CVC Dislike / Like

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

One other point. Setting someone to dislike is a completly OOC action. So I disagree with the idea that you should react to it at all, such as if you are talking face to face with someone and they set you to dislike, you should not assume that means that character is getting agressive or looking hostile to you.

Here my friend is where I disagree.

I think it would be metagaming if you logged in and set me to dislike and I immediatly started buffing because I expected an attack. Thats taking the OOC notion of being set to hostile and applying it ICly.

However if you were arguing with me and we clearly were geting angry with each other and you set me to hostile I would conclude that you took a much more agressive stance towards me ICly.

Perhaps your character started tightening straps on their armor, grabbed their sword and pulled it half way out of the scabbard, started chating/praying softly, reached in your pocket and started mixing spell components, squared your shoulders off towards me or even jusy (though importantly) the tone of your voice and your characters bearing.

In that situation I would see setting someone to hostile as an IC action with IC consiquences.

Not setting someone to hostile across a server. In that case I would assume that if and when I DID meet someone they would immediately be hostile towards me and look like their ready to jump me.

[ace4lyyfe]

However if you were arguing with me and we clearly were geting angry with each other and you set me to hostile I would conclude that you took a much more agressive stance towards me ICly.

Perhaps your character started tightening straps on their armor, grabbed their sword and pulled it half way out of the scabbard, started chating/praying softly, reached in your pocket and started mixing spell components, squared your shoulders off towards me or even jusy (though importantly) the tone of your voice and your characters bearing.

In that situation I would see setting someone to hostile as an IC action with IC consiquences.

It has been stated before, turning someone to dislike is completely Out Of Character. If you did respond after someone set you to hostile, it would be your fault that things went to physical blows, not theirs.

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

Well back when I joined Hala a couple of years ago the same kind of issue was addressed and it was decided that setting someone to hostile while interacting with them was an IC action, which is where I'm basing my comment from. Was it in this thread that your refering to it being stated that it's OOC regardless of the situation?

because

If someone sets hostile while there is some obvious conflict between PC's - arguments, misunderstandings, revenge, hatred, etc, etc - then that could be perceived as taking an aggressive stance. It doesn't mean that they are definitely going to attack, just that the tension has effectively risen a level.may be enough for some to attack under the pretence of 'self defence'

That seems pretty clear cut and supports my point.
What reference are you using?

[ace4lyyfe]

Setting hostile in itself is an OOC action - and also a requirement if you intend to initiate any kind of physical CvC (fighting, spells, psionic abilities)

See here

If you're not sure why someone has set you to hostile - they're normally a friend, you've never met them before, etc, etc - then a quick 'tell' to the player will establish if it was a mistake or not. They may not have even realised they'd done it.

If someone sets hostile while there is some obvious conflict between PC's - arguments, misunderstandings, revenge, hatred, etc, etc - then that could be perceived as taking an aggressive stance. It doesn't mean that they are definitely going to attack, just that the tension has effectively risen a level. This may be enough for some to attack under the pretence of 'self defence' -

You missed the rest...

"I thought they were going to kill me, so I just killed them first" - but to the eyes of any witnesses, they are then the person that attacked first.

As I said, someone turning you to hostile is an OOC action, and if your character does react to it...

you are then the person that attacked first.

[Akai]

Given that players are trained by the game mechanics to interpret the red glow as hostile body language, it would make sense for a PC who is planning to set another PC to hostile, yet not act hostile, to emote along the lines of, *continues to seem calm and relaxed* or whatever demeanor is appropriate.

[ace4lyyfe]

Given that players are trained by the game mechanics to interpret the red glow as hostile body language, it would make sense for a PC who is planning to set another PC to hostile, yet not act hostile, to emote along the lines of, *continues to seem calm and relaxed* or whatever demeanor is appropriate.

Correct, but if that player doesn't do those emotes, the other player can't just take it as an IC action that he was set to hostile and start swinging. If he does, then he will have struck the first blow.

