Shattered Kingdoms

Dulrik's brainstorm thread has gotten a lot of responses, and several have had to do with PvP restrictions, namely Rule 1:



First, I will point out that these are not new rules. These have been in place since way before I took on the Rules Manager position, so there aren't any "new PK restrictions." If anything, they have been relaxed by allowing for exceptions to the pre-PK RP requirements in certain cases (tribunal membership, enmity, etc.). That said, maybe they weren't enforced before, so it feels like a new restriction.

My position on the matter is that, whatever the rule is, it will be enforced. If players don't like this rule and would prefer to have it replaced, the staff is open to altering it. If you have any specific input about this, please speak up in this thread. Note, that anything that requires extra staff judgment, or that makes for a complicated rule or convoluted enforcement paradigm will fail and I, for one, would be disinclined to modify things in that direction. If you think "before killing" should be replaced with "before or after killing," that is an example of a simple change that is just as easy to enforce as the current rule.

I have included a poll to get a rough estimate of where people stand on this. I don't take it as scientific or precise; it is merely one datapoint.

this entire rule is unnecessary and it should be removed. it has never served any legitimate purpose and the revisions to it over the last couple years are contrary to the very core of sk's niche as an rp-pk mud. before this rule started getting tweaked, u were "flagged for pk" the moment you stepped out of the halls of creation.

the changes to this rule combined with the absurdity of the law code (bounty hunters - fun and interactive, amirite?) and the futility of crs has taken all the fun out of pk, making it a frustrating and tedious experience. it used to be a selling point for the game.

u guys really need to decide if sk is still a pk game or not and stop with the half measures. if ur not comfortable with every character always being flagged for pk then add a toggle or a flag, which can't be changed once it is enabled. it could show up on the who list like [HRO] or [PAR] - [PK].

I'm of the opinion that all PKs should involve RP, but in most cases, post-PK RP can be sufficient. PK solely for loot could also be OK as long as there were other efforts made beforehand (ie: asking if someone would part with item X, sell item X, or trade for item X). The latter might even deter hoarding a smidge.

Of course the one doing the PK might invite RP afterward and the victim may decline, but as long as an apparent effort to RP afterward is made, that should be enough in my book. I feel like people are tiptoeing around PK right now for fear of breaking the rules and getting severely punished and it takes the fun out of it.

I think it'd be beneficial to eliminate or loosen up on the RP-PK restriction and punishment and save harsher punishments for griefing (which would have to be defined in a clear way).

Perhaps I have been misinterpreting the golden rule. I always viewed the golden rule as make sure everyone playing has "fun". Aka dont PK someone into deletion, dont kick a man when he is down kind of thing. Have respect for people OOCly even if you hate them ICly. It was never designed to say dont PK people, it was make sure there RP and its reasonable they can understand why it happened. I could be mistaken but I am fairly sure that most of the issues where the golden rule has been invoked recently "the victim" had voice as to if they felt someone had over stepped the line, or no say in how harsh the punishment should be for doing so.

The golden rule really should be handled similarly to a harassment claim in a work place. A victim needs to come forward. There should be a discussion between the two parties including or via a moderate as required. A solution is reached these could be limiting frequency of PKs on said victim, the moderator reminding a victim if they are going to carry around sweet loot they are fair game for PK. If a solution can not be mutually reached or is not adhered too is when a punishment or forced change should be considered. In the rare case where an Imm feels the need to step in on a players behalf as far as a violation of this they should contact the victim first regarding it to make sure they are taking it how the Imm believes they are rather than venting frustrating everyone feels when they are on the losing end of an competition.

I feel as though RP occurs before pk, even if it doesn't occur with the one getting killed. If hunting in a group, you had to determine someone an enemy and determine why they are to be killed. There is the RP.
When it comes to killing noobies because they won't give you their name, that's a different story. Stun could be used. And something like this 'could' be enforced. But any GM should be fair game if some sort of RP has occurred.
Hell, I'd say that someone could *sayto self you know, that Azoreth guy? For some reason, I don't really like his face. I think I'm gonna kill him."
Then, once I get killed and I'm told that it's because someone doesn't like my face, I get insulted and now have a reason/want to kill them back. Giving more fuel to the fire. RP will have been put into place for a continuing conflict.
Enough rambling from me.
Any GM is PKable.

When I started playing SK, while the rules in writing were the same as they are now, they weren't enforced at all the way they are now.

For example, the guy who introduced me to the game played a deep-elf sorc who would go invis and haste/giant strength the NPCs in the circle of holy, and then when people died to them, he'd wait until their ghost disappeared and loot them. On my first character, I came upon an unfamiliar giant while walking through the Tower of the Rose, he killed me, took my corpse, and left. Another time I passed by an unfamiliar giant while training in Morea, and he shot at a Fytrysk on the opposite side of me and walked away, trying to get me killed. Another time I walked up to the Druid entrance, asked to "enter" (I know, I was stupid and saw it in a log) which then caused the druid leader scout to kill me, take my corpse, and disappear. Another time two characters lured the high priest of Alshain to the Cathedral under the guise of interested seekers only to assault us as soon as we entered.

