What I see and hear a lot, is that people get FD'd because: 'Best kill him, or he'll get back at us,' and while I made it a general rule to myself not to FD unless it's a life threatening situation or when the character doesn't bend or shape to your will in any way and doesn't grab the opportunities I give them to get away safely. That's however not what this topic is going to be about, even though it will be brought up as a related issue.

The real problem seems to be when you decide to subdue someone. I think I speak for a lot of people when it's entirely reasonable for you to FD' someone, but do not because the IC reason is somewhat lame OOC. "He has offended my God. My sister. My mother. Called me ugly. A no good. He broke my heart."

It's something I don't FD over until a certain point. Instead, I subdue. I have my ways with them; in my most recent cases, try to have them convert to a God, or at least away from their own if opposing mine. Humiliation, fear, shame. It's these aspects I find to be missing with a lot of my victims. When I subdue someone in a rather short amount of time, I know if I'd be in the person shoes I'd be impressed. Scared. But I'm not.

What bothers me; not a lot, but still enough to open up a topic to draw some attention to the subject, is the following:

You subdue a person. You let him live, don't take any of their possessions; (attempt) to drill some fear into their minds which shouldn't likely be too hard when they are down at the floor, you make them do something. Apologize, convert, acknowledge you as superior. Whatever. Only to find out later that, whaddayaknow, the character has set his mind on killing you.

"You let me live. Now you'll die." It's something which in most cases I find entirely lame. It's showing no courtesy towards your engager; and it happens far too often. It's slowly forcing me to consider the player behind the screen. What kind of a player is he- Someone who's the type of person I suspect to know he will know some fear and back off from his offender, or the type who; after promising to back out of your business IC only gets up to kill you and drive everyone up against you. When someone offers you a way out of death which in 99% of the cases is entirely reasonable, it's only fair to offer him the same. It would lead to a much higher potential of RP and would certainly increase the enjoyment and excitement of PvP you get.

[PS: I'm not dead.]

Here's a solution:

Say to the player, OOC, that you're only not going to FD them if they're willing to compromise their character IC and admit defeat. I mean, when it comes down to it, you are effectively compromising your own character by allowing them to live (what sensible villain with a brain wouldn't take the opportunity to kill their rival after they'd beaten them in PvP?), so they have to reciprocate and allow you to allow them to live. Coming back at a player for revenge after they've clearly acted on OOC good will and not IC rationality and spared your character the exp hit when it'd probably have been more IC or ICly sensible for them to just finish you right there is poor sportsmanship, I'd say.

I know it's not the topic, but I really, really, really appreciate it from another player if he does not FD me (or anyone) for the things the OP mentioned, and I think it can't be stressed enough: If players already extend to you such a courtesy, not giving similar one in return is like giving the player who was so friendly to you a kick into the butt. It's just not fair.

As a player that almost NEVER gets involved in PvP, I'd say use your own judgement.

The ONLY time as Porki I killed [FD] another player was executing a subdued goblin in front of the crone. The circumstances where right for it and although it was a bummer for the player who's short career as a goblin was snuffed out, it was the right thing to do.

I think that it's all a matter of context, time and place as to whether or not you give the chop to your enemy. Sometimes you may wish to spare them for OOC reasons, other times it is necessary to ensure that they die for IC reasons regardless of OOC reasons.

Above all else, make sure you have a DM watching!

:edit: In reagrds to letting someone live and then them coming after you being considered lame...well tough. If you let your enemy live for whatever reason, then they have a perfect reason to seek revenge. They -don't- have to but there are numerous references in literature and IRL where someone has been spared by the victor only to come back and get their vengence on the victor. I think the vengence seeker should first though consult with a DM before launching their reprisals. That's my humble opinion.

That is exactly what the topic is about though! It directly relates to the "I know no fear, I know no pain, I know only I want revenge" which so many seem to use as their Bible. Someone flips you a golden coin; no reason to throw it back into their face.

I think PvP is an important element and should always be RP'd according to your character regardless of OOC considerations, whether you are on the losing end or the winning end.

For example if you get beat down (subdued) fairly, you must decide if your character would pursue death as vengenance against your assailant. And if you are giving the beat down you should decide if your character would allow the person to live (full knowing that the person might try to come back at you).

