1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest, Welcome to our Medieval Roleplaying Server, HollowWorld! Get Whitelisted Today and join us! Then check out our Starter Guide made just for you.
  3. Keep up-to-date on the Incursion Campaign!
  4. Here's a guide to the Prestige plugin! Read it here.
  5. To purchase property at Storm's Landing, Please Click Here!
  6. Hey, Guest! Contribute to the Server to keep us Alive!

King's Law Update: Consent Edition

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Lannis, Aug 18, 2017.

  1. Lannis

    Lannis Thing Two Staff Member Moderator Lore Council

    Character Name:
    Aewin
    Alt Name:
    Evelyn
    Race:
    Elf
    Consent has been a hot topic in our server culture over the past few years, but what it should and shouldn't do hasn't been formally established beyond a working interpretation of it. The addition of a new rule to the King's Law and resulting informative post (hello) aims to clarify its use and extent.


    King's Law #25:
    "Players may refuse to consent to character death if they believe that the roleplay basis for it is illegitimate. This includes, but is not strictly limited to: metagaming involved with the circumstance of the violence, egregious powergaming in the violent circumstance itself, and OOC motivation leading to the altercation (spontaneous murder sprees, revenge for an alt's friend, etc)."


    What it means:
    The intent of consent is to be a means for players to protect themselves from undue or unfair consequences in RP, namely those that seriously affect the ability to play a character (death, maiming, etc). It should be treated as a last resort, but robust enough to function when necessary. It should not be a substitute for actual moderation, but augment it if staff are unavailable.

    The main clarification I'd like to make by codifying it is that consent is not applicable to violence in general, only for death or other permanent consequence (maiming, etc). I know that there are peaceful folk that don't enjoy fighting in the first place, but a line needs to be drawn at some point and consent should not be a blanket protection from conflict. That said, the shift in interpretation should not be taken as an invitation to go around mugging people. Respect is still imperative in dealing with other players, and willingness to compromise differing intentions goes a long way for smoothing RP. The modus operandi should still be to respect folk's boundaries, but for the rule to serve its intended purpose it needs restriction.

    In the vein of treating consent as a moderation tool, any use of it should involve an informal report to the moderation team. Furthermore, the definition of consent rules should not discourage folk from expressing other concerns about RP that aren't mentioned here. If you think there was metagaming or powergaming involved in an RP, even if it does not lead to invoking consent, please report it to staff. The general idea is to shift conflict moderation back into the hands of staff rather than leaving a catchall rule for it, and there are plenty of options for repairing situations after the fact if need be.


    When to Use Consent:
    Metagaming: If the circumstances leading to a conflict are suspect (improbable appearance, immediate identification of a disguised character, etc), it may be appropriate to invoke consent to prevent escalation. If the accusation of metagaming is unclear/arguable, it's likely a good idea to get a staff opinion on it.

    Powergaming: Blatant powergaming in a fight may be grounds to invoke consent. However, this is one that should have staff input in its classification unless egregiously blatant. As such, it's better to file a report and bank on a retcon if a staff member isn't available to oversee.

    OOC Motivation: The catchall for several factors that may influence RP, including being targeted by several characters of the same player, characters with spontaneous murderous urges, or any IC motivation that stems from the player rather than the character.


    Terms and Conditions:
    -"Don't be an asshole" clause: IC motivation should be objectively reasonable if killing a character is on the table. "My character is a dangerous sociopath" is not particularly good reasoning in and of itself, and having death as a consequence should be based on appropriate action-response. Likewise, if there's reasonable motivation to kill a character, the player should recognize this and and give it a fair chance. "Don't be an asshole."

    -Maiming or other permanent character debilitation always requires consent, unless the player in question was explicitly informed beforehand that it is a (reasonable, see above) consequence for an action that they proceed to do anyway.
    -'Informed consequence' can also be used to clearly establish reasoning for death as well, but is not necessary for it. Rather, if you tell someone that your character would respond violently to a particular action, it may lead to less confusion if violent action is taken. ​

    -Escalation of violence may lead to a situation where attempting to kill the other party out of self defense is reasonable. To avoid confusion of who consents and who doesn't, it's always a good idea to discuss intended outcomes before a fight starts, which are considered binding (to original participants and any that join) unless re-negotiated by the original parties.


