[Aviel]

My character has gotten into an IC situation that another player officially logged the intent to kill my char. I have to agree that there is IC justification for that, so I accept that my char is now on the line (i.e. perma-death).


(1) My char got a message (twice) stating something like "You hear a harsh voice in your mind stating that you have a powerful enemy who seeks your death. We can't protect you anymore if you make too many enemies like that." My take is that my char now knows IC that (1) she is marked, and (2) given her RP she can work out exactly who that powerful enemy must be. Is that in agreement with server customs?

(2) Is my char allowed to put traps where the other char is likely to tread?


My next questions concern the game mechanics of this (not its IC aspects).

(3) I understood from ooc info that the other player has issued a "!death" command against my character. What game-mechanical consequences does that have ?

(4a) I understood that my char will face perma-death if my char's opponent succeeds in killing it, and I want to return the favour. In case there is a fight and my char wins, I want the other char perma-killed too. How do I go about that? I also issued the !death command and got no feedback. How does that work?

(4b) Does this !death command mean that my char is perma-killed even if some other character than the one who issued the !death command succeeds in making the kill? And what about it being killed by monsters?

(5) What is the position of third party characters? If either my char or the opponent succeeds in finding a third-party char to carry out the kill, how does that affect the whole perma-death situation?

(6) I aske the player of the opposing character about the perma-death, and ws told that my char was not in immediate danger of being perma-killed, but would need 3 'marks'.  What are those?

(7) Is there any place I can read about all the game-mechanical issues? I tried teh one-note and couldn't find any specifics on the mechanics of it all.

[Bertram Anders]

On mobile right now, so I'll type a more lengthy response for you later, but look under the Death and Dying system of the OneNote and it will explain how death marks work.

[WilliamDraco]

Here is a link to the onenote section Bert pointed to.
Scroll down to the "Character Permadeath" section.

It should hopefully explain your answers in full, but brief replies (Where appropriate these are just my understand, always defer to a DMs answer if given) are:

(1) re: being aware: Your character is aware it happened, and may make assumptions about who did it.
(2) Traps are allowed, but be aware of the limitations of this - Not least of all that they don't persist over server restarts, but also that others who either get caught or find the trap are unlikely to take kindly to the matter.

(3) There are no game-mechanic consequences to receiving one !Death command against you.
(4a) You may issue a !death command back to the opponent, but keep in mind the 3-mark comment at (6)
(4b) If at 3-marks, any death is permadeath.
(5) per above, any death once at 3 marks is permadeath. As to hiring other characters to perform hits, that is valid so long as it is appropriately IC managed (by all parties involved)
(6) 3 marks = 3 separate players using the !death command on your character
(7) The link at the top.

In addition to all of that above, I'm going to copy-paste the "Character vs Character" guidelines from the rules. It sounds like this hostility might be able to be appropriate played out even without the permadeath rules coming into effect :)


Character vs Character Guidelines 

In a land of power-hungry individuals such as Thay, eventually those individuals (or those who just get in their way), may become targets of each other. Typically you will be fighting against DM or environment-created opponents.  

However, it is inevitable that characters will come to odds with each other. 'Player vs. Player' conflict, or what should be more appropriately called 'Character vs. Character' conflict, can be a very touchy subject and cause many problems if not handled in a way deemed 'fair' to most (but hopefully all) players involved. To help lay the groundwork to promote fairness in Character vs. Character (CvC) conflict, and alleviate Player vs. Player (PvP) hard feelings, please observe the following guidelines. 

1. Because *character* conflict can lead to *player* conflict, it is requested you send a Tell to the player of the character indicating that conflict between your two characters may be imminent. It is then also requested that if the other player does not want to engage in character conflict, you try to respect that. 

However, if you feel you have a very good reason for refusing the other player's request not to fight (example: the other character is being belligerent, demeaning, condescending, etc - and your character would not ever put up with that or just walk away), you may still attack as long as you follow the remaining guidelines. If you do not send a Tell stating conflict may be imminent, or refuse a request for no CvC conflict, make sure you keep logs, take screenshots of the encounter, and be prepared to explain your reasons to a DM should you be questioned. 