The important thing is to roleplay the encounter accordingly. I have only rarely been involved in PvP, but those experiences were memorable for how well the other player Role-played the situation.

It is disappointing when a character dies but that is a fact that every character living in the Underdark must understand (I have lost 3 characters to death, although none through PvP, as I play perma-death on this server always) and although it is disappointing it adds to the roleplay level of others. When I fell in combat it was funny how the squabbling began over my belongings (although others asked if I was going to respawn 1st - which was nice, but not necessary). It gave the "evil" characters a moment to argue with the "good" aligned members of the group.

To end my rambling, my point is that killing another character should never be taken lightly, but neither should letting a possible enemy continue to live...

On top of it all: Full Damage means Perma Dead, unless "Ressurected," or otherwise judged by a DM. You can't respawn, and you can't be Raised. I think it damn well /is/ important to show some courtesy. You're playing in a community, and that means it isn't all about you. When you let someone live because you know it's he's playing a nice concept, that he's involved in something cool or even that there's a face on the other side of the screen who's trying to enjoy his character. Finishing his character because it's probably the most likely act your guy would do- when it's not (absolutely) necessary for yourself to survive or a plot to unfold/advance or even because it's 100% unacceptable for your guy to let him live, why not let him?

Oh, "because he might get back at you."

Generally speaking, it is vastly preferably to play suffering a horrific beating as just that. It's bad form to be allowed to live and then go right after your rival as if nothing ever happened.

That is not to say you still can not oppose them, but making it your immediate goal is quite lame. You just tried, and were nearly KILLED. That would mess with anyone.

The way I used to handle it as a player, was to consider the reason for the conflict. Say, for example, the rival murdered my friend, or I was caught spying on them, or perhaps I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Whichever it is, if I was subdued/beaten in PVP, I generally would RP not wanting anything to do with that person at all immediately following. However, if -the act or behavior that instigated the conflict- repeated by the other party's volition, then I would consider fighting them again.

For example, after being beaten, where I was the one gunning for them:

I never hear of the individual murdering anyone else I know. I avoid them completely until the day I die. If they murder more and more of my friends. I consider fighting them again.

If they were the ones coming for me:

If they caught me spying on them, I would cease spying on them from that point on.

If I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'd give them a wide berth.

This post is a bit rambling as I've just woken up, but it's generally good to consider why the conflict occured, and have the subdual beating impact your behavior in terms of the rival and the reasons.

I'm always conflicted on this issue. I hate killing people and I hate getting killed (no one likes dying), but at the same time I stand firmly on the side of permadeath. Generally speaking I don't go after other characters for PvP situations unless I fully intend to permakill them, and when that happens it is almost always justified. (There are exceptions, such as being unluckily selected for sacrifice to an evil deity.)

I promote permakilling for plot reasons, and almost always fall down on the side of 'Do what your character would do.' I try not to take OOC things into consideration.

I reason things this way because the Underdark is a dangerous place. To survive you have to have a good head on your shoulders and be reasonably cautious about who you make enemies with... you never know when they'll come for you.

Almost every main character I've played has been permakilled because of the enemies they've made.

So if one of my characters is threatening another, they are either bluffing or telling the truth. I don't believe in beating someone down just to prove a point. If someone forces me to beat their character down, I'm going to kill them. It has nothing to do with OOC reasoning, and everything to do with the IC situation. It makes little sense for me to beat them down just so I could stand over them and gloat unless that is something my character would do.

"You let me live, now I will let you die..."

Common mistake for a good guy, and an ultimate alignment shift to good for evil peoples.. -_-

But seriously, unless your subdued is a Paladin, your victim should be afraid. I'd run if I saw a guy who almost killed me strolling down the street fully armed... but if ill-prepared....

:twisted:

TAoB

People don't always behave the way you'd like them to, or the way you think they should. I'm sure some of your player victims think you should have played your PvP differently, just as you are expecting them to play being a victim differently.

In real life, I have been a victim. And, to tell you the truth, the way you say is "wrong" for post-PvP victims to behave is exactly the mentality I had in real-life. Revenge is an extremely powerful motivator, and helps neutralize immobilizing fear. As a victim, you want power over yourself back. It is worth dying for. One need only look at American movies to see this theme played out over and over again.

