Returning to Consent

[Arken]

I just think that if you defend yourself, you're not auto-consenting to death.
If you try to kill someone else, dunno.

Sorry, buddy, but you did start the combat. You did not defend yourself. Tom was polishing his bow before Azgir and his crew even rolled up; and Azgir threw his club to initiate the combat.

 

[Jazzper]

I was not in the recent RP that likely spurred this thread. The idea of consent is still valid. The Crossroads haven't been neutral since the Gods left, if you're going to try and force someone to leave with violent means then you consent to violence.
Violence can end in death. It usually does.

No violence was used untill someone grabbed a weapon and pointed it towards another person.

Sorry, buddy, but you did start the combat. You did not defend yourself. Tom was polishing his bow before Azgir and his crew even rolled up; and Azgir threw his club to initiate the combat.

Azgir threw his club at Tom when he loaded a his bow and moved backwards (to probably get a clean shot)
Then he didn't do anything except for trying to not get shot

 

[Arken]

No violence was used untill someone grabbed a weapon and pointed it towards another person.

That's exactly what I said. That's what you all did.

 

[Sir Saltington]

Sorry, buddy, but you did start the combat. You did not defend yourself. Tom was polishing his bow before Azgir and his crew even rolled up; and Azgir threw his club to initiate the combat.

No violence was used untill someone grabbed a weapon and pointed it towards another person.

Guys, I'll be honest. I love myself a good salty debate, but I'd say you guys should take it to a private convo if you want to argue, otherwise staff will tell you guys and then it just gets ugly.

 

[Jazzper]

That's exactly what I said. That's what you all did.

My character didn't point a weapon.
He already had it and merely grabbed it since the other person had a bow.

Guys, I'll be honest. I love myself a good salty debate, but I'd say you guys should take it to a private convo if you want to argue, otherwise staff will tell you guys and then it just gets ugly.

I'm not here to argue, I'm accepting other people's way of reasoning/opinions but also supplying my own

 

[Rygan]

Regardless of what happened in that one RP, the result of it based on what was said is what I think is important.

 

[Elz]

You're making the thread personal.
I'd still like some solid, clear rules on consent and where its to be used. Theres got to be some mixed opinions here if all this is emerging, eh?

 

[The Courier]

I still enjoy Naelywn's terms of "Talk shit get hit" for it all. You trying to start something? You get hit. This includes being a "neutral" party. Who would have guessed walking in front of really pissed off people with swords/bows/maces/crossbows/whatever-the-hell would get injured if not killed in due process. It's almost like that's a REALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION.

 

[blargtheawesome]

My only problem with consent, is that it's never used how it was originally intended to be used. I never see some dude who plays a character that would never hurt a fly, by a player who goes out of their way to avoid combat RP, tactfully declining an attack against their character that they see as arbitrary. It's always, from what I've seen, characters who are being absolutely malicious, while also refusing to accept any of the repercussions that come their way.

 

[Jazzper]

You're making the thread personal.
I'd still like some solid, clear rules on consent and where its to be used. Theres got to be some mixed opinions here if all this is emerging, eh?

I do wish to point out that I was merely displaying my opinion on this matter, like everyone else, and provided some random examples.
I never mentioned anything about my char untill someone else mentioned him.
As I said: not here to argue, just here to look at the "consent" from multiple perspectives.

I agree with nearly everything one here, but RP does need to be pleasant for both parties involved, not just one.
Not all combat has to end in serious injury/death, but that's my opinion.

 

[Niko]

My only problem with consent, is that it's never used how it was originally intended to be used. I never see some dude who plays a character that would never hurt a fly, by a player who goes out of their way to avoid combat RP, tactfully declining an attack against their character that they see as arbitrary. It's always, from what I've seen, characters who are being absolutely malicious, while also refusing to accept any of the repercussions that come their way.

*distant chanting* Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el!

 

[Tempy_]

They'd realistically get a right to avoid being captured. It's a risk you take when you go try to capture someone against their will, and I'm sure that'd be the case if it were your character being captured.

Also, agreed with Salt. If I don't wish my character to die, I'd avoid them dying by not placing them in a scenario where they would. Theres nothing wrong with dealing out consent/results/not dying before the fight begins, so long as people are made aware.
I've done that in the past with Marian and Illthilior. Tempy_

To elaborate on both this and the entirety thread:

I got to agree with Naelwyn and Blarg, mostly. If you do not want your character in dangerous , possibility of death shit? Don't put him in dangerous shit. See a fight but you are a peaceful character? Walk away, do not try to break up the fight, as you then put yourself in dangerous shit.

However, like Elz says: If you just want a fun combat RP, but not run the risk of death or permanent damage to your character, just set some rules at the start and discuss with one another. Elz and I died that for a fight once between Marian and Illthilior, and I personally find it one of the most enjoyable combat RP's I've ever partaken in.

 

[blargtheawesome]

*distant chanting* Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el, Om-ri-el!

I'm not trying to call out individual people, to clarify. I'm know for sure there's people who have done it, I've been on the frustrating side of the argument. Simultaneously, I hope that it can be attributed to ignorance as opposed to malice, or at least that they change their ways.

