New PvP rules

[xHarlequinx]

These are not yet the official rules. If you like this though, say so!

Sorry to create a new thread, I've been sort of following along with these discussions but haven't had time to post. So here we go. Seems pretty straight-forward to me…

1.) Rules are changing - end all wars/alliances (except obvious wars such as Law vs. Imperial; Law vs. Red Guilds; Tekstone vs. Law/Nature/Imperial?)

2.) Guilds at war can roleplay attacks and loot each other. Law considered to be at war with all reds.

3.) Anyone can roleplay an attack on anyone
a.) If attacker wins, no loot. Defender is allowed to revenge attack, but again, no loot.
b.) If defender wins, can loot. (This does not allow the original attacker to have a “revenge attack” and loot)

4,) Anyone can roleplay an attack on a robber
a.) If attacker wins, can loot. Defender is allowed to revenge attack and loot (but they could anyway because the defender is already a robber)
b.) If robber defends and wins, can loot

5.) Robber can roleplay a robbery
a.) If defender complies with reasonable robbery request (gold, visible items, etc.), robber can only take those items
b.) If defender does not comply with robber, robber can take anything
c.) If defender kills robber, can loot

6.) If allied guilds are assisting during war combat, war rules automatically extend to all people involved in the melee for the DURATION OF THAT BATTLE ONLY. Revenge attacks between non-warring guilds, outside of battles that involve warring guilds, cannot loot unless the defender wins (see rule #3).

7.) Forcing wars between guilds will be up to the discretion of GMs but both parties should be warned that the actions between the two parties are likely to trigger a war.

[xHarlequinx]

Examples:
- Telborea attack Spirit Wardens for hunting on their land. No loot.
- Law fighting Telborea, Spirit Wardens assist Law. Everyone can loot everyone.
- Later, Telborea attack Spirit Wardens for assisting Law. No loot.
- Spirit Wardens attack Telborea for being a-holes. No loot.
- Ongoing aggression between Spirit Wardens and Telborea. GMs warn that a war is imminent.
- Spirit Wardens stop assisting Law in fighting against Telborea and stop attacking Telborea directly. War averted.
- Spirit Wardens keep assisting Law and attacking Telborea. War launched
- Awkward situation: Spirit Wardens and Telborea warned that war is imminent. Spirit Wardens and Law go hunting together. Telborea attacks Law. Spirit Wardens now have to decide if they want to participate in the battle, risking going to war with Telborea or, if they would rather have peace, they would have to state (during the prior RP) that they are abandoning Law and therefore not participate in the battle.

More examples you say?!
- The feared robber, Robby Walac, seems Zaradon in Ice. Says, "you're trespassing on Lootistan, I am therefore robbing you of all your clothing, armor, weapons and gold!"
- Three choices for Zaradon
1.) Hand it over, carry on his way (I personally don't love the "kill to check" practice, I would much rather see this only if there is a reasonable suspicion that not everything was handed over, but that's a conversation for another thread).
2.) Attack Robby. Winner can loot.
3.) Run away. Robby can loot.

New example.
- Telborea and the Helping Hand are at peace. Telborea attacks Helping Hand for trespassing. Any kills that Telborea makes are no-loot. However, if Helping Hand calls Law (which is at war with Telborea), once Law arrives to the battle, this becomes a war battle (which allows looting of Helping Hand). However, this scenario would not count as an aggressive act for the purposes of forcing a war between Helping Hand and Telborea.

[xHarlequinx]

These rules make it so that:

- Telborea can't just be like "we're not robbers anymore" but we still get to loot nearly anyone we want (hence the need for the end of all wars/alliances). This allows guilds to reassess what their positions are going to be.
- Robbers have life especially hard, but have an easier time looting people. Still face the risk of getting stoned.
- Reds still have life sort of hard (have to deal with Law, who has a bonus over them) and still can't go to all the normal cities, etc.
- Blues can still fight each other, but there's the risk of them going red (which there should be! If a merchant guild starts killing another merchant guild, why would Law be cool with that?)
- Wars can be easily averted, provided the guilds choose to cease aggression; however, there is still some flexibility to include non-warring guilds in PvP/looting.

All the same rules about corpse camping, etc. still apply.

[xHarlequinx]

So, what will Telborea do? (just to use you as an example for someone out for the lutz, which is okay) I assume they might go robber again or, alternatively, they could make sure that they keep Tekstone people with them (who are at war with the other religions) and then this would allow Telborea to participate in religious battles vs. Nature, Law or Imperial(?) and loot (or be looted).

[Bipina Huntley]

thank you for summary, now finally i know my rights hah

good job

[xHarlequinx]

Unfortunately this isn't official, it's more based on what people are saying and what makes sense in my eyes. Hopefully we can get some weigh-in from the interested parties (GMs, "robbers", robbees)

[Zaradon]

Well done Harlequin, i'd like to see more specifed rules in a detailed views. Since many players are unsure what ever rule stands for.


The rules are made on pangaea to support/restrict another one - due to the missing game mechanics/restrictions.

So, if you have the time Harlequin, you could put more detailed views regarding the rules (Specially PvP/.Robber)

Maybe we can get an approval from the Staffmember to post the specified details regarding PvP to the Homepage aswell. I mean like "Examples of PvP rules, legal and illegal behaviours etc.

[xHarlequinx]

Well done Harlequin, i'd like to see more specifed rules in a detailed views. Since many players are unsure what ever rule stands for.


The rules are made on pangaea to support/restrict another one - due to the missing game mechanics/restrictions.

So, if you have the time Harlequin, you could put more detailed views regarding the rules (Specially PvP/.Robber)

Maybe we can get an approval from the Staffmember to post the specified details regarding PvP to the Homepage aswell. I mean like "Examples of PvP rules, legal and illegal behaviours etc.

Editted the examples post. let me know if you if you want anything else clarified.

[Johnny Walac]

I can see this happening. Except number 1#.

[xHarlequinx]

#1 will really be up to the GMs to decide (and is a one-time only thing).

On the rest of the rules, I'd like to hear if anyone else has objections? Primarily Tyrion, Biggs, Jyrgen, Jackson, Maximillion Lloth, Athan, Ivan.

One thing that's missing (and this could mean that #1 could be removed), is it appears there are no rules for how to unilaterally end a war. I think there should be some sort of process, for example a formal declaration of an end to all hostilities on the boards and then a 2 week or one month period where the guild that is seeking peace cannot conduct any acts of aggression (they could still defend themselves from attack, but cannot initiate). Obviously this can still be overridden by the players if they come to some sort of agreement (gold payment, whatever). Thoughts?