King's Law Update: Consent Edition

[Electric]

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.

What do mean, could you expand on that?

 

[JoeJoe]

What do mean, could you expand on that?

Infection probably, or mangled up limbs. . possibly scar tissue?

 

[pyrocide]

What do mean, could you expand on that?

Sure thing.

Example of someone doing multiple small things that would eventually lead me to want to kill said person:
At a noble ball, character X calls my character out on something and humiliates them.
The next week, X spreads a rumor about my character cheating on his wife
some time after that, X sends a fake letter to my character's lord acting as my character, insulting the lord.
finally, X hires a group to break into my character's local bank and steals only my character's money.
X gloats about each of these incidents to my character, but makes sure to do it in private where he can't be caught saying it.

Each one of these incidents taken on it's own probably isn't enough to warrant my character killing character X. However, the totality of the repeated attacks has now left my character socially shunned, divorced, probably banished or jailed, and broke. This sum would certainly mean in my mind it would be logical to kill character X.
The issue is that based on the part I quoted, because I didn't tell player of X that his actions at the beginning of the ball might eventually lead to my character killing his, I am not allowed to, despite it being logical that my character should.
----------

Example of the idea of killing a character long after an action happened:

Character X kills my son. it's done secretly, and made to look like an accident.
Months later, an informant in X's inner circle come and tells me what actually happened.
Despite being months ago, the news of murder is fresh to my character, and would logically want retribution on X.
However, because of the quoted section, since I did not tell player of X that his actions (that I didn't know about at the time) would lead to my character trying to kill his, I cannot then attempt killing his character.

 

[Lannis]

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.

The rule treats killing and maiming a bit differently; though we should continue to treat revivals as a miracle instead of a guarantee, revivals are a more consistent mechanic than the process of regaining a limb would be. Objectively, maiming a dude has a more permanent impact on the way a character is played than death does, as it's easier in general to be revived. As such, consent standards for death are a bit lighter. You can use past events as fair reason to try and kill someone, but as of now maiming will always require either explicit consent or informing them of it as a consequence beforehand.
It'd probably get complicated in cases where maiming was a legal punishment if the one breaking it hadn't seen the law, etc. If that ever happens, it'd be a good idea to get a staff judgement on it at the time, as I don't want to lock into any hypothetical response without assessing the situation. That said, I'd probably be inclined to favor the IC justice system, as it's kinda a bad idea to commit a crime without first seeing if there are any unpleasant consequences already listed.

Another question about the same bit, how do mercnearies/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?

If the one hiring the assassins would need consent to kill the target in the first place, it's fine for them to obtain consent that the assassin then acts upon.

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?

For death, it's not always necessary to lay it out if the reasoning is clearly there. 'Informed consequence' is more of a tangential option that can be used to better establish your position of wanting to kill someone. For instance, if a fellow is insulting your character IC and you tell him that your character will try to kill him if he continues, he has very little basis for protesting when your character tries to kill him for continuing.
For maiming, they have to know that maiming is on the table before it happens.

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

Will discuss more with staff, but a preliminary opinion on it is that IC theft/property damage is an indirect effect and shouldn't require consent, but does require contacting the player such that they can appropriately represent their ability to protect it IC.

 

[Lannis]

Sure thing.

Example of someone doing multiple small things that would eventually lead me to want to kill said person:
At a noble ball, character X calls my character out on something and humiliates them.
The next week, X spreads a rumor about my character cheating on his wife
some time after that, X sends a fake letter to my character's lord acting as my character, insulting the lord.
finally, X hires a group to break into my character's local bank and steals only my character's money.
X gloats about each of these incidents to my character, but makes sure to do it in private where he can't be caught saying it.

Each one of these incidents taken on it's own probably isn't enough to warrant my character killing character X. However, the totality of the repeated attacks has now left my character socially shunned, divorced, probably banished or jailed, and broke. This sum would certainly mean in my mind it would be logical to kill character X.
The issue is that based on the part I quoted, because I didn't tell player of X that his actions at the beginning of the ball might eventually lead to my character killing his, I am not allowed to, despite it being logical that my character should.
----------

Example of the idea of killing a character long after an action happened:

Character X kills my son. it's done secretly, and made to look like an accident.
Months later, an informant in X's inner circle come and tells me what actually happened.
Despite being months ago, the news of murder is fresh to my character, and would logically want retribution on X.
However, because of the quoted section, since I did not tell player of X that his actions (that I didn't know about at the time) would lead to my character trying to kill his, I cannot then attempt killing his character.