There's an interesting paradox to people who terrorize. They are the ones who are most fearful. They believe that people will succumb to their terror, because they themselves would. The truth is, people's reactions will vary greatly, with fewer taking a passive victim role than you might think.

Is a disproportionate segment of the player-base representing "revenge" mentality? Perhaps. But, then, there's also a disproportionate segment of the player-base representing pathological predators. After all, our characters are generally representing the most bold and adventurous of the population.

Don't worry so much about how "the other player" plays. You'll enjoy the game more.

No, it is something to worry about when people are treating the courtesy of subdual instead of death like it is nothing.

It's a tricky situation if you leave someone alive.

Yes it is an act of OOC courtesy that can be spoilt by the victim going postal if not handled properly. Again I say that the PLAYER of the victim should consult with a DM, not the aggressive player, before initiating revenge. Again, I think the DM should know that you plan vengence from the get go if the aggressor lets your character live as this will clear up any misunderstanding or accusations of griefing/bad sportsmanship etc. Explain why you're planning to get back at them, make a good reason for it. Is it part of your characters nature to seek vengence, has the aggressor committed some heinious crime against you, your friends or family or religeon?

Come on, think about it. You are on the ground and are being given the choice of life or death: unless you're a paladin, have an extremely strong moral code or just hate the aggressor so much because they killed your sisters cat and you wil never co-operate with them even if it means dying or have nothing else to live for as that character you will probably beg for their [your] life. Of course you want to live, you most certainly don't want the aggressor in on your plot of vengence while they've still got you in their grasp because they will most likely turn around and finish the job if you did.

HOWEVER, why on earth should you tell the TRUTH to the aggressor? In other words, lie bold facely at them that you'll not bother them again, kiss their arse etc and if they believe it and let you live, well that's their problem because you [as victim] never intended to honour that promise and once you've recovered from your wounds etc you're coming after them and hell is riding in behind you.

This is why I think IMHO that if you are going to kill someone, just kill them. End of story. :twisted: don't expect mercy from Porki

:edit: Here's probably the best example that deals with this debate: Conan the Barbarian! - the movie- Thulsa Doom murdered Conan's family, had him sold into slavery etc. Conan comes after Doom, gets caught and is crucified on a tree [not killed immediately but basically left to die] thus Doom spared him from immediate death for a lingering one but the point is he didn't kill him when he could have. What does Conan do? He heals up & comes after Doom and trashes Thulsa's lair, kills some of his henchmen. Doom kills Conan's babe and so Conan prays to Crom, DEMANDING his god grant him revenge. Doom attacks with his henchmen and Conan and his mates kill them all. So by letting Conan live, Thulsa Doomed himself to death :P This is why I believe it is perfectly legitimate for a victim to come after an aggressor and that if an aggressor lets a victim live then they'd better sleep with one eye open.

As a player who came into EfU hating PvP, I can honestly say that the was most people have handled PvP was a defining reason that turned me around so quickly. I've gotten into my shares of scrapes, but I've never gone out looking to kill someone. There's far more RP value/fun in subduing someone, slapping them around a bit, and sending them on their way. Is it logical for the victim to seek revenge- even if it means killing you? Sure, if it's IC for them to do so. That's just another aspect of the Underdark. If someone's gunning for you, stay in Upper, brightly lit places, and in large groups.

Just to mention a little gripe of mine, I just HATE when a player is beaten down, gets to their feet, takes a swig of a few healing potions, waits five minutes and then attacks his attacker once more. What kind of sense does that make? If you're beaten within an inch of your life, what IC reason would motivate you to push your luck?

People will be people.

Fear is fear of losing your character, fear of unpredictability, fear of the unknown...

Subdual is more of an 'humiliation' in the eyes of many and it's a gauge to how strong someone is, and therefore it -removes- fear by making that character more predictable.

Some folks are new, we're always learning how to handle situations better. Accepting the losing role is one of them.

Victims RP is MORE important in making an event remarkable... Good roleplayed victim are the true heroes in my book.

I'd guess it's more about lowering your expectation, and that accepting people you subdue will 'probably' come back after you if they felt 'humiliated'.