I could go on, but there are many formative experiences I've had that involved PKing where there was little to zero interaction beforehand, and in many cases little to zero interaction afterwards. Some of them are, in my eyes, clear cases of griefing. Others are in my eyes totally legitimate PKs where my character just ended up on the bad end of a pre-existing conflict.

But here's the thing though: I can think of -very- few situations in my 11 years of playing SK where I think the best approach would have been for the staff to come in and punish the player of the opposite character.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think griefing is acceptable, and griefing certainly happens. However, one thing that originally attracted me to SK was the fact that there was absolutely nothing keeping you from getting betrayed at a moment's notice. Many characters had it completely within their right to cast harm or heal at will, just like "in real life" as it were, and yet you still had to interact with other people to get things done. It adds so much more weight to the game when anything could happen at any moment. It feels so much more intense and realistic.

The recent interpretation of the rule where you absolutely, 100% -have- to RP with your target that you want to kill them before attacking them unless it falls within a strict set of rules that are easily avoidable effectively removes power from the players to PK in a way that makes sense from an RP perspective. There are situations where the staff needs to get involved. I don't think that most situations fall into that category. I also think that while it's a certainly valid interpretation of the rules, it was -never- the stance of the staff before Thuban's position as RM. I don't even think that the rule needs much changing: I just think that as long as you can justify your actions through RP with -anyone-, not just your target, that it should be perfectly valid to kill whoever you want provided it doesn't fall under the category of griefing.


TL;DR: Maybe I'm being nostalgic, but I miss the days when This post was actually important advice, because PK was very possible at any point if you were simply unlucky. Yes, you should roleplay before killing; But I completely disagree with the stance that you should be -forced- to roleplay with your -target- that you want to kill them. Any RP with any person should be acceptable as "grounds for PK" in my eyes.

I stopped playing SK when it became clear that "k enemy" is not considered RP by the staff nor by a large number of the players. There is nothing inherently disrespectful about killing someone and taking their loot on a game that is in large part about killing people and taking their loot. The idea that PK is not by itself RP - that it has to be accompanied by flowery emotes and says and notes and whatnot - is bananas. This is not the case on any number of wildly successful RP/PK muds I have played over the years. It also has not always been the case on SK.

If "attack enemy" was all the RP necessary for PK in any circumstance, then the entire clause of rule 1 saying that you need to RP before PK would be unnecessary.

The recent change in interpretation has been whether or not that pre-PK RP needs to be with your victim and explicit that you're planning on killing them, which has been the primary source of contention amongst players since. I'm not a fan of that mindset at all: While I certainly have never liked the idea of people playing SK like counterstrike, in rolling characters whose only purpose was to get cheap ganks and therefore "win" SK without even bothering with RP, I think that requiring PK's across the board to involve you telling the person "Hey I'm going to kill you" before you try to kill them is excessive and takes too much realism away from the game.

I think the rules for PK should be withdrawn some, but also, the reason the rules didn't get enforced like they are now is because the players have always policed themselves to a degree. Everyone's always known who the RP only chars are, and they very rarely died. These players, though, also knew THEIR rules. If you want to stay completely out of conflict, you don't get to have super awesome stuff and just hang out with whoever you want. That's just how it is playing a game like this. You wanna RP a passive char who doesn't take part in conflict? Fine, go do it, but don't expect this massive umbrella of rules enforcement to protect you while you have a full set of scripted gear that you have no use for. If there are rules for players who wanna be aggressive, there has to be rules for players who wanna be passive. That's where the line is blurred, not the players not respecting the player who only wants to RP.

Rule 1: If you want an RP only player, you don't get to join factions, aggressive religions, or tribunals.

Rule 2: Getting and wearing unique armor basically states you have a need for armor. You can take part in PvE with just about any armor.

Rule 3: Don't make a character who is likely to get into trouble if all you want is RP. You can't RP being a bad [REDACTED] warrior without being(or trying to be) a bad [REDACTED] warrior. That's just a fact of life. You can RP being a completely passive priest, or mage, or whatever you want but you don't get to be a battle priest who doesn't battle.

Rule 4: You, the player, are somewhat responsible for what happens to your character. Be aware of who you're with and where you are. If you don't want to get involved in conflict it's pretty easy to avoid, but you don't get to be Most Evil Guy Ever's best friend and not expect good guys to associate you with him.

I don't pretend to be currently active. But when I played, kills of convenience were certainly a turn-off. Another game with lots of kills like that turned me off completely, even though I liked other aspects. If someone's going to put me through the trouble of resurrection and re-gearing, I don't see a little bit of story as too much to ask.

That said, I think you can change the rule to allow more fluid PvP. I'd put it this way:

* If you kill another player's character, you should be able to show that the player knows or should know why. This can be after-the-fact. Reasons must be specific to the characters involved, as opposed to general violence against any available target.

That last sentence isn't a new concept. AFAIK, it's always been forbidden to play a consistent brigand who kills and loots every weaker character in sight. It's true some actions that have passed for city-war would get caught in the mix, but good riddance.

That this rule tends to give RP the benefit of the doubt is a plus. I'm much more interested in RP than PK, but I find the existing rule interpretation a turn-off. If I wanted an environment where PK rules take precedence over RP, there are lots of other MUDs that cater to that.