Pangaea-world.dk

Monad wrote:Updated rules:
If a religion/guild declare war, on another religion/guild, on thier alter/guildstone, and the religion declared war opun, doesent accept. Then the party not accepting the war, may not carry out acts of war, on the declaring party. If this isn’t uphold one warning will be given, If the acts of war doesn’t stop after this warning, then the war will be declared on both sides. This rule doesn't apply to red factions because murderers can be universally attacked for the sole reason being red. If however there are constant attacks toward the red guild/religion, GM can initiate a war on his own discretion but it cannot be requested by players

Am I the only one who sees an issue here? If I understood this right the rule only applies to two blue guilds. However, if blue guilds fight against each other without 'war' they will turn to red guilds and then the rule no longer applies.

Example.
Guild A and B are both blue guilds. Guild A declares a war against guild B. Guild B doesn't accept it. Guild A kills members of guild B. Guild B, knowing the rules, doesn't retaliate. Guild A continues to kill them. Guild A is turned red after multiple kills. Guild B and everyone else is now free to kill guild A without a war because they are now red.

This really, truly, makes no sense.

[Edit] Sorry if there's a topic about this already, but I haven't paid much attention to the forums lately, mostly only read the announcements.

Why would blue guild A keep on killing guild B if they're both blue and war is not accepted knowing that they will be turned red sooner or later? If they're stupid enough to do that then it's not a rule problem what the consequences are, but player have knowingly made their choice.

Monad wrote:Why would blue guild A keep on killing guild B if they're both blue and war is not accepted knowing that they will be turned red sooner or later? If they're stupid enough to do that then it's not a rule problem what the consequences are, but player have knowingly made their choice.

Yes, exactly! It's stupid, but if they WANT to war because of RP reasons but the other one refuses it - even if solid RP reasons. Say I run a merchant guild and I have competition which I want to eliminate without lowering prices to ridiculous low - which in turn they only do the same. What if I want to make decision and eliminate them for good, but can't.

Or there's two mercenary guilds which compete for customers. One is prepared to fight the other, but the other won't accept it.

If these things can't happen, then please Sir Monad, tell me WHY is there an option for war? I understand that a kill is a kill and forbidden by law and Law and as such shouldn't happen that easily. But, as it is now a war onyl be declared between two FRIENDLY guilds who want to have some "sparring" and little fun. However, in this case they could as well just ALLY instead. After all, between friends there will most likely be no looting anyway so this is simple rendering the whole thing useless.

The war option makes no sense.

Also, with this rule change there's really no need to punish "red players" anymore. Instead change the rule that "A robber can be attacked anywhere" because as it is now only a robber is allowed to loot everyone and therefore get looted. A random red, however, cannot loot people without being a robber or at war (Which no one will accept for obvious reasons of not needing to). A random red, therefore, is on the same plate as a random blue player. That said, the random red player should be protected from random blue AND other red players unless either the blue or red player is 1) a robber or 2) at war 3) a member of Law.

Random red players are players just like anyone else. Robbers are players as well, but robbers gain a lot and lose alot, why should the remaining players suffer for their actions now that the looting is restricted only to robbers?

I repeat, only a robber should be allowed to be killed and looted by anyone for any reason. They are the only ones who can do the same to anyone else and as such should be treated the 'worst'. Every other red player can be killed by everyone, but not looted unless you are at war, a robber yourself or a member of Law.

You never had the option of warring with pure RP reason. The acts of war must be met.

- Boris

Boris wrote:You never had the option of warring with pure RP reason. The acts of war must be met.

- Boris

I got plenty of SS that meets the acts of war.

I agree that reds can be attacked for the solely reason of being red.
But then the attackers should be ready to be counter-attacked.

It's logic in both RP and OOC sense.

Unless I can put it under Revenge rule? Then it's all good.

If a blue player attacks me and I got SS of that. I can RP "Revenge" according to the rules and kill this blue player next time I see him. Normal PvP rules.

Boris wrote:You never had the option of warring with pure RP reason. The acts of war must be met.

- Boris

So, that only raises another huge problem. Monad said in another topic that the 'war' option is mostly made for blue guilds who want to RP a war. However, to declare war you must first meet the acts of war - as in ATTACK. If you attack one as a blue guild, you get turned red rendering, once again, the war useless.

You and Monad are contradicting each other pretty often. And obviously, the rule makes no sense.

Monad wrote:War rules have nothing to do with reds as mentioned. They are free to be attacked/looted without wars. Thats one of the downside being murderer.

Monad wrote:You should understand that the war option/rule is mainly made so blue guilds could RP a mutually agreed war with each other without collecting murder counts.

There's been discussion on Common Religion forum to handle/change rules and set-ups.

If all religions are auto-warring each other, there are no problems.
Then we could create new war rules purely on guid-guild and guild-religion.

- Boris

Boris wrote: Then we could create new war rules purely on guild-guild and guild-religion.

- Boris

This sounds promising.
The rules are very old and not made for something like robber status etc.

i must agree with darian.
everyone is free to not accept the war, and in that case, the guild that attacks should suffer the consequences and be turned red. but the stupid thing is, like darian said, why is there a war option anyway?if two guilds are at war with eachother then it's all fine by law and they don't get murdercounts?

"oh no problem, they can kill eachother, they both agreed to it so we're all fine"
-a law officer

sounds a bit strange to me, but oh well, it's to prevent endless murdercounts everywhere, i get it.
but since reds are not necessarily robbers with this .robber tag thing, i think it's a bit harsh that they are treated like free meat.

also, with darian said with the acts of war makes perfect sense. first you kill them, then you get red, then they don't have to attack you and get murdercounts themselves, they just kill and loot you and become forever blue

it's hard to come up with a working way i guess?

Glarundis wrote:it's hard to come up with a working way i guess?

It's actually very simple. And we should try to keep it as simple as well. I'd personally love to see the old system where you could kill anyone you want as long as it's "RPed". And if you killed someone, you were allowed to loot whatever you wanted. However, it seems that time is in the past so then I'd suggest the following.

Killing and looting:

1. A robber (Blue or red) can be attacked, killed and looted anywhere by anyone solely on the reason that he is tagged a robber.
2. A red player who is not a robber can be attacked by everyone, but only looted by a robber, a member of Law or a guild in war.
3. A blue player who is not a robber can be attacked by everyone, but only looted by a robber or a guild in war.

Warring:
If one party is being attacked verbally or physically multiple times by another group, either party can declare a war. Should the attacks continue after the declaration the war must be accepted - GM forced if otherwise not accepted.

Although it doesn't make sense that Law would allow random guilds to kill each other, war is part of the game and used way too little and such system should be embraced more. Imho the above system is the only working system. If there's a single attack after a declaration of war, the war MUST be accepted or the member attacking kicked out.

This rule only applies to blue and red guilds. The robber guilds are still free for all and their request for war is not forced.