[T'Holoth Shadowborn]

Your missing the point.

Your character is attacking because of a percieved threat from an individual.

You could argue that to everyone else it would look like your starting the fight, as indicated, but if i was being a complete dickhead to you then you attacked me everyone would clearly understand why you choose to do that.

[Xanthalas]

I've always been under the impression. That setting someone to hostile was an IC action, due to the large amount of mechanics based upon it. (Familiars attacking, heh.) I know this has come up before, And I though that when someone has gone Hostile, that drawing your weapon in reply, was not metagaming, due to the "vibe" you get from them, (Should be why they set you to hostile anyways.) Personally, if someone even looks at me wrong, or makes me feel a bit uncomfotable, I pick the nearest stool up and swing till the crunching noise turns squishy.

(That last part is called dark humor, for those of you who are suddenly offended and/or freaked out.)

[ace4lyyfe]

Your missing the point.

Your character is attacking because of a percieved threat from an individual.

You could argue that to everyone else it would look like your starting the fight, as indicated, but if i was being a complete dickhead to you then you attacked me everyone would clearly understand why you choose to do that.

I'm not missing the point, I think we're both saying close to the same thing, just in different ways.

Yes, if you were being a complete jerk to me, and then I attacked you, everyone would say "ooh! Tholoth got attacked because he was being a jerk." However, if during our conversation you turned me to hostile, and then I attacked, I could not say "ooh! I thought I saw him drawing a knife, so I attacked." There was no subtle movements, no 'i saw him clench his jaw and thought he was going to attack.' The entire 'setting to hostile' was ooc and therefore I couldn't blame my actions on it by saying "I sensed he was going to attack," or anything else.

If I'm wrong on this, it would be nice if a dm spoke up and clarified whether or not setting to hostile is a Out Of Character action.

Personally, if someone even looks at me wrong, or makes me feel a bit uncomfotable, I pick the nearest stool up and swing till the crunching noise turns squishy.

(That last part is called dark humor, for those of you who are suddenly offended and/or freaked out.)

heh heh

[ChukchiDog]

<< The entire 'setting to hostile' was ooc and therefore I couldn't blame my actions on it by saying "I sensed he was going to attack," or anything else. >>

As I understand it, Tholoth (and others) are saying exactly that. That setting someone to hostile is or can be considered an IC action, but only if you are face to face with someone and involved in an interaction. Under those circumstances, runs this argument, it is reasonable to assume that IC you will see a change in demeanor, and may feel threatened enough to attack first. In that case yes, you could then say that you sensed he was going to attack, or that you saw his jaw clench or you thought he was going for his weapon or whatever. From what I can tell from reading this discussion, this seems to be the way things are done on this server. That's the right of the people running it, and I'm cool with it, of course.

However, I do respectfully disagree with it, and here's why:

First, say someone doesn't like you. He logs on and sets you to hostile. Then he comes and finds you and you get into a face-to-face discussion. If you then attack him at some point, can you legitimately make the same argument that you felt threatend? If not, should you be penalized due to when someone else decided to take an OOC action? It does not make sense to me.

Next, and more importantly, what if, as I said, you have a character that is very good at hiding his true intentions? Or a crazy character that seems completely fine until the moment he snaps? A case could certainly be made for a very perceptive/insightful character to make a roll to see if he could tell that character was about to do something, but under such circumstances it is my feeling that using the setting to hostile as an indicator of IC hostile intent would be unfair.

So I would rather setting to hostile were completely OOC.

[Dengar]

So if I were to go and kill some noob(not that I ever would) and then loot him, and then I came here and said "I screwed up, my bad" would you say well done? Just curious

That is Totally unacceptable. Not even just killing the poor sod, but Looting them as well. "when looting you are allowed to take one small replacable item, EX. Mint, a gem, a potion"



But, I am not a DM, I think I read that in one of their posts. These are all under server rules forum.


viewtopic.php?t=2757[url][/url]


and there it is.

But would I be correct to asume you can take all of the gems, and said lootable items, or use a little humility? That would be a question for the Dms.



