Lannis
You've yeed your last haw
Staff member
Admin
Events Staff
In-Game Tech Staff
Lore Staff
Server Outreach
Server Owner
Shadow Owner
Note: This is not in effect. It's up for discussion, and may be implemented if well reviewed.
Alrightey. I've noticed the implementation of consent to be a polarizing issue lately, with folks getting salty one way or the other when it's brought up. I have some proposed changes to it that I'd like to open discussion on, as a potential replacement to the bulk of the present system. This applies mostly to moderate regions; doesn't much matter in violent regions where consent is assumed, nor really peaceful regions where consent is assumed in the negative.
Essentially, it's a paradigm shift in the system to treat temporary and permanent character outcomes differently; actions that significantly/permanently/semi-permanently affect a character's playstyle or ability to be played (such as character death, maiming, or serious impairment) generally require consent, whereas actions with transient consequence generally do not. The notion here is to distance the consent system from conditions that do not seriously affect a player's ability to roleplay in meaningful manner. Players are encouraged to discuss any outcome amongst themselves, though it won't necessarily be protected by consent.
The bulk of the actual reform comes as a set of conditions for consent as it may be met in roleplay; different situations entail varying levels of consent, and so forth.
Consent Rules:
Levels of Consent:
By increasing severity:
tl;dr
read the damn thing.
Alrightey. I've noticed the implementation of consent to be a polarizing issue lately, with folks getting salty one way or the other when it's brought up. I have some proposed changes to it that I'd like to open discussion on, as a potential replacement to the bulk of the present system. This applies mostly to moderate regions; doesn't much matter in violent regions where consent is assumed, nor really peaceful regions where consent is assumed in the negative.
Essentially, it's a paradigm shift in the system to treat temporary and permanent character outcomes differently; actions that significantly/permanently/semi-permanently affect a character's playstyle or ability to be played (such as character death, maiming, or serious impairment) generally require consent, whereas actions with transient consequence generally do not. The notion here is to distance the consent system from conditions that do not seriously affect a player's ability to roleplay in meaningful manner. Players are encouraged to discuss any outcome amongst themselves, though it won't necessarily be protected by consent.
The bulk of the actual reform comes as a set of conditions for consent as it may be met in roleplay; different situations entail varying levels of consent, and so forth.
Consent Rules:
- The ideal consent-based exchange is to have both parties discuss what they're comfortable with/where they'd like the violence to go as early as possible in a fight or other potentially violent encounter. Any agreement made in this manner overrules any other conditional consent levels. Neither has any obligation to go further than what their counterpart agrees to, and any players entering the fight are bound to the level of consent that has been established. Should newcomers wish to escalate the level of violence, it's done selectively with any that wish to participate in that higher level.
- Aggressor's consent: A spontaneously aggressive party, without prior communication, may not kill or permanently maim their target without explicit consent or pre-existing circumstance that would remove the need for consent. However, if the aggressor is attacking in an eminently lethal manner (i.e. attacking with a weapon), the aggressor automatically consents to wherever the combat RP leads, including death or permanent maiming.
- Defender's consent: A party spontaneously attacked by an aggressor can be subject to nonlethal violence, and do not automatically consent to more severe violence by whatever means they employ to protect themselves. However, their assumed level of consent changes should they escalate it, such as by killing an attacker or counterattacking in a lethal manner that would immediately incapacitate the aggressor should he not defend. To clarify, the defending party can do whatever they must to keep themselves free of harm, including injury to the attacker. It's only considered to have escalated if they land an attack that summarily results in the death of the aggressor, or make an attack that would immediately kill the aggressor should they not defend against it.
- "Castle Law;" Characters unlawfully in the residence of another character automatically consent to violence and death if given express warning by the resident, either ICly or OOCly, and are afforded appropriate chance to respond. The homeowners assume a level of consent equal to what they establish. This can be escalated or deescalated by discussion, as expressed in the first point.
- Characters actively stealing or otherwise jeopardizing the property of another automatically consent to some flavor of violence, within reason; petty theft may be worth a beating, whereas significant property damage/loss may incur more severe consequence. This gets subjective with all the various degrees of larceny, and as such I heavily advise any attempts at theft be first discussed with the intended target to determine and agree upon the severity of their reaction.
- Characters that intentionally put another character in a position of harm without directly doing harm themselves automatically consent to whatever violence is necessary for the victim to escape from their circumstance. The offending character may also be held responsible for any harm incurred by the victim as a consequence of his actions, and automatically matches any level of consent that is realized. For example, should Character A sell B to some slavers who nearly murder him, B is then entitled to nearly murder A.
- Turnabout is fair play. Any action taken against a character is automatically grounds for consequence on the same level of violence by the character or those acting on the character's behalf (both ICly and OOCly). Established conspiracy for action against a character is also grounds for reciprocating the action should the conspiracy be reasonably serious; should it be in motion and not just an idle hypothetical. This also means that a character menacingly approaching another with a knife while saying something to the effect of "I'm going to shank you" may assume a preemptive retaliatory shanking to be in order.
- For any local laws where the punishment would otherwise require serious consent, such as removing a thief's hand, the perpetrator is only automatically culpable for crimes committed within the territory holding the law. It is their responsibility to know law and order in the town where they decide to break it, but they are not subject to it if they committed crimes elsewhere. Consent may be obtained for such, but is not inherent. However, punishment arriving as equivalent consequence for actions taken by the character assumes the "turnabout" rule in establishing consent.
Levels of Consent:
By increasing severity:
- Nonviolent: Baseline RP, no combat. No consent involved.
- Nonlethal: Fighting with low chance of causing serious injury, such as a fistfight. Does not automatically consent the aggressor to more severe violence/death, unless it escalates to the point of preventing the victim from adequately defending himself further (unconsciousness, etc.).
- Potentially lethal: Fighting with a high chance of causing serious injury or death, such as with a drawn weapon. Whoever initiates action in this manner (actively swinging a sword, not just drawing it) automatically consents to violence up to death, unless its inclusion was previously agreed upon.
- Lethal: Actively trying to kill a character. Requires consent, unless consent otherwise voided.
- Permanent maiming: Anything that irrevocably impairs the physical function of a character, such as loss of limb. Almost always requires explicit consent separate to any automatic consent, unless there's strong precedent for the character to receive such.
tl;dr
read the damn thing.
