R
Radun
Guest
Just wondering where everyone draws the line on consensual/non-consensual pvp regarding fel.
Discuss...
or don't.
Discuss...
or don't.
Then why are you given the option to report the character for murder?Choosing to go from the places you can't be attacked freely to the places where you can is the definition of consent.
Well as far as I know its a matter of pride to have lots of counts, so yes when I am PK, I do take the time to pass out the counts. That way they can sit at the Old PK house in the rocking chairs and talk about the good old days and the true # of kills they haveThen why are you given the option to report the character for murder?Choosing to go from the places you can't be attacked freely to the places where you can is the definition of consent.
Consenting to pvp and wishing to engage in pvp are two entirely different thingsif you wished to engage in pvp whilst mining.. then the scenario would be consentual. If you did not wish to engage in pvp, and someone came upon you and attacked you, it would be non-consentual.
Past history of your behavior on that toon on that facet would not be mitigating circumstances.
There are several other valid reasons for going to fel facet which do not involve engaging in pvp
The laws of the land say that murdering an "innocent" should result in the option of the "innocent" to report the murderor (eventually limiting their choice in travel destinations)Then why are you given the option to report the character for murder?
Just wondering where everyone draws the line on consensual/non-consensual pvp regarding fel.
Discuss...
or don't.
Well putGoing to fel means you are consenting to PvP.
The only time this isnt true is when someone takes you there via an exploit or you are a newb and stumble into fel without knowing what it really is.
In this case the power scrolls, the only way to acquire them naturally is to enter PvP lands. What others call choosing to enter, I call coercion. Since there aren't always power scrolls you desire for sale, the only means to acquire them is to take on champ spawns. So without the coercion to lead people places they wouldn't normally go, then a clear choice to PvP or not would be made.Economic coercion is when a controller of a vital resource uses his advantage to compel a person to do something he would not do if this resource were not monopolized.
When you enter a dangerous dungeon do the monsters wait for your consent before they attack you? Not the vast majority. We all know that when we voluntarily enter an area where we can be freely attacked, be it a dungeon *or* Fel, tacitly, we have given our prior consent to the possible consequences, because we all should have at least some idea what dangers might be waiting for us there. ... (and *voluntarily* is an important word, since some players have been tricked, wound up in Fel and been attacked completely against their consent).Just wondering where everyone draws the line on consensual/non-consensual pvp regarding fel.
Discuss...
or don't.
I feel we shall never achieve #2What constitutes consent??
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
–noun
That's not a good RL comparison. A more accurate one would be: If you walk down the street in a war zone, would it matter if you gave or didn't give your consent to be shot?So if someone walks down the street after dark they are consenting to be mugged?
It makes the same sense as what some of you are trying to say about going to Felucca.
You know, a PvP switch is *exactly* what we were all asking for on these boards way before Tram came in! Trammel and its radically different rule set wasn't an option any of us asked for or even considered. We didn't want to split the community, all we wanted was the opportunity to choose whether or not we PvPed. I think almost everyone realized splitting the PvMers and PvPers into totally different areas would fracture the game in unacceptable ways... and it did.What is really funny is that these same people saying it would scream bloody murder if someone suggested making the whole game Trammel and giving us a PvP switch.
Actually, PvP is allowed in Trammel between guilds... at least it used to be, and I think it still is. Order vs Chaos used to be another way to PvP in Trammel and, with this latest storyline, they seem to be hinting at starting that old conflict up again. Remember the choice Andrew(?) gave those of us who went through the black gate in Moonglow at the last, to choose to serve the Shadowlords or die? The Shadowlords are Chaos.If everyone in Fel were consenting to PvP as they say, it would not change anything. Those same people would all have their PvP toggle ON, since they are consenting now, and the only difference would be that we had more places to PvP in. Right?
Because it is a nearly perfect analogy.Why do some of you keep insisting on comparing RL to a game? Being in a PvP zone (in this case Fel) in a *game* is the very definition of consentual PvP. Nobody *has* to go to Fel.