Further more. When Setting someone to dislike, more times then not, it's when there is an IC confrontation. But even I as my Drow, will come on and set everyone to dislike... that is except my Family members. But as T'holoth said, that is no reason for someone in Mirtho to start buffing, because they see a So'Riatin set them to Dislike.

An just because I could walk into Mirtho while every one there is on dislike, and I am glowing red. Doesn't mean you would even recognize me, or even know of my intentions. I could just be going to check on the driders, or grabbing a particular flower.

Common sense.

I've played with Perin as Dimwick, and enjoy his company... seems like an honest mistake... can't say it hasn't happened to me or others I've known before. Props for the appology, but it's not up to us to forgive, it is between the two characters. Deal with it IC.

Everybody should read and understand the rules.
I've been too close to the dog house not to, don't be like me, save yourselves the time, and hassel.


=) Have a great day/night

Bee

[Lord Droke]

Like/dislike are game mechanics, you dont see them ic so thats it. Though I do agree there are exceptions, chars fighting before hand, chars allready gunning for one another, etc. All this is has been said I think though, but I want to post anyway.

[ace4lyyfe]

<< The entire 'setting to hostile' was ooc and therefore I couldn't blame my actions on it by saying "I sensed he was going to attack," or anything else. >>

As I understand it, Tholoth (and others) are saying exactly that. That setting someone to hostile is or can be considered an IC action, but only if you are face to face with someone and involved in an interaction. Under those circumstances, runs this argument, it is reasonable to assume that IC you will see a change in demeanor, and may feel threatened enough to attack first. In that case yes, you could then say that you sensed he was going to attack, or that you saw his jaw clench or you thought he was going for his weapon or whatever. From what I can tell from reading this discussion, this seems to be the way things are done on this server. That's the right of the people running it, and I'm cool with it, of course.

However, I do respectfully disagree with it, and here's why:

First, say someone doesn't like you. He logs on and sets you to hostile. Then he comes and finds you and you get into a face-to-face discussion. If you then attack him at some point, can you legitimately make the same argument that you felt threatend? If not, should you be penalized due to when someone else decided to take an OOC action? It does not make sense to me.

Next, and more importantly, what if, as I said, you have a character that is very good at hiding his true intentions? Or a crazy character that seems completely fine until the moment he snaps? A case could certainly be made for a very perceptive/insightful character to make a roll to see if he could tell that character was about to do something, but under such circumstances it is my feeling that using the setting to hostile as an indicator of IC hostile intent would be unfair.

So I would rather setting to hostile were completely OOC.

First off, until a dm posts here and says that setting someone to hostile is not an OOC action, I will continue to treat it as an OOC action.

And as for

From what I can tell from reading this discussion, this seems to be the way things are done on this server. That's the right of the people running it, and I'm cool with it, of course.

I havn't seen a dm post here yet and make an official ruling on the OOC hostile setting, so it's still up in the air it would seem.

That is Totally unacceptable. Not even just killing the poor sod, but Looting them as well. "when looting you are allowed to take one small replacable item, EX. Mint, a gem, a potion"

But, I am not a DM, I think I read that in one of their posts. These are all under server rules forum.

For one thing I was asking a hypothetical question as I would never dp a noob without reason and then loot him, and secondly, someone could loot whatever they wanted. It's not a server rule, it's a GA rule, and if someone were to not follow the GA, they would just not be covered by it.

So, could a dm please clarify as to whether setting someone to hostile is completely OOC or not?

[LadyPhoenix77]

First off, until a dm posts here and says that setting someone to hostile is not an OOC action, I will continue to treat it as an OOC action.

I havn't seen a dm post here yet and make an official ruling on the OOC hostile setting, so it's still up in the air it would seem.

So, could a dm please clarify as to whether setting someone to hostile is completely OOC or not?

A DM answered that question quite clearly on the first page of this thread.