I got kinda wordy in my reply to the other- the tl;dr of it is that it's entirely fair to try to kill X in this situation, but you'd need agreement to maim.

 

[pyrocide]

All of that makes sense, and thank you for the reply.

You may want to amend the part I quoted though:

-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. This concept of informed consequence also applies to death.

Because the way it reads, "This concept of informed consequence also applies to death." makes it sound as though maiming and killing are considered the same category. Also, in the same thought pattern, say I figure it's poetic justice to take a guy's sword hand after i find out he killed my son with a sword a month ago. In these instances of not knowing or not being around when the action happens, is it still possible to tell the person their action will make mine want to take a hand, or have I simply missed my opportunity to do so?

 

[LePancake]

To kind of add on to Pyro's question, and follow that thought process a bit, so say I get into a fight with Character X, and the fight winds up coming to the clashing of blades. During this, I wind up taking Character X's hand, however I never specified maiming that character, only killing, is that maiming then considered illegal, and able to retcon, because I maimed during a battle in which I only specified death was an option?

 

[HogoShi_Kitsune]

Better TL;DR: By playing on the server, you consent to all forms of assault, maiming, or death. If you believe your character was assaulted, maimed, or killed as a result of a violation of the King's Law, talk it out or go to staff. This is all that really needs to be said I think.

Also, the use of "consent" in by the OP gets a little dicey. He uses "consent" to mean the lack thereof in some paragraphs.

 

[Lannis]

All of that makes sense, and thank you for the reply.

You may want to amend the part I quoted though:

Because the way it reads, "This concept of informed consequence also applies to death." makes it sound as though maiming and killing are considered the same category. Also, in the same thought pattern, say I figure it's poetic justice to take a guy's sword hand after i find out he killed my son with a sword a month ago. In these instances of not knowing or not being around when the action happens, is it still possible to tell the person their action will make mine want to take a hand, or have I simply missed my opportunity to do so?

Good point, I've hopefully clarified the wording some on the original post.
As to the question itself, I wouldn't consider that sufficient grounds to maim without consent. Nothing stops you from trying to pursue maiming IC, but the other player would still need to agree to it OOCly.
If it were a case of the other dude maiming your character's son instead of killing him, it might be fair to maim in turn depending on the situation. Most of this depends on circumstance, I'd be happy to give a specific judgement if a situation comes up.

To kind of add on to Pyro's question, and follow that thought process a bit, so say I get into a fight with Character X, and the fight winds up coming to the clashing of blades. During this, I wind up taking Character X's hand, however I never specified maiming that character, only killing, is that maiming then considered illegal, and able to retcon, because I maimed during a battle in which I only specified death was an option?

Again, kinda depends on situation. If your intention is to maim them, it definitely requires discussion regardless of circumstance. Quibbling over technicalities shouldn't prohibit legitimate combat choices, so I'm not going to say that you can't cut off someone's hand before stabbing them through the chest if it's a fair opportunity. That said, some form of prior discussion would probably be a good idea so that nobody panics when a hand is chopped off without first getting consent for it. Just don't be malicious with it, no RP should end with someone being maimed without getting consent for it.

 

[DraconDarknight]

Lannis

What if the person commits a crime and the region's laws state execution or maiming as a consequence?
Getting your hand cut off for being a thief was an actual thing in medieval Europe for example.

My personal stance on this is that committing the crime is implied consent to the consequence.

 

[Jazzper]

Lannis

What if the person commits a crime and the region's laws state execution or maiming as a consequence?
Getting your hand cut off for being a thief was an actual thing in medieval Europe for example.

My personal stance on this is that committing the crime is implied consent to the consequence.

-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.

Quite sure that if they commit a crime and know about the danger, they accept said danger.
Consent is for use against Powergaming, Metagaming and IC consequences of OOC dislike.

 

[Legendary Fiction]

Lannis

What if the person commits a crime and the region's laws state execution or maiming as a consequence?
Getting your hand cut off for being a thief was an actual thing in medieval Europe for example.

My personal stance on this is that committing the crime is implied consent to the consequence.

This is what people need to remember. Doing an action that's against a law in said place, is pretty much, in my opinion, consenting to consequences - which would be punishment due to law.
(The difficult part I guess is does it mean consent all the way across the continent? I stole bread in Astrakahn, does this mean if I leave there, my consent is nulled? What about if the person chasing me is a mercenary, versus an Astrakahn citizen?)

 

[mokwar]

Lannis

What if the person commits a crime and the region's laws state execution or maiming as a consequence?
Getting your hand cut off for being a thief was an actual thing in medieval Europe for example.