2. Use the Subdual and Sparring modes (by typing in !subdual or !sparring) when engaging in CvC conflict if your character does not intend permanent harm to the other character. 

3. If your character knocks down another character through subdual mode, you may not attack them again if they get up and do not attempt an attack on you first. Continually attacking a character who has been subdued and then gets up, but is not retaliating, is considered griefing and could lead to a ban for the offending player. 

4. If your character does not wish to use subdual or sparring modes or does wish permanent harm to the PC, you must first bring up the Player list (press the P key) and change your feelings toward the player to 'Disliked' before attacking them. 

5. Remember that a dying character will never stabilize on their own when other characters are nearby, so they must be bandaged by someone if their death is not desired. However, if a death or respawn does occur due to a CvC conflict, *all* characters involved may not engage in *any* CvC conflict with each other for least 24 hours. This is to prevent retaliation and give everyone time to 'cool down.' Not following this rule is considered griefing and could lead to a ban for the offending player(s). 

These guidelines can be found in the in-game Player Guide as well, and may change over time and with certain situations that arise. Those listed now are simply a basis for eliminating problems or for determining ‘right and wrong’ in CvC conflicts that result in hard feelings among players. Feel free to e-mail [email protected] to provide alternative or recommended revisions to the CvC guidelines 

[FrodoTheFluffy]

4. Should a character get 3 or more marks for death the mysterious ally magic placed on them is negated and will not save them from death or from dying. In addition, the Spectral Red Wizard on the Fugue Plane will be unable to return them from the dead. However, a dead character’s corpse item (body) can still be raised by a PC or NPC cleric

Hope this little section helps!

[Halvtolv]

Its funny that you have to ask the other one permission before doing the hit. Same with the marks. The player gets OOC information about this possible PvP that might occur. The character ingame most likely all of a sudden is on the watch at all times - maybe barely even plays the character anymore. Every encounter with an unknown character is a possibility of being the enemy in disguise suddenly - which you dont ICly might even think of being an enemy (start of a betrayal). Detect Mode and searching for traps is suddenly very wise to do all the time, all of a sudden. Social skill bonus items are put deep in your packpack, cus you feel that Kythorn, thats a month I should rather walk around with all my AC and Saves gear.
It must be hard playing an assassin. Your job is so much harder, cus they "know" you're coming.

Could this be done differently? Why should players know they character is marked, isnt it enough that DMs get that info, and then they can contact the player who marked the other guy and ask for reasons?
And the pvp permission. I get it, the server should be fun to everyone. Maybe players should have the option to press Yes or No for their character to be PvPed in character creation or Rest Menu. But if the character still has done dumb things and has gotten enemies, the attacker should rather ask a DM for permission to attack after telling the reason to it. This prevents meta game. And assassins can actually surprise the target, which they tend to do.

Also, if your character suddenly gets "disliked" through player list, you kinda get a "heads up" that something is happening now. The attacker kind of already uses its surprise round to dislike the other one. This has also been a "problem" since the start in PWs with PvP and permkill ON. One gets disliked (even by a misclick) - "Time to take up the tower shield, the sun is so bright today!"

Dont misunderstand me. I like the pvp rules. Like the 24 hour pvp cooldown and the marking for perm. But is it able to prevent metagaming more, somehow?

Edited:
Ok, thought about the Marks and the mysteries allies that inform you ICly about the threat. Its actually good.
Now its only the permission one has to ask the other, that "buggs" me. There -are- servers out there with No PvP. Social servers and what not. I think people here know what they signed up for.

[Balanor]

It has been probably close to a decade since the PvP/CvC rules got looked at/revised. Older or long-term players will probably know exactly who I am speaking of when I say that some of these rules were developed based on issues that arose with a particularly difficult player who was with us for many years from the start. She would play her PCs in ways that annoyed/upset many other players, but then was rather thick-headed and obstinate when it came to accepting/understanding the CvC issues that occurred as a result of those actions. The first rule of "requesting" someone let the *player* of the PC know that CvC conflict was imminent I attribute directly to her as a compromise to her complaints/insistence that CvC "needed" to be consensual, while others wanted to handle it more reactively or spur-of-the-moment, like Halvtolv appears to be suggesting. As this player is no longer with us, and as it has been years since these rules were looked at for revision, I'm open to our current players/DMs having a discussion about them here to modify them somewhat.