Setting hostile in itself is an OOC action - and also a requirement if you intend to initiate any kind of physical CvC (fighting, spells, psionic abilities)

See here

If you're not sure why someone has set you to hostile - they're normally a friend, you've never met them before, etc, etc - then a quick 'tell' to the player will establish if it was a mistake or not. They may not have even realised they'd done it.

If someone sets hostile while there is some obvious conflict between PC's - arguments, misunderstandings, revenge, hatred, etc, etc - then that could be perceived as taking an aggressive stance. It doesn't mean that they are definitely going to attack, just that the tension has effectively risen a level. This may be enough for some to attack under the pretence of 'self defence' - "I thought they were going to kill me, so I just killed them first" - but to the eyes of any witnesses, they are then the person that attacked first.

Every situation will be unique, so as per usual, common sense is a big factor here and any/all hostilities should already be being RP'd accordingly. (Assassinations etc are a different ball-game altogether)

This particular instance is shown to have been via a misunderstanding, so my suggestion would be a lot of IC grovelling for forgiveness from Perin and some kind of random excuse, such as "I thought you were someone else that's attacked me before"


One last point: Under NO circumstances must anyone ever initiate CvC with any PC that is using a merchant/crafting placeable or anything else that would have them caught in any kind of conversation loop.

[ace4lyyfe]

Correct me if I'm wrong then, but if someone sets you to hostile while they're standing right in front of you, you may consider it yet another escalation to the argument/fight, and it is on the same level as the other player casting an offensive spell at you or swinging a sword.

[Idonia]

One last point: Under NO circumstances must anyone ever initiate CvC with any PC that is using a merchant/crafting placeable or anything else that would have them caught in any kind of conversation loop.

What are the consequences of this?

[LadyPhoenix77]

Correct me if I'm wrong then, but if someone sets you to hostile while they're standing right in front of you, you may consider it yet another escalation to the argument/fight, and it is on the same level as the other player casting an offensive spell at you or swinging a sword.

Do you have some sort of reading impairment, or do you just ignore everything that DM's have said. I will once again refer you to the post on the first page, which I quoted in my last post, and I will quote again, I will even highlight the portion that answers the very question that you are asking.

Setting hostile in itself is an OOC action - and also a requirement if you intend to initiate any kind of physical CvC (fighting, spells, psionic abilities)

See here

If you're not sure why someone has set you to hostile - they're normally a friend, you've never met them before, etc, etc - then a quick 'tell' to the player will establish if it was a mistake or not. They may not have even realised they'd done it.

If someone sets hostile while there is some obvious conflict between PC's - arguments, misunderstandings, revenge, hatred, etc, etc - then that could be perceived as taking an aggressive stance. It doesn't mean that they are definitely going to attack, just that the tension has effectively risen a level. This may be enough for some to attack under the pretence of 'self defence' - "I thought they were going to kill me, so I just killed them first" - but to the eyes of any witnesses, they are then the person that attacked first.

Every situation will be unique, so as per usual, common sense is a big factor here and any/all hostilities should already be being RP'd accordingly. (Assassinations etc are a different ball-game altogether)

This particular instance is shown to have been via a misunderstanding, so my suggestion would be a lot of IC grovelling for forgiveness from Perin and some kind of random excuse, such as "I thought you were someone else that's attacked me before"


One last point: Under NO circumstances must anyone ever initiate CvC with any PC that is using a merchant/crafting placeable or anything else that would have them caught in any kind of conversation loop.

As for Imp's question, the same as for any other rules violations or infractions.

[Shadowstalker74]

Thanks for making it clear LP. Interesting stuff.

Correct me if I'm wrong then, but if someone sets you to hostile while they're standing right in front of you, you may consider it yet another escalation to the argument/fight, and it is on the same level as the other player casting an offensive spell at you or swinging a sword.

Hahaa! Ace do you keep forgetting you asked this question cause you're drunk or something?

[ace4lyyfe]

Hahaa! Ace do you keep forgetting you asked this question cause you're drunk or something?

meh, something like that.