Blue41

Just to mention a little gripe of mine, I just HATE when a player is beaten down, gets to their feet, takes a swig of a few healing potions, waits five minutes and then attacks his attacker once more. What kind of sense does that make? If you're beaten within an inch of your life, what IC reason would motivate you to push your luck?

I think this is extremely frowned upon if not illegal. I could be wrong.

No, you're right. Also, while we're on a tangent, I would like to point out from Obedience's post that its fine to be raised from a PvP death, provided the body is found intact and there are allies willing to do the deed.

Note - not necessarily DM policy, we have a lot of them after all, but it's my interpretation of the rules, and if there's a glaring innaccuracy this post is subject to change.

If you initiate a PvP, and you don't have an excellent reason to kill someone - then subdual is a must. Otherwise they'll probably be right to call you a griefer, particularly if there's little roleplay involved. Never, EVER assume that FD is simply an 'OOC courtesy' that you extended to your 'victim'.

If they then come back and try to kill you, well, it's kind of to be expected isn't it? You've now given them a valid reason to kill you. You have to be prepared to accept the consequences for your actions, whether you like it or not.

Claiming that somehow they have to come back and subdual you... well. Then it just creates a vicious cycle of subdual-revenges doesn't it? X subdues Y who then comes back later and subdues X who gets a posse together to subdue Y...

No, I don't buy it. If you subdual someone and don't have a very good reason that they shouldn't come back and kill you, then you'll just have to prepare yourself that little bit better for reprisals. Walk around with see invis up in dangerous areas etc. If they do manage to kill you, don't claim that somehow they should have subdualled because you were -oh so kind- to let them live so long ago.

Certain exceptions to these guidelins exist, obviously. Goblins can be killed anywhere in civilised areas, nobody has to extend OOC courtesies to them. It doesn't work the other way though. Goblin characters still have to extend OOC courtesy to players. Being a goblin does not give you the 'right' to kill every player you see, but there's definitely a lot of leeway for them in terms of thuggery and banditry.

No, I don't buy it. If you subdual someone and don't have a very good reason that they shouldn't come back and kill you, then you'll just have to prepare yourself that little bit better for reprisals. Walk around with see invis up in dangerous areas etc. If they do manage to kill you, don't claim that somehow they should have subdualled because you were -oh so kind- to let them live so long ago.

I am in full agreeance with this take on things. Basically-

You only kill someone if you have a good reason. If you don't, subdue them. -Expect- them to come back at you, because they will (though its nice to see people RP their characters being too scared to do so). Don't whine if they ice you in the end after coming back for vengeance.

Of course, the argument then is "Well, why not FD them then?", to which I reply "Because its damn lame to kill someone because they may or may not come up against you in the future". Barring specific circumstances (I'm speaking in general here) you simply cannot justify killing someone on the ground of them possibly wanting revenge at a later date. Its frankly pretty cowardly.

Pretty cowardly as it may sound:

Person X will most probably know he'll come back after him if he lets his victim live. It's an entirely reasonable thing to assume in this setting. The bright thing to do (speaking from an IC view here. It's nothing I second OOC. But let's get real) is to kill the guy if you can get away with it and if it's IC for you to do.

Though mostly, luckily, a lot of players in our playerbase aren't really comfortable with killing people over little things. However, if they are upset over any wrongdoings caused to their person: they'll hire an assassin. Or gang him with friends. Or simply try it alone. Because what easier way is there for you to solve your IC problems by killing them, it would seem OOC. It's this what I've seen happening a rather lot of times.

This doesn't necessarily apply to anyone in particular, just what occasionally happens. It's why I think it's important enough to extend that OOC favour in such a way that "He spared me because he wasn't comfortable with killing me OOCly, perhaps I should let him live." Of course this doesn't mean the PvP ends here. On the contrary, if you're not playing someone who'd think his actions twice over after he's been subdued but spared; then so be it. I still think it would be courtesy to at the very least give some IC clues that you intent to settle the score. At least this way, once the PvP is done and a few days passed; both sides know what they are looking at.

Don't go, the next day you log on, buffing yourself and hit the guy who subdued you with a PhK to the face without ever having spoken a word about it. It has happened, and I can tell you from personal experience that there's not a single crappier way to die, at all. Dying because you felt you could trust the other player (and definitely not necessarily 'character') to return at least some of it.

