody's summoned companion was consenting to PvP. At least I was told that by former staff (older regime). Is this now incorrect? In Molag's example, the necromancer has a choice. He or she could try to play it off or kill the rogue (or try).

Summons can be attacked on sight, but normal PvP rules must be followed for the summoner (the player). The owner of the summons must also follow normal PvP rules in order to attack the killer of his or her summons. (Summons include any creature that can be summoned through a spell or an ability, and that is not a Familiar or an Animal Companion: These include angels, devils, elementals, and undead, among others.)

Source: http://www.bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3170

That's the current PvP guidelines, so yes, the necromancer would have to go through normal procedures etc. Mind you, that can be stating in no uncertain terms that they will PvP/attack the one who wants to attack your summon.

ok, belonging to the working class for a few weeks between semesters i will post less frequently trying to sum some things up:

first, the thing that summoning an undead/devil in front of others is PvP consent is something i read here..somwhere from..i think it was the head-DM. if i am wrong here i invite every DM who reads this (and i guess some do) to correct me, i will gladly welcome it! problem is here, as i mentioned before my IG experience that i already got attacked just for haveing my summon around what got ok'ed by a DM high up.

thing is, not everything stands in the rules for some reason, for example, this thread was (afaik) made after i posted something in a private guildforum regarding guild-events during which i was informed that a DM can, if the event calls for it, take away the pvp rules. not in the rules too, why that is beyond me.

concerning the "my char would attack undead" thing, how about this:
A sees B with an undead.
now A must either (before!) make clear that s/he thinks IC the summon is not the necromancers and attack it (and not just afterwards find it suspicous or whatever that there was said summon) or will, the moment s/he attacks it consent to PvP rules with its master?

edit: bonus points if that gets through for all creatures "oh my, no worries dear, i will save you before this angel can indoctrinate you with its fascist world view"

Lambe wrote:That is just bad form rp-wise from the attacker's side imho. If they know you did the summon, then they're nitpicking targets. Would be better if they avoided attacking altogether because they should know that they have two potential opponents to deal with if that's the case. Pvp rules were put up for the player's sake, it shouldn't be used to dictate how their character would react. Having said that, you can't have auto-consent set against the other guy for killing your summon, unless you know for sure that they know you summoned it.
For all they know, they were doing everybody a huge favor for killing such things. You can leave it at that or try to impose your evilness. That way, they also can't be spreading rumors about you without proof.

The rogue followed my character for five minutes, saw me summon the vampire in the first place, and is 100% certain that my character is evil and fond of summoning undead. He chose to reveal himself, killing my vampire in the process, to let my character know that he had been found out. However, as soon as my character made his intentions known, the rogue chose the "RP out" and walked away unscathed.

The rules don't elaborate on what taking the RP out entails. They don't state that backing down from PvP means that you forget the encounter and cannot act on information gained in the process. Therefore there is nothing to prevent the rogue from notifying the entire sword coast that my character is evil. Again, I am not suggesting that anyone actually abuses the rules in this manner, but they could if they wanted to. The rules are there to protect people that absolutely hate PvP. They also happen to make playing an evil character more difficult.

In the scenario outlined by Molag, I see it as the necromancer has no choice but to kill the rogue. And, in this scenario, it seems that the player is totally metagaming the outcome, since they know full well the PvP rules can be abused by taking the RP out, saving their toons arse, and then blabbing their "stolen information" around the server. I'd yell foul on the player!

Based on the toon's alignment/class/RP, the rogue should be killed straight away...not only as revenge for slaying the summons, but more importantly, to protect his identity.

If the PvP rules prevent this, or provide the player to OOC decide to take the "RP out" so that they can later have their toon inform the rest of the server about the necromancer, then again, we have a setup here were RPing your evil-aligned toon and RPing your class is at a disadvantage, and makes for much weaker RP overall.

Players of evil-aligned toons shouldn't be forced to have their toons "act fair" because of OOC rules. It's one thing to be an evil asshat and go around griefing everything that moves, and quite another to be put into a obvious situation where your character cannot but lash out, and unfortunately, break the PvP rules.

However, I do understand that without current PvP rules, some awful griefing could go on. Therefore the onus is really on the players to settle the situation...unfortunately, it would most likely occur OOC:

Necro player: "OK, you are taking the RP out here, and because by the PvP rules I can't just outright have my necro kill your rogue—which would be totally in-character RP wise—we shall agree that you do not know I'm a necromancer. You only know that I was near an evil summons."
Rogue player: "OK, I agree that that is all my toon knows."

Obviously, we have to assume that the 2 players here are also aware enough to respect things like not meta-gaming names, facial features, etc.. Again, the current PvP rules require quite a bit from players, in order to make it all go smoothly. Unfortunately, it doesn't often go all that smoothly...

The thing about PvP that I don't understand is: it costs your toon nothing! Except, a memory wipe of all that recently transpired between your toon and the other. Since more often enough, the "Send to Home Location" script misfires, and you can just walk away from the encounter. No real harm done.

The only thing that gets hurt in PvP is player ego, I guess, which can be irreparable!

Actually, you do not even need to take Molag's out, you can just log off for the day and on the next, start spilling the beans. Should any objections arise, you can simply claim that you got disconnected, and could not log back in. No one is going to prove you wrong.

