[Closed] Martial PvP

While PvP and PK is a touchy and volatile subject, it is still one worth discussing.  The meaning of CONSENSUAL RP is something that should also be talked about.  People always assume it should only apply to sex or death in game, where it should apply wholesale across the board.  You can not have it both ways and choose to act certain ways toward people but then not accept any repercussions for it.  You can not be an aggressor, then turn around and cry foul when others are aggressive toward you.  We have a very small player base and this does not leave a lot of room for playing out aggression/passive aggression, for there are not enough people to rp with outside if the cliquish groups that form and ostracize others based on faith, orientation, or nationality.  In a game with a lot of viable options for rp, you can often avoid such things, but when the community is small, it is inescapable lest you choose to sit and stare at a room and wait for someone to rp with that is someone you enjoy.

Now, PvP is also consensual in those same standards.  Taking actions against characters should have very real consequences that are more serious.  Insulting and disrespecting nobles should have viable consequences.  It is not, nor has it ever been in history, far fetched to use assassination and death to remove others from a path.  I have always felt that play is consent.  You play a game of political intrigue, the risk of death is palpable and real for each.  Trevyn is a German Baron in a city of enemies, yet he treads careful and attempts to be pleasant to everyone.  It is what an ambassador must do.  His personal views are quite often put aside that he can socialize and promote a peace that is much needed.  I play him in the notion that there could be an attempt at any time, because he is surrounded by enemies, and staff knows that I consent to death in any plot.  If Trev get's dead, he gets dead.  Would I be deeply hurt by it personally.  Yeah...because I have a lot of time invested in him and he is part of me.  Would I quit...no.  I would relish the story and be enjoy watching the aftermath unfold behind it.  Such a death would lead to all out war with Germany and would deepen the story immensely.  This would lead to retaliations from other Germans...possibly, which would also include the deaths of those that chose such a path.  So death is an accepted and consented risk taken by all characters.

Does this mean that we should get to randomly PK.  No, but I also believe that play is consent to death.  To me, if you wish to insult/belittle/treat others badly, you should reap what you sow.  Choosing that path is consent to repercussion no matter what it is.  Welcome to the world of consensual rp.  Playing any way you want, knowing that there is no real retaliation only encourages the negative treatment of others, as where you talk smack and find a dagger in your ribs, there is suddenly real consequences and you discover that you might want to rethink how you choose to behave.

An @death system would be great, players willing to let characters be killed in plot purposes could use it to give permission...@death 'list' could give you the list of characters giving that permission. This could then be used to plan and plot assassination type plots that may or may not succeed.  There is never a guarantee you will win and if you try and die, then you have accepted the consequence for your actions.  

Trev was one of those casualties that Samir referred to in that long ago plot.  I consented then to possible permadeath as well.  None of us knew of the plot, and when it happened, it took many by surprise, and a many were killed.  The following repercussions were well within what could and should have happened, and the player accepted what happened, even if it hurt her.  It was intense storytelling.  

Also, going outside the gates of the city should require an @consent to real death.  Wilderness is dangerous, and things happen. Bandits and assailants use wilderness for enacting things. Animal attacks that lead to unconsciousness should have potential to lead to death if you are not found within three days and put in for treatment.  It happens and you take that risk going out in it.  There should also be parts of the city that possess the @consent to danger/death.  Seedy parts of town.  Not so much npc dangers in the city, (though an attempted robbery might occur which takes a bit of your coin, maybe a days wage)  but by seedy characters that call such place home.  

I have always accepted PvP and PK as potential consequences for playing any game.  It has to be, but there are still repercussions for it.  Investigations and arrests and punishments.  Never should PK be allowed randomly, but if there is something like a contract for assassination submitted to staff ahead of time, then perhaps the attempt should be granted if the victim of said attempt has given consent (though it should be implied simply by playing in a manner that might warrant assassination).  Assassination contract is submitted to staff including the reason for the attempt.  Staff reviews and consents...Maybe have a place where you can buy a contract.  Similar to a guild charter.  It would have a template that would be filled out in detail and submitted to an assassin's guild (npc type thing that would send the contract to staff) The contract would be accepted or denied, but strong reason would have be given for denial, and payment would be returned.  This would require a complete removal of bias, given that staff characters could also be attempted on, and if the reasons are valid and not just I want so and so dead, then approval should be given.  The higher the rank the better the reason has to be. 

There are always going to be those who choose to metagame without repercussions because that is the way some people are, but I would think a great many would be willing to accept the potential of such things as a storytelling tool.

I have rambled on long enough, and will stop here...thought I may circle back to it again.