I'd like to apologise in advance to Obedience for this post, it's never good for a DM to take anything to a personal level, and perhaps that's what this is - but I am hoping that people understand, because i'd like to illustrate something.

I am afraid that you're looking for a get out clause here, Obedience. I get the impression that you're looking for us to greenlight this behaviour -

Obedience

<Obedience> (Subduals someone) [Tell] <Obedience> "Hey, just to let you know, I could have killed you there, so in future, could you make sure you don't take it personally and kill me lol kthxbye"" [Tell] <Victim> "Oh, sure, thanks for not killing me, i'll make sure not to hurt your character in future!"

And I won't do that for you, i'm sorry. You pvp someone you run the risk of reprisals, and I won't allow you a greencard to manipulate peoples behaviour. - NC

Obedience This doesn't necessarily apply to anyone in particular, just what occasionally happens. It's why I think it's important enough to extend that OOC favour in such a way that "He spared me because he wasn't comfortable with killing me OOCly, perhaps I should let him live."

Except that its -not- an OOC courtesy. What it is is you not having a good reason to FD in the first place. For example, if you mug someone you don't FD them. Using your argument though, not FDing them is only a courtesy on your part because they might want revenge and come after you. That's where you're wrong- its not a courtesy. Its a PvP rule: don't FD unless you have a good reason to. In this case you should accept they will likely come after you.

Its hard to articulate, and the whole concept is subject to situational particulars in most cases, so I'm only speaking generally.

Really though, I would much rather DM for a player who uses FD only when necessary (and therein conducts the vast majority of his PvP in subdual mode) and fully accepts and expects and, even enjoys the prospect of, his victims coming back at him in the future, than a player who either-

a) Is weak enough to FD all the time without it being necessary (though arguably ICly 'justifiable') just so he can escape any future chances in which his character might die or

b) Acquits himself well in subdual PvP without resorting to unnessary or lame FDs, but who whinges when one of his victims does actually come back and kill him for it

I understand that vengence is a key factor in any adventurer as opposed to a civilian.

Does the subdued dude feel the only way seek vengence is to kill the character, or would not revenge entail getting him arrested, exiled, or getting some gang in Lower to see him as an enemy? Is it in character to think only FD when there might be no further reason for the aggressor to attack said victim? If there is IC reason to believe that they will be killed sooner or later by the aggresor then

If an agressor tries to be creative in dealing with people, should we assume that the victims should not be creative and only go for FD? What is the good reason to go FD? Sometimes a good reason exists, while sometimes there is none. Did the aggresor attack you because you insulted him, or was it a mugging? Are they sick sadists who wish to build street cred? Are they a gang who wishes to keep you aout of their territory?

I suppose that sneak attack FD revenge is most likely for a chaotic or evil inclined character, but a lawful or good should consider other options than stabbing someone in the back and would prefer a confrontation and FD fight if that is how they decide to take revenge. How about work with a DM to cut off a hand or leg of the aggresor so they cannot easily harm others.

So, I think that the underlying feeling of some is that an aggresor is considering good reasons for either FD or subdue and the victims should consider the very same.

And if I ever subdue anyone, I would expect them to come after to kill me, but hopefully in a fun RP way.

Here's a few reasons, IMO, not to FD:

- i'm evil, (yes, but you DO have a brain: ask for more gold than the guy carries, get him to betray someone, to buy you goods in old sanctuary you can't get in lower, keep his armor/wands/potions as hostage until the task is done, humiliate him each time he crosses your path, etc.) Evil is basically enjoying the suffering of others. If it's too quick, it's no good.

- he's evil, (yes, but you're "good")

- he called me names (your PC is a grown up man, not a 12 years old hiding behind a screen),

- he challenged my god (convert him, learn about his faith, find the weak spots, show the crowd the guy actually doesn't know his god as well as he should, etc.)

- he stole my hard earned wand of superpowers (well, he has a wand of superpowers now, better not mess with him, hire a thief to pickpocket the guy -under DM supervision because this skill is disabled in EfU)

- he bullied me to pay a toll (well, if it worked, you were scared: perhaps you still should be scared. If it didn't work, he'll pay the toll to you from now on, because you just subdued him and he knows better.)

