CaraKeltry wrote:
Recently my char Cara was killed in CvC at Mirtho Rest.
She was raised by some friends and collected her belongings and stayed at Mirtho talking and rp'ing with them.
This one sentence says it all.
Since the character was raised by FRIENDS and not by the enemy and not through walking out of the halls, the no returning rule does not apply. That rule is for people who walk out of the death plane on their own, or are OOCly raised by the kill for niceness sake.
Since this person was raised by friends, then the rule does not apply and the character could mouth off, retaliate immediately, or generally do whatever they ICly wanted to do without fear of breaking the GA.[/b]
I was doing some cvc research and came across this thread. Is this ruling/statement made by Arkon still in effect?
EX: player X is dp'd by player Y. player X is raised by his/her friend player Z. player X then dp's player Y immeadiately after being raised without waiting for twenty four rl hours.
my question is: Is player X still covered by the GA after he dp's player Y as he/she was raised by friends? Or did player X break the GA by not grabbing his/her gear and leaving the area?
Would be nice to get dm input on this. My thanks for any comments.
Another question in regards to cvc in relation to setting to Hostile before cvc.
Ex: player X and player Y are standing right next to each other. They are in the same party and are well known allies of each other. Player Z walks up and starts threatening player Y. Player Z sets player Y to hostile and then attacks.
Question: does player X have to set player Z to hostile before attacking, even though Z just attacked a person in his party right in front of him?
If player X does still have to set player Z to hostile before coming to the aid of player Y, is there a way to make it so that player Z automatically turns hostile to X when Z sets Y to hostile since X is in Ys party?
My apologies for the slightly complex player xyz example. Thanks for any answers.
The reason for setting someone to hostile is that the saves for some spells/powers react differently when someone is friendly versus someone who is hostile, (or something to that effect).
It's one of those grey areas. It would be good form for Z to set the whole group to hostile first, even if he is just attacking one person in the group. If Z doesn't set everyone to hostile, then X should set to hostile before attacking Z, even if its just to avoid OOC animosity.
silverdragonams wrote:But the person you are beating might be a mage
It's one of those grey areas. It would be good form for Z to set the whole group to hostile first, even if he is just attacking one person in the group. If Z doesn't set everyone to hostile, then X should set to hostile before attacking Z, even if its just to avoid OOC animosity.
So what you're saying is that player Z should set both X and Y to hostile as they are known allies, but if player Z didn't, then player X should set Z to hostile?
As for the mage. If I was fighting one of them, I would just spam dispells and hope I didn't die. No club bashing there.
It is the responsibility of each individual person entering CvC combat to set hostile. We realize that there are situations where setting to hostile may be difficult or a general pita, such as spur of the moment incidents, however Hostile should be set as soon as possible by a person entering into CvC.
IE If your friend is getting the crap beat out of then and you want to help. You should set the offender to Hostile prior to getting involved as much as possible.
There are no real set rules for this, all of this is governed by the Gentleman's Agreement to CvC.
So it would be considered bad form to not set to hostile before coming to your friends aid, but it would not get you in trouble with the team, just the other players invovled?
Just to go back a bit, just because X and Y are known allies does not mean Z would know that, or, even if he did, that he's planning to attack both. My opinion would be that Z should set hostile whomever he is planning to attack, and whoever wishes to come to X's (or was it Y's) aid should then set Z to hostile.
[And why wouldn't you set to hostile, ace4lyyfe? Too much trouble? Heat of the battle forgetfulness? C) Other?]
Druid523 wrote:[And why wouldn't you set to hostile, ace4lyyfe? Too much trouble? Heat of the battle forgetfulness? C) Other?]
I'm seeing what is and is not allowed, so that if Scel were to come walking up and attacks Drigo right in front of Hafgan, I don't have to take the time to set Scel to hostile before Hafgan kills him.
However, as someone else put it, I think i'll just set everyone to hostile and sort it out later.