My personal stance on this is that committing the crime is implied consent to the consequence.

To add on it, thievery were sometimes harsher punished that murder, and was not 100% unusual to be punished with death

 

[DraconDarknight]

Quite sure that if they commit a crime and know about the danger, they accept said danger.
Consent is for use against Powergaming, Metagaming and IC consequences of OOC dislike.

There is actually reasons why I want a direct staff answer for this .
People often don't look before QQing around (I'm not really the one to talk about in that regard either), and hence won't see laws before entering a town, as they are usually written in house sections.
My personal take on it is yet again that it is their own negligence.

Next thing is that people imho can't expect a modern court trial with our 21st century understanding of fairness in a medieval RPG - And yet that is exactly what they expect.

 

[CyberChaosV2]

Lannis I know that there's been a stigma against poison, but with some poisons being changed to be nonlethal, and certainly not maiming... would one still need consent to poison anothers drink/food with one of these poisons if they were gonna leave it at that and it made sense IC?

 

[Electric]

Next thing is that people imho can't expect a modern court trial with our 21st century understanding of fairness in a medieval RPG - And yet that is exactly what they expect.

Nah- a dishonest trial is wholly expected and actually? Sometimes welcome. Who doesn’t like some dirty, grudgeful RP once in a while? It’s just OOC denial of obvious IC circumstances that can be annoying.

 

[Lannis]

Lannis

What if the person commits a crime and the region's laws state execution or maiming as a consequence?
Getting your hand cut off for being a thief was an actual thing in medieval Europe for example.

My personal stance on this is that committing the crime is implied consent to the consequence.

I more or less agree, ain't a great idea to go around committing crimes without some expectation of consequence. It's fine so long as the laws aren't ridiculous and/or unreasonable just to avoid consent, like saying the punishment for all crimes is chopping arms off or some such. So long as it's a cooperative interaction and not malicious, should be good.

This is what people need to remember. Doing an action that's against a law in said place, is pretty much, in my opinion, consenting to consequences - which would be punishment due to law.
(The difficult part I guess is does it mean consent all the way across the continent? I stole bread in Astrakahn, does this mean if I leave there, my consent is nulled? What about if the person chasing me is a mercenary, versus an Astrakahn citizen?)

To add on it, thievery were sometimes harsher punished that murder, and was not 100% unusual to be punished with death

Folk should expect reasonable consequence for breaking a law somewhere, which wouldn't be contingent on their still being in the region. The operative word, again, is 'reasonable-' I'm getting away from consent a bit, this is more of a general recommendation for how to handle it in RP. Something like stealing a piece of bread shouldn't make them outlaws everywhere or lead to a global manhunt, and an appropriate response to fairly minor stuff like that is probably more along the lines of 'hire a mercenary or two.' I think folk should be free to set their own laws, however harsh they may be, but it's better to base reaction on the crime itself than the potential consequence.

Lannis I know that there's been a stigma against poison, but with some poisons being changed to be nonlethal, and certainly not maiming... would one still need consent to poison anothers drink/food with one of these poisons if they were gonna leave it at that and it made sense IC?

Potions are always tricky, but for consent purposes they should be fine unless lethal. However, standard RP practice is to ask the person beforehand simply so that there's some form of verification that the thing was poisoned, which I think is a good practice regardless. I personally do not advocate the use of poisons unless it's with someone you know will be chill with it in the first place, however; It's not breaking any rules, but unilateral debilitation often causes frustration. Again, you're technically fine to poison whomever, but it probably won't be pretty unless there's some agreement OOCly.

 

[PitaChipBoi]

lets make very region violent.

 

[DraconDarknight]

I more or less agree, ain't a great idea to go around committing crimes without some expectation of consequence. It's fine so long as the laws aren't ridiculous and/or unreasonable just to avoid consent, like saying the punishment for all crimes is chopping arms off or some such. So long as it's a cooperative interaction and not malicious, should be good.



Folk should expect reasonable consequence for breaking a law somewhere, which wouldn't be contingent on their still being in the region. The operative word, again, is 'reasonable-' I'm getting away from consent a bit, this is more of a general recommendation for how to handle it in RP. Something like stealing a piece of bread shouldn't make them outlaws everywhere or lead to a global manhunt, and an appropriate response to fairly minor stuff like that is probably more along the lines of 'hire a mercenary or two.' I think folk should be free to set their own laws, however harsh they may be, but it's better to base reaction on the crime itself than the potential consequence.

Our laws are reasonable - By medieval standards

 

[Immerael]

All laws must henceforth be modeled after the most lenient of ancient standards. The code of Hammurabi.