Those are probably the 99% times when a PvP occurs. And yes, i know, there are tons of excuses to FD. "the situation demands it", "it's IC", "there was no other way"...

Well, now there is: here's a few suggestions to RP a subdued PC:

- scared and avoiding the bad guys, - brooding, shouting at the bad guys and then running off scared, - humiliated, going alcoholic - bragging it never happened, perhaps bullying witnesses to shut them up, ("what are you looking at?") - changed ("hey, maybe he IS stronger, I should learn his ways...") - lawful ("you have spared me, I have a life debt to you, though i hate you"). -whining: "i'll serve you, master, please don't hurt me again" -challenging: "let me in your group, i know now where power lies", and then try to become chief yourself)

I'm sure you can finds tons of other ways to RP this. Don't FD, it sucks. Or make sure the victim is fine with it.

And about the IC vs. OOC argument, IMO, it's pointless. People seem to think RpG is just Rp. Sorry: it's RpG. G for Game. Game for having fun with other people. Remember the time you played paper RpG, having fun around a table with cookies and coke (beer?). We are all ALWAYS both IC and OOC (just look at PCs in quests). Don't bring up the IC or OOC argument when it suits you.

IMO, it should actually be the victim asking via a tell "FD me, i'm fine with it, just don't do it too quickly so we can have fun"

I think the easiest way to handle this problem is just to acknowledge that EfU is a hardcore server. The Underdark is a dangerous place, and being killed is the least of your worries. Being sold into slavery is just as permanent as permadeath. In addition, there are ways of dealing with characters without killing them. Removing body parts comes readily to mind. Did someone steal from you? Maybe remove an eye, one of their hands, and most of the fingers on the other. Someone talking smack? Can someone continue to do that without a tongue? A lover cheated on you? Well permanent disfigurement is always an option to be employed.

Variety is the spice of life.

Seriously, though, I think people should just avoid entering PvP unless they have an IC reason to FD another character. Once that is the case there is no longer an OOC dispute.

If I am playing a Paladin I might show mercy to someone I am trying to kill if they can convince my character that they are going to renounce their evil ways. I can't guarantee the path to righteousness would be an easy one, though.

If I am playing an Orc Barbarian who just wanted to show someone that he was stronger than them by beating them down, I'd let them live.

If I am playing a character that for some reason has a grudge that he or she can justify killing you for, then they will do it unless a DM specifically tells me not to do it.

If I am playing a character that is subdued by a character similar to the above Barbarian, and my character is the revenge seeking type he or she WILL seek revenge. It may not come from the character's hand directly. If whoever did the deed was too strong, the character might higher an assassin, go to the Watch, or simply bide their time until they can find a way to get revenge.

Conversely, if I am playing a cowardly character who ended up so afraid of the character who subdued him or her he or she might wet their pants every time they come near.

It all depends on what I am playing, and frankly I think everyone should play similarly. When you bring OOC things into it, even such things as "OOC consideration" it muddies the water between IC and OOC actions and will lead to problems down the road. If my character has every IC reason to kill you and does not for OOC reasons, then that leaves the impression that if the two characters meet again the same thing will happen. It could lead to hard feelings. If my character does that and I expect you to do the same (for the record: I do not) then it could lead to hard feelings on my end.

The Underdark is a dangerous place. The enemies you face aren't just NPC's and aren't just outside the city walls. They are standing next to you in the Last Stand and on the street. They are in the next room. They are everywhere and there is nowhere to hide. People should not come onto this server and expect their character's to live forever, because if they do they'll ultimately be disappointed.

Just picking an example here. It's got nothing to do with a greencard, or whatnot. The way I've done PvP in the more recent past and now won't likely change regarding my ideas about Subdual/FD. When I've subdued someone, I will nearly always try to find ways to let him get away with it. Now here's an example of a commonly seen event; where FD' is more likely the thing for BaniteX to do vs. TormtarY but the 'IC' excuse is somewhat lame to kill someone over.

"

I think Bane is a pussy God. Unlike Torm, who defeated him once before. I hope Bane dies. He's a joke. You're a joke as His priest." and this goes on for another while.

