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.