Basically, if you're initiating CvC with someone that's part of a group, unless you know for certain that the people they are with ~won't~ intervene, then it's best to set the whole group to hostile straight off.
Not setting hostile to the rest could almost be construed as abuse of a game mechanic if the others are casters, knowing that they would have to find you on the player list and set you to hostile before quite a number of their spells would have any effect. This would all have to be done during time that you're beating away on their friend and may be the deciding factor on who's still standing at the end of it all.
[i]"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." [/i]
Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Actually Psye.. I'd have to refute this one. It's not always possible to know if someone is in a party with someone else or if they are all just hanging out together. It is responsible for the others in that group to set the attacker to hostile if they wish to intervene on their friends behalf.
Right then, so the official standing is that if you wish to come to your friends aid, you must set to hostile, even if they were attacked right in front of you while they were in your party.
IMHO This whole thing is degenerating into the sort of munchkin rules lawyering that I am happy we don't see very often on Hala. The gentlemen's agreement is supposed to prevent ruffled feathers, not give someone a 2-3 round advantage in beating on someone while their friends hurry to set the attacking person to "Hostile".
There have been many occasions in Hala where I've been attacked or have attacked someone without first setting to "Hostile". RP is a very fluid, sometimes fast paced thing. In all of the occasions I refer to, it was very evident that blows were going to be exchanged, and no one has had any problems, to my knowledge with how things went.
I know that if someone were to attack a friend of Seamus' that he was in conversation with, I would immediately consider that person "hostile" and respond accordingly. At the very least I would knock them to the ground. I am certainly not going to let them sit there and take free shots while I fumble with a game mechanic. If someone were to attack Seamus' wife, they wouldn't even get the courtesy of a knockdown before they were visiting the death plane.
If you pick a fight in front of a crowd of people, expect consequences. I think most players on Hala are mature enough to handle this sort of thing without running off to the DM team.
There have been many occasions in Hala where I've been attacked or have attacked someone without first setting to "Hostile". RP is a very fluid, sometimes fast paced thing. In all of the occasions I refer to, it was very evident that blows were going to be exchanged, and no one has had any problems, to my knowledge with how things went.
Me too.
I know that if someone were to attack a friend of Seamus' that he was in conversation with, I would immediately consider that person "hostile" and respond accordingly. At the very least I would knock them to the ground. I am certainly not going to let them sit there and take free shots while I fumble with a game mechanic. If someone were to attack Seamus' wife, they wouldn't even get the courtesy of a knockdown before they were visiting the death plane.
Same here.
If you pick a fight in front of a crowd of people, expect consequences.
Amen!
In short I agree with Seamus, and would do or have done the same things.
The reasoning for setting people to hostile,are as Arkon stated with spells and such.And if you do not set someone to hostile before acting,and you are reported then accept the punishment if it is reported.Same goes with if you are assisting anyone that already involved in any CvC,even if you heal them,then it is your responsibility to make sure you set the correct people to hostile.
The rules have been stated,and I think pretty clearly.Yes...CvC is allowed,but lets not forget this is an RP server.
Look folks.. As i said, it's not always possible or prudent to set someone to hostile in a situation as described above prior to getting involved in the combat. However. Combat is automatic. Once you tell your character to attack, there is little to nothing you have to do to keep them swinging while you switch to the screen to set the person to hostile.
The point is, as it has always been when dealing with hostility and such. Set the person to hostile as soon as possible when you know you will be CvCing them.
THAT is what this is refering to.
On most servers the GA is an agreement between players. On Hala, given the amount of CvC this world has always had, it is also minorly regulated by the team.
Just my .02, but as I understand it setting someone to hostile is a strictly OOC action. That being the case, if my char is in a situation where CvC is likely to occur, my personal practice is to set my char hostile early on. This makes it much easier to RP the situation without worrying about mechanics and such. If the situation does not result in CvC, no big deal I just toggle hostile off, no harm done