Finally you decide to subdue the guy, having taken enough of his insults; have a good go with him to make him change his mind.

TormtarY: "Ooeeh! Impressive! You've managed to beat me into the floor. Want a cookie- Because that's all you'll be getting from me. Don't you think I'm scared of you."

No matter what BaniteX says or does; the dude won't change his mind, showing no respect/fear to Bane. He's on the ground, in the middle of a growing crowd of which you know they won't rat you out to the Guards if you'd kill the man. And even if they did, it doesn't matter. It happened in Lower anyway.

After another few attempts to make him call his statements back, you give up. Do you live him on the ground; alive? You show you're weak and incapable of spreading what Bane' wants to be spread in His name. If you let him live, you'll also know the dude will come after you.

--

Killing him would probably lead those around you into something closely associated to fear. That's the other option. Comes down to "You insulted Bane. Now you'll die." The guy has had his chances but wouldn't bend. This is something I'd definitely not want to kill someone over, ever. While it's definitely, having to pick between those two choices, the option I'd most likely pick given no third option. Yes, there's more options. You could for instance threaten to do stuff to his friends; or assure him a most unpleasant afterlife.

Anyway. This isn't exactly the case I had in mind when I opened this topic. But I suppose we can use it:

In the end you decide to let the TormtarY live; after you somehow came up with a lame excuse why you shouldn't kill him. The next day, the guy kills you.

Once more, I'm not looking for a greencard here. I know how to do my tricks during PvP and I fully encourage people to give it a go at me. It's just that it's beyond crap when you log in the next day, only to get killed by (or indirectly by) the guy who you subdued and 'spared' the day before. Where's the line when you say "You need a good excuse to FD a person." I think that line is rather easily reached when people attack you at a soft spot and don't recoil.

Just to make it absolutely clear: It's an example and just that. I'm not looking to go around killing people over insults. It's, however, an example of a situation Ive (roughly) been put in before.

If a priest of Torm openly mocks your patron deity, Bane, in public, you -should- ice that bastard immediately. Its one of those 'good reasons'.

The more I think about this thread, the more I begin to realize that the whole 'IC justification' premise is built on a house of cards. Who gets to decide what is ICly justifiable and worthy of permadeath? Each character is different, and what may force one character to murder varies. Each DM certainly has different degrees of toleration. I am sure Caddies, for example, may have a higher tolerance for the FDing of other players than Nuclear Catastrophe.

However, when you step back and look at things it really comes down to the two people involved. So who decides what is justifiable and what is not? What if someone's character would ICly kill another but a DM doesn't think it is justifiable, but another DM thinks it is perfectly okay?

Personally, I think the only way to resolve this issue is for DM's to stay out of it. Once you step in it becomes a slippery slope and no matter what you do someone will be angry. A DM may feel that killing someone may not be justified ICly, but really I think only the person playing the character can make that decision. It might make the player who will die happy, but it will in turn make the player who believes it is ICly justifiable to feel slighted or angry. It opens DM's up to being accused of favoritism. ("Why did DMX tell me I couldn't kill PlayerY, but when PlayerZ came to kill me DMX allowed it to happen?")

Really, it's a can of worms that shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole. Obviously there must be rules in place, but I think they must be clear, easy to understand and universal for everyone. There should be no room for individual interpretation.

1. No PvP in front of NPC's without a DM's permission. The exception to this rule is Lower Sanctuary. 2. No PvP in faction areas without a DM's permission. 3. Always try and have a DM present for PvP to resolve disputes between players if any arise. 4. Do not go on pointless killing sprees. 5. Attempt to make PvP fun for your victim.

Really, I think that is all that needs to be said for PvP. When it comes to IC justification that should be left to the domain of the player. No one should be telling someone else how to play, or expect someone else to play a certain way. If you subdue someone instead of killing them and they come back for you and kill you fifteen minutes later with a posse of friends, it might be lame, but with the easy access to healing potions and divine magic it is not unreasonable.

I can understand why people don't want to see a lot of permakilling going on, because it disrupts plots and everyone hates to die. I -hate- to die. However, the fact of the matter is the only way to be fair is to make rules that apply to everyone equally. The rest should be left up to the players involved.