In fact, considering how often I tend to get disconnected, I would not have a moment of suspicion when someone else makes the claim of having gotten disconnected.

So... what do I do with those Evil Necromancers with Undead dates when playing with my holy roller? I simply ask whether they want that egoistical e-penis waggling or if they would prefer both of us pretending that we never met.

Molag__Bal wrote: The rules don't elaborate on what taking the RP out entails. They don't state that backing down from PvP means that you forget the encounter and cannot act on information gained in the process. Therefore there is nothing to prevent the rogue from notifying the entire sword coast that my character is evil. Again, I am not suggesting that anyone actually abuses the rules in this manner, but they could if they wanted to. The rules are there to protect people that absolutely hate PvP. They also happen to make playing an evil character more difficult.

The rule isn't restrictive :

PvP Rules wrote:RP outs include fleeing, surrendering, apologizing, trying to change the subject, diverting the hostility elsewhere, etc.

It's up to the necromancer to provide a RP out where his cover won't be blown. Nothing in the rules forces him to let the rogue flee freely with the info.

To Lambe's point about rumors, anyone can spread rumors about anything. Facts aren't needed, that's why they're rumors.

To Molag's and Krazy's point, I personally think it should be hard to play an evil character and evil characters should take considerable precautions to avoid detection. HOWEVER, in the scenario you described I think attacking the summons should consent them to PVP. Heck, I think the rogue's claim that he's going to out the necromancer should consent him or her to PvP. To me, a threat is a threat. Threatening to go to the guards to have you killed or arrested is no better than threatening to stab you. Also, people that don't want to PvP shouldn't gank other's summons.

All of that said, if some ranger happens to stumble upon a necromancer summoning an undead in the woods and just wants to run away, then I think he or she should be allowed to do that. If the necromancer didn't take any precautions to hide him- or herself, then that's just poor planning on his or her part. Not a perfect reality, but it seems fair to me in the game sense.

Valefort wrote:

PvP Rules wrote:RP outs include fleeing, surrendering, apologizing, trying to change the subject, diverting the hostility elsewhere, etc.

It's up to the necromancer to provide a RP out where his cover won't be blown. Nothing in the rules forces him to let the rogue flee freely with the info.

As the necromancer becomes hostile, the rogue turns around and flees towards civilization. As per the quote you provided, that is his RP out.

Or perhaps he decides to apologize to the necromancer for killing his vampire, then walks off. As per the quote, apologizing is also an option.

Either way, the rogue avoids PvP and gets to walk off with the knowledge that he gained.

In my opinion, the "out" from PvP should be called an "OOC Out", for players that don't want to get involved in PvP. In the situation that I have described, there is no way in hell my evil necromancer is going to let the rogue flee, apologize etc. He is going to do whatever is necessary to prevent him from spreading the truth about my character, and that probably means trying to kill the rogue. If you give an "OOC Out", the encounter is treated as though it never happened.

I am really intrigued by your OOC out idea Molag. I am a little worried that it might reduce RP opportunities, and/or confusion about the exact agreement. It seems like a fair approach for you specific example, but I can visualize abuses by necromancers or other "bad guys."

Edit: Examples include poorly planned or blatant acts of evil then "OOC out or die" just to provoke PvP or disrupt others RP.. I think examples on both sides (e.g., Molag's rogue, my bullying example) are "poor form" for RP.

That's if you let the rogue choose the RP out, which shouldn't happen, the agressor has to provide an RP out not the other way around.

Another good example is when one of my toons was in an assassins guild. We had a meeting of 5 or so assassins, in a rather discrete place which no one goes. We snuck down there, making it hard for people to follow. Yet, a low level Orc somehow still wandered down there to explore, and we killed him after some brief RP.

There was also no way in hell we were going to let any character take that information and flee. An OOC out would have been nice if he didn't want to get killed. There was really no other option...

"We'll let you go, but don't tell anyone about us, random person you!" fingers wag, hands place on hips.

gelatoghost wrote:Another good example is when one of my toons was in an assassins guild. We had a meeting of 5 or so assassins, in a rather discrete place which no one goes. We snuck down there, making it hard for people to follow. Yet, a low level Orc somehow still wandered down there to explore, and we killed him after some brief RP.

There was also no way in hell we were going to let any character take that information and flee. An OOC out would have been nice if he didn't want to get killed. There was really no other option...

"We'll let you go, but don't tell anyone about us, random person you!" fingers wag, hands place on hips.

Actually I believe that particular incident is covered under the trespassing umbrella.

I know, I'm talking about a similar situation to what's discussed above, where your "evil" character is caught and the rules make it so people can just run away and you can't do anything about it, letting them leak your secrets free of charge. Some sort of OOC out rule where they can't leak your secrets without any penalties would be nice. I wouldn't care either way, to be honest, just giving a little imput.

In the situation Molag described, this is what I would do if I were the nefarious schemer: IC *gives the RP out* while OOC tell: "if you flee, the maximum you can report is: I saw a guy wearing black with a vampire in (insert location here). Nothing else. Otherwise, you die here".

So far, in my experience, this has always worked well...