LoL ! So you keep saying.Why did you choose to go to Felucca and mine... instead of choosing to stay in Trammel and mine?
Did you choose to allow the PK to attack you?
It's pretty cut and dry.
Exactly. Just like when I get in my car today, I accept the risk I may have an accident out on the road. It does not mean I will go ram the first car I come across. (aware of risk, non-consentual)However, being in Fel means one accepts the risk that PvP can occur.
Very well put...Consenting to pvp and wishing to engage in pvp are two entirely different things
You're exactly right! Consent doesn't enter into it in the way many people use the term *in games* (which usually has something to do with a switch). PvP in Fel is just a real possibility that you must take precautions to avoid, if you have no wish to engage in it.Because it is a nearly perfect analogy.
You go someplace for one reason or another, and run the risk of being attacked in some way.
Just because that risk exists does not mean you consent to it, it simply means the risk exists.
But since you hate RL so much, consider equally rational In-Game comparisons.
If your blacksmith joins a smiths guild, you are consenting to PvP? After all, being in a guild means you risk being attacked by others in it, and according to you any such risk that is accepted is consent. So joining a blacksmith's guild is consenting to PvP.
Or how about an in-game/metagame comparison.
Is shopping in Luna consenting to be banned?
Apply your own statements and perspectives of going to Fel = Consent to that, and try to explain it away.
Yes... if I'm dumb enough to let a thief catch me off-guard... and, with the "new" Stealth skill, that's become a very large possibility that creeps me out.So when you go to Fel do you give consent to be stolen from ??
Well as far as I know its a matter of pride to have lots of counts, so yes when I am PK, I do take the time to pass out the counts. That way they can sit at the Old PK house in the rocking chairs and talk about the good old days and the true # of kills they have
In the terms of Fel, those that enter that don't wish to PvP are acknowledging they can be attacked. But if you imply consent from that, then recognize that it is done through coercion.
In this case the power scrolls, the only way to acquire them naturally is to enter PvP lands. What others call choosing to enter, I call coercion. Since there aren't always power scrolls you desire for sale, the only means to acquire them is to take on champ spawns. So without the coercion to lead people places they wouldn't normally go, then a clear choice to PvP or not would be made.
Double resources and higher fame wouldn't count towards coercion as those items can be obtained elsewhere.
That's a horrible rl comparison. In a war zone, you usually don't have the choice to leave and probably don't have an incentive to be there if you don't want to be involved in the fighting.That's not a good RL comparison. A more accurate one would be: If you walk down the street in a war zone, would it matter if you gave or didn't give your consent to be shot?
.
Thank you for your kind words, now I have the Bighead.I have the utmost respect for you and those like you who have had the opportunity to be here all these many years. Who experienced play in a different time/ruleset.
I think we have to agree tho, that this is not that same UO that many people have experienced in the past. It has changed/morphed if you will, through decisions developers have made over time, and through the adjusted playstyle of it's own inhabitants.
I am certainly not arguing to eliminate the pvp system. I am not arguing that fel is not a world full of pvp. I am simply stating that merely existing in the fel facet is not consenting to engage in pvp.
Stealing is part of the PVP system. Of course you do.So when you go to Fel do you give consent to be stolen from ??
But, you do have a choice to walk down the middle of the street or stay in comparitive safety behind your lines. If you give up safety, you chance the consequences.That's a horrible rl comparison. In a war zone, you usually don't have the choice to leave and probably don't have an incentive to be there if you don't want to be involved in the fighting.That's not a good RL comparison. A more accurate one would be: If you walk down the street in a war zone, would it matter if you gave or didn't give your consent to be shot?
.
Boy, you certainly weren't around pre-Tram for the consentual-nonconsentual wars. No, it is the perfect example of a *nonconsentual* PvP system, which is what the Garriots designed and fought for until the bitter end. It would probably never have changed if UO hadn't been bleeding such large numbers of subscribers to EQ (who loudly advertised their PvP Switch) back then. Do you think it was a coincidence Tram came into being less than a year after EQ started up, even though the Garriots swore prior to that they'd NEVER allow anything but a nonconsentual PvP format for their game?the fel design is a perfect example of a consentual pvp system. To say otherwise is fighting against classic definition and will require you to draw parallels using apples to oranges comparisons. yes, both are fruit, but they are not the same thing.