My policy on FD is this, Don't do it unless yer making a sacrafice. 8)

Also....use common sense, no fighting where NPC's could stop you.

Easy.

If you subdue someone, expect a reprisal in most cases!

Whining and hollering on the forums won't change that, and really, I'm not sure I'd want it changed.

I will state, though, I'm more inclined to DM for people who are willing to accept that reprisal risk and not immediately go for the FD.

These threads always end up running around in circles with people theorizing about how nice it would be if PvP was perfect, and then complaining about why they must do what they must do because it isn't. It looks pretty much like what this one has devolved to.

People are going to PvP how they will, and they're not likely to adjust their activities or be more lenient based solely upon in-character conditions. I think you basically started this thread to show how awesomely nice you were being by offering someone an out-of-character pass, and got it thrown back in your face, so now you want everyone to console you and tell you how right and cool you were for it.

If you want to go soft on others, more power to you, but don't expect everyone else to conform to the dictates you lay down out-of-character, and be prepared to roll with the punches. Nothing in EfU is fair, perfect, and equitable, nor will it ever be. Is it nice to go soft on people who are as good at PvP, as high-level, or as loaded out as you? Certainly. Is it required? Nope. Will it likely make other players and DMs treat you with more respect and admiration if you go soft? Yeah. Will it also put your character more at risk from reprisal to go soft? Absolutely.

Weigh all the pros and cons, and then PvP how you will-but don't try to dictate out-of-character terms and actions to others, and don't hold them as a guilty party if they don't go as soft on you as you did them. And always, always make sure your PvP-in whatever form it takes, soft or hard-is justified within the rules.

See, this is why I prefer spending my time "roleplaying" in the Peaceful Caves and enjoying romances with other cute female PCs, instead of PvP. It's a lot easier, and a whole lot more fun! (Unless the female PC is moody and hormonal, of course-then it can get wild and crazy, LOL!)

-SaRF

Your wisdom is unparalleled, SaRF.

Teach me your ways. I must become one with your awesome understanding of NWN and Love.

Yeah, Meldread. That's a nice philosophy, but blatantly wrong. Any player could theoretically 'ICly justify' any FD kill. Its not hard to contrive. The reason why we do step in and say whether or not certain situations are justifiable for FD or not is to make sure lamery is minimized.

These threads are kind of pointless I think anyway. The extreme majority of people know what's lame, what's not, and usually err on the side of awesome rather than not.

So lets just chill. Don't FD for lame reasons which might be 'ICly justifiable by the character'. Don't whine if someone comes after you after you subdue them. Don't FD them because you're scared they might come after you. Welcome the challenge presented from your enemies!

In short, I subdue always if possible. Killing in reality isn't something that you just do. It's for those maniacs, murderers and assasins to do. I doubt everyone is like that. One thing I see as a good reason to kill someone, is if they keep asking for it.

Don't play and IC mock your opponent, challenge him all over again or say something you would regret OOC. I understand if someone says to me OOC "I didn't know you took it seriously. I didn't realise you'd be on FD", or something of similar, but hey, don't play it so if you really aren't going to go for it. Atleast for me, I'm trying to play a character, and if someone challenges my character all over again, he will react. Then I think it's too late for OOC questioning anyones act.

A lot of it stems from the OOC and irrepressable desire to be victorious. It's always very nice and refreshing to see a character RP not coming out on top, or being fearful, scared, or foolish.

Obedience

<TomrtarY>: "I think Bane is a pussy God. Unlike Torm, who defeated him once before. I hope Bane dies. He's a joke. You're a joke as His priest." and this goes on for another while.

Finally you decide to subdue the guy, having taken enough of his insults; have a good go with him to make him change his mind.

<TormtarY>: "Ooeeh! Impressive! You've managed to beat me into the floor. Want a cookie- Because that's all you'll be getting from me. Don't you think I'm scared of you."

In this case, i'd probably kill them. I'd back you up on that one, big league. They're metagaming the knowledge that you can't kill them - well. I'd say feel free to prove them wrong, and let the DM's step in when the dust has settled.

I think there's been a lot of benefit to having this thread.

As has been said, thread is getting redundant now.

In before the lock!