    Tl;dr
    Consent is there to protect you from unfair RP before staff can get to it. It only applies to death/permanent consequences so that the rule doesn't get bloated, and if there are concerns/abuse of it please contact staff. Please treat it as a 'last resort' if no reasonable conclusion can be made through discussion.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    • Player Love Player Love x 16
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Lannis

    Lannis Thing Two Staff Member Moderator Lore Council

    Character Name:
    Aewin
    Alt Name:
    Evelyn
    Race:
    Elf
    I'm opening the thread for discussion/FAQ, for anyone who would like to below.

    FAQ:
    Consent only applies to things with permanent consequences, yeah. Unfounded violence is still frowned upon, so if folk try to force it despite protest, it's worth bringing to staff.

    Peaceful and violent region ratings are unchanged- this rule isn't intended to impact region ratings in a dramatic way. Moderate regions are technically a bit different now, but shouldn't function all that differently. Unless you have a good reason for it, you'd probably still need to get consent for death.

    Feel free to put it in a report, we can sort it there. Smurf's sniped me though, and time is a factor. The clarification is more for moving forwards than reversing past actions with consent.

    The spirit of the rule is to facilitate reasonable interactions and promote healthy conflict. One of the keys to this, especially when fighting folk out of your friend group, is to maintain an OOC dialogue if it's necessary. It sounds like the situation you're describing would be best resolved by such.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    • Player Love Player Love x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Electric

    Electric It took a lot to get here

    Character Name:
    Asero Crow
    Race:
    Human
    Just so I am left without any confusion; does this mean that characters are now open to being harmed and attacked whenever, and that consent is only in play if the attacking is fatal?
    How does this play into Moderate regions?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Niah

    Niah The Awkward Staff Member Moderator

    What about consent when it comes to region related, and region wide conflicts?
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Spirit

    Spirit Legend of Altera

    Character Name:
    Soul Allister Oakhold | Reid Goodman
    Alt Name:
    Dimitri Lirran
    Race:
    Human
    In-game Town/City:
    Novahawks Guild House
    House:
    Novahawks
    I was about to literally ask the same questions as Niah and Electric but they beat me.

    *SHAKES FIST* You dern kids and yer dern alerts...
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Electric

    Electric It took a lot to get here

    Character Name:
    Asero Crow
    Race:
    Human
    Also, as an example. My old character was permanently killed even though I hadn't consented to death (I CRPed doing non-fatal actions, and surrendering IC. The whole you-can't-consent-to-anything-less-than-what-you-inflict, so I was automatically consenting non-fatal injuries) and the players of the chars that killed my char weren't on good terms with me and often showed signs of aggression and such. If such a thing happened now, after this rule, would that mean that the death would be ret-conned?
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Niah

    Niah The Awkward Staff Member Moderator

    Presumably you'd report it to staff if they feel like the other party broke one of the three conditions of consent, and they'd investigate.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Vincentius

    Vincentius Settling in Altera

    Character Name:
    Iskvandar A. Alighieri
    Alt Name:
    Vincincia
    I'm assuming this takes down the consent wall of "I'm in a Peaceful region so nothing bad can happen to my character" ?
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Immerael

    Immerael The Shadow Admín Staff Member Moderator Media Council 2015 Player of the Month

    Character Name:
    Azure Cerridwen
    Alt Name:
    Cyra'tina Cerridwen
    Race:
    Elf
    In-game Town/City:
    Zima'Maloj
    House:
    None
    Player One: *Plays grizzled PTSD warrior.*
    Player Two is talking to Players Three and Four at a tavern: *Says something to insult an old friend of Player One's.*
    Player One: *Attacks Player Two for this.*
    Player Two: *No longer able to consent out, is forced to defend himself in CRP. He manages to wound his opponent.*

    I've seen folks try to consent lock people based on words. "My character would not tolerate this ICly and would make them stop." It makes even less sense if they can't kill said person after they defend themselves and wound the attacker.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
    • Player Love Player Love x 1
  10. Niah

    Niah The Awkward Staff Member Moderator

    Mmm. So are region classifications nullified now?
  11. Electric

    Electric It took a lot to get here

    Character Name:
    Asero Crow
    Race:
    Human
    tfw staff decide that they don't see the situation as wrong

    ^ I think more clarification is needed for region consent

    Yeah- this seems like a problem. Sometimes you wanna just have a peaceful RP. I can understand consent not being a thing if you insult a (especially a known fighter) character to their face, but sorta just talking about people and then autoconsenting to being black eyed (as it isn't fatal) is sorta ehhhh
  12. Smurf