Actually, I started playing UO when it was released. Back before our pvp system was consentual. I took a break from UO to try EQ (on a pvp server, but there really wasn't any pvp in eq) for about 1.5 years because my friends were. I came back when I got tired of running on a treadmill and found the devs had made UO's pvp system consentual.But, you do have a choice to walk down the middle of the street or stay in comparitive safety behind your lines. If you give up safety, you chance the consequences.
Boy, you certainly weren't around pre-Tram for the consentual-nonconsentual wars. No, it is the perfect example of a *nonconsentual* PvP system, which is what the Garriots designed and fought for until the bitter end. It would probably never have changed if UO hadn't been bleeding such large numbers of subscribers to EQ (who loudly advertised their PvP Switch) back then. Do you think it was a coincidence Tram came into being less than a year after EQ started up, even though the Garriots swore prior to that they'd NEVER allow anything but a nonconsentual PvP format for their game?
No, for many, the Fel ruleset is anything BUT "consentual"... while you're there. The "consent" part comes in your deciding to go there to begin with.
Be well - Pax
.
Do you really want to go there?When fel was designed it was designed to be a consentual pvp area. End of story. Just because people want to go to fel to harvest the rewards which were designed as rewards for people who consent to pvp doesn't mean you didn't consent to pvp to get the rewards.
In order for it to be consentual, there *must* be some form of "PvP switch". PvP in Trammel has such a switch, the Guild System. When you're in Fel, such a switch isn't required, which means PvP is *still* nonconsentual when your playing within the Fel rule set. Technically, Fel is under the old Garriot rules: Everywhere is nonconsentual PvP and, if you don't like it, leave.Actually, I started playing UO when it was released. Back before our pvp system was consentual. I took a break from UO to try EQ (on a pvp server, but there really wasn't any pvp in eq) for about 1.5 years because my friends were. I came back when I got tired of running on a treadmill and found the devs had made UO's pvp system consentual.
Right! Fel is "consentual" in the same way dungeons are, if you choose to enter, you give tacit consent to whatever results the consequences of your choice may bring you. Who likes being made see-through by a monster during PvM?By entering fel you are deliberately putting yourself in harms way and flat out granting consent to engage in pvp. You may be there to reap the rewards but you do so knowingly that you've opted for the chance to be killed by the most dangerous monster in the game.
not sure if that was a slip, but that's still how I see it... By entering fel, you're consenting to play where it's possible to be non-consensually attacked by other players.I think I need to make a KR mod of the moongate gump that warns people when they have fel selected that htey are about to enter a non-consentual pvp area.
Yup. That's what my posts have been about.Has anyone thought of consent to non-consentual? Seriously?
That's why it was set up so that Reds were prevented from going to Tram, to punish them for their "evil" deeds. When Reds want to find out how many counts they have, they're required to say, "I must consider my sins." How much plainer than that could the intentions of the designers get?Consent means letting something happen. I can give consent too... my family to see my college grades. Someone can give consent to have sex.
Being in Fel doesn't nessecarily have to mean that you are in the mind set of wanting and allowing other people to attack you.
When you consent to have sex with someone, your DEFIINATELY not just acknowledging the possibility of having sex with that person even if you don't want to. Consent is agreeing to do a particular activity.
Really, what this disscussin was originally about in the other thread, the one about letting reds into tram, i think wheather or not its consent is irrelevent. Deciding wheather punishment for someone killing a miner who has no interest in PvPing and is only there for the resources, or any other blue in Fel for a different reason, punishment for making their lives less enjoyable, should include not getting to go to Tram.
Personally i don't have idea about that really tho. Prolly wouldn't make much of a difference.