 

[Solus]

Sorry folks- but lots of people use consent rules as they are made to be used. You yourselves might not see it. Most of you players responding here have settled into Violent Regions where there are plenty who avoid interacting with Violent folks for a reason, and that's why we have these rules. There is a difference in roleplay combat style favoring, difference in roleplay combat style /outcomes/ and difference in roleplay of violence style in general. Our Moderate regions support this playstyle where people, you know- actually talk out what they are fine with, what outcomes they'd like, what possible things they are alright with when it comes to violence. You stick to Violent Regions? Go ahead and do what you like. You're in a Moderate Region? Talk it out before instigating lethal harm because not everyone trying to hit a person non-lethally is trying to kill them. There are a vast, vast amount of players that come together here in HollowWorld and pressuring one way of doing things against another way of doing a perfectly fine thing is not encouraged.

There is a discussion in progress in back-end about ways to address consent clarity, and has been before this incident arose.

 

[Mitch]

One thing that I could never figure out is why people don't discuss this stuff beforehand with one another.

It's as simple as someone taking initiative before any combat scenario and PM'ing those involved saying, "hey, what end result are you comfortable with?" and then mutually working from there. When someone pulls their lack of consent out of their ass in the middle of a fight or after the consequences have happened, that's when the arguments start happening and people get upset.

We're all mature here and we can handle responsibility. I think it should be up to the player to take responsibility of their own character and RP and say very clearly before even entering a combat scenario if they don't consent to death. While this doesn't solve the issues of "he/she started it so he/she automatically consents," I wouldn't doubt it would help to diffuse a lot of the arguments related to consent being used once the consequences become undesirable, as it usually is. If it's discussed before any conflict even takes place, either party can choose to walk away or cooperate to end up with a result that's much better than arguments.

If you're aware you're getting yourself into a potentially dangerous/fatal situation and refuse to make it known from the get-go you don't consent to death, then it's not the fault of anyone else involved. It's your own.

 

[Niko]

Personally, I believe that even if the assailant who initiates combat does not have the intention of killing, the victim should have the right to do whatever it takes to defend themselves. Trying to restrict the way someone defends to non lethal combat leads to awkward strikes and from past experience it is much harder to both restrict how one fights and try to successfully defend oneself.

Another scenario is a mugging. A regular mugging should not lead to any death and if someone says "I do not consent to death", one might think that seems logical since that is not supposed to lead to death, however, this now restricts the victim's ability to fight back (if he or she decides to fight back) to non lethal strikes, this removes the fear of death from the attacker and removes the effectiveness of one's ability to defend onself thus giving the mugger an unfair advantage.

I fully agree with Naelwyn with his statement; the removal of character death from violent situations leads to the exploitation of unfair advantages.

 

[Naelwyn]

Postscript: My whole "Start stuff get stuff" is predicated on the /assumption/ people actually talk pre-combat.

If you like, pull a knife on me, my first thing is gonna be

(Alright, are you sure about that? You can mulligan this one if you want, but if you don't, my character will be attempting to incapacitate and arrest you. You down?)

 

[LiraKitty]

I don't understand why consent is even an issue that the poor devs have to deal with. One would assume that we are all old enough to understand that there are consequences to our actions and that we are also capable of seeing beyond our own wants and needs. This being the case we should be responsible and courteous enough to message a person and start a dialogue before just grabbing a sword from our belt and swinging it at our neighbors head. "Hey tom I am going to try to capture you." "Ok Bill but if you try that my character will try to kill you." "Well Tom I don't really think that is fair maybe we should not roleplay together." "I agree Bill our styles and methods do not seem to be compatible." Tom and Bill go their own ways and no drama is created. This being said if someone inciting violence or behaving in such a way that would make someone wish to do them violence. "Tom your behavior is making my character very angry. He may want to kill you." "Oh sorry Bill I did not mean to take it that far." If a person continually behaves in such a way that makes you no longer want to deal with them then simply don't interact with them.

 

[Tot]

I don't understand why consent is even an issue that the poor devs have to deal with. One would assume that we are all old enough to understand that there are consequences to our actions and that we are also capable of seeing beyond our own wants and needs. This being the case we should be responsible and courteous enough to message a person and start a dialogue before just grabbing a sword from our belt and swinging it at our neighbors head. "Hey tom I am going to try to capture you." "Ok Bill but if you try that my character will try to kill you." "Well Tom I don't really think that is fair maybe we should not roleplay together." "I agree Bill our styles and methods do not seem to be compatible." Tom and Bill go their own ways and no drama is created. This being said if someone inciting violence or behaving in such a way that would make someone wish to do them violence. "Tom your behavior is making my character very angry. He may want to kill you." "Oh sorry Bill I did not mean to take it that far." If a person continually behaves in such a way that makes you no longer want to deal with them then simply don't interact with them.

You would think...

 

[Solus]

I don't understand why consent is even an issue that the poor devs have to deal with. One would assume that we are all old enough to understand that there are consequences to our actions and that we are also capable of seeing beyond our own wants and needs. This being the case we should be responsible and courteous enough to message a person and start a dialogue before just grabbing a sword from our belt and swinging it at our neighbors head. "Hey tom I am going to try to capture you." "Ok Bill but if you try that my character will try to kill you." "Well Tom I don't really think that is fair maybe we should not roleplay together." "I agree Bill our styles and methods do not seem to be compatible." Tom and Bill go their own ways and no drama is created. This being said if someone inciting violence or behaving in such a way that would make someone wish to do them violence. "Tom your behavior is making my character very angry. He may want to kill you." "Oh sorry Bill I did not mean to take it that far." If a person continually behaves in such a way that makes you no longer want to deal with them then simply don't interact with them.

Unfortunately, try as people might in avoiding circumstances, there always ends up a way where someone corners or pressures another into a situation in which they do have to react un-wantedly. In cases of this- you can oocly refuse outright and report to staff where we give a talking-to to the other player and/or a severe warning.