    Smurf Lord of Altera

    Ex postfacto. I would assume that this would not count whatsoever because these events happened BEFORE the new rules were set in place. However I assume that now things would change in the situation to allow ret-conning.
  13. Immerael

    Immerael The Shadow Admín Staff Member Moderator Media Council 2015 Player of the Month

    Character Name:
    Azure Cerridwen
    Alt Name:
    Cyra'tina Cerridwen
    Race:
    Elf
    In-game Town/City:
    Zima'Maloj
    House:
    None
    I think he's using it as an example of what would happen now in the exact same situation. Could be wrong though.
  14. Smurf

    Smurf Lord of Altera

  15. Lannis

    Lannis Thing Two Staff Member Moderator Lore Council

    Character Name:
    Aewin
    Alt Name:
    Evelyn
    Race:
    Elf
    Consent only applies to things with permanent consequences, yeah. Unfounded violence is still frowned upon, so if folk try to force it despite protest, it's worth bringing to staff.

    Peaceful and violent region ratings are unchanged- this rule isn't intended to impact region ratings in a dramatic way. Moderate regions are technically a bit different now, but shouldn't function all that differently. Unless you have a good reason for it, you'd probably still need to get consent for death.

    Feel free to put it in a report, we can sort it there. Smurf's sniped me though, and time is a factor. The clarification is more for moving forwards than reversing past actions with consent.

    The spirit of the rule is to facilitate reasonable interactions and promote healthy conflict. One of the keys to this, especially when fighting folk out of your friend group, is to maintain an OOC dialogue if it's necessary. It sounds like the situation you're describing would be best resolved by such.

    EDIT: Violent regions actually do function a bit differently, so we're gonna do a fresh post to clarify.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2017
    • Like Like x 4
  16. Immerael

    Immerael The Shadow Admín Staff Member Moderator Media Council 2015 Player of the Month

    Character Name:
    Azure Cerridwen
    Alt Name:
    Cyra'tina Cerridwen
    Race:
    Elf
    In-game Town/City:
    Zima'Maloj
    House:
    None
    *Squints rereading.* Oops.
    • Player Love Player Love x 1
  17. Lannis

    Lannis Thing Two Staff Member Moderator Lore Council

    Character Name:
    Aewin
    Alt Name:
    Evelyn
    Race:
    Elf
    Peaceful regions function exactly the same as they did before; there shouldn't be any form of violence in them.
    Moderate regions are still the 'baseline' for RP, and effectively require consent for death unless there's reasonable justification IC.
    Violent regions are still supposed to be dangerous IC, but power/metagaming are still fair reasons to pull consent in them. Staff will discuss this more, but a preliminary statement is that being in a violent region counts as fair reason to kill someone but does not remove consent for meta/powergaming.


    Furthermore, the new rule only applies to the what consent has been for interpersonal conflict. Larger-scale actions (war, etc) are not affected and still require agreement by all parties.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Player Love Player Love x 3
  18. Electric

    Electric It took a lot to get here

    Character Name:
    Asero Crow
    Race:
    Human
    Thanks for that :)
  19. LePancake

    LePancake Loyal Servant of Altera

    Character Name:
    Elnaril de Courtnay
    Alt Name:
    Amrak Tan
    Race:
    Human
    In-game Town/City:
    Queens Port
    House:
    de Courtnay
    No questions, but this seems like a step in the right direction consent wise, so just sayin' thanks to all staff involved for pushing this decision forward, or simply for people clarifying what this was
    • Like Like x 1
  20. pyrocide

    pyrocide The Mogul of Cromarcky

    Character Name:
    Marcelo Scorpetti
    Race:
    Human
    Definitely better than previous consent lore, thank you lannis. I do have a few questions however:

    Need clarification here. Often times the idea of killing/maiming can come from a number of smaller incidents rather than one. Sometimes, the idea of killing/maiming comes long after an action has happened. This quote would mean in either case, I am forbidden from killing/maiming a person because I didn't have the foresight to know I needed to tell the player that those group of actions might eventually lead to killing/maiming being a logical response.

    Another question about the same bit, how do mercenaries/assassins work with this system? Does the person who hired an assassin have to tell the target of the assassination about their actions leading to killing the target, or does the person doing the killing have to be the one to tell them?

    Why do we need to tell a person their character's actions might make my character kill or maim theirs? Shouldn't most of this be obvious, or could we not at least get a listing of examples of things that would allow death/maiming as a response?

    Finally, just to make sure, do these consent rules apply to situations like theft or property destruction?
    • Like Like x 6

Share This Page