So in regard to rule #1 that *requests* a *player* let the other *player* know that CvC between their PCs may be imminent; is it the general consensus that this rule should be changed, removed completely, or modified in some way? The original intent was to OOCly try to have the players (not the characters - remember they are supposed to be different) know that their characters were ICly going to come to blows, and to try and reinforce it really is in-character "Character vs Character" conflict, and not "Player vs Player". But again - as this rule was put in place to somewhat placate that rather difficult player who is no longer here, I'm fine with doing [whatever] to it. In any case though, logs of any/all CvC situations should be kept by either, or both/all, of the players involved, so I'd still like to see a rule "encouraging" something like that.

In regard to rule #4, the reason I want PCs engaged in lethal CvC to be hostile to each other is it is unfair to the target that an instigating PC remains neutral to them, which makes targeting hostile-only abilities/spells against them harder for the target PC when/if they get a chance to retaliate. And I guess I don't see a big problem with someone immediately changing their "Like" status of their target to Dislike immediately before they attack - it doesn't have to be done well beforehand, by any means. BUT, and WilliamDraco probably knows this better than I; but I believe there is a NWNXEE event (something we didn't have when these rules were developed) that is hooked which I can use to automatically switch two PCs hostile to each other if one attacks the other. And if that is the case, rule #4 could be removed entirely as it is something I may be able to do programmatically now.

[Muse]

I am personally fine with whatever anyone wishes to do to rule number #1. However, I am of the opinion that if your character has expressed enough through roleplay that they intend to get hostile with whoever the other player(s) are and the reason for such, then an OOC message isn't all too necessary. But, whenever it comes to PC assassins and characters that might be hired to kill another PC, that area does somewhat grow a little bit gray and I'm unsure of how that specifically would be handled. I assume the message of the mark would be enough but timed assassins are a common thing for medium to higher level characters sooooooo.. *Shrugs.*

As long as there is a clear way that an instigating PC shows IC that there is harm intended or possibly intended towards a targeted PC, I am fine with it. Again, that area does somewhat grow gray with assassins, but I would assume that if a PC assassin was hired by another PC to commit permanent harm to another player that they would keep logs/screenshots of that RP for the DMs when/if asked for it.

[WilliamDraco]

On the discussion topic, I agree generally with the point Muse is making. I'd see a split in the rules:
1) IC conflict directly between the two combatants which results in fisticuffs: I don't think this requires advanced notice any longer.
2) CvC which does not result from conflict directly between the two combatants should have a way of notifying the recipient I.E. a hired assassin. Not sure that a OOC message is the best way. Maybe leverage a different voice command that is not !death (that takes away from the assassin's choice to use it) but instead a kind of !mark which only tells the recipient something vague in a 'your adventure-sense is tingling' kinda way... obviously not that though ;)

As to Balanor - There's no specific "PC attacks a PC" event. But there are some that could be looked at...:
NWNX_ON_INPUT_ATTACK_OBJECT_BEFORE (or AFTER) - Should be immediately followed by a narrowing term, like If(!GetIsPC(oTarget)) return;  .
This wouldn't capture targeted spells, but it's probably the best way to capture intent of attack. Note that there are legitimate reasons for a character to attack without actually being hostile though (like a red wizard smacking someone with their staff for not using proper honourifics). Also note that catches input, not the actual action. A person might cancel their attack before even rolling to hit if out of range.

NWNX_ON_PVP_ATTITUDE_CHANGE_BEFORE (or AFTER) - Can catch the toggle to dislike and make sure it also sets reciprocal (It's been a long time since I've done this... dunno if game already sets it in the reverse as well).
(I read that the game already automatically sets the reciprocal attitude)

and of course the base functions SetPCDislike() to effect the change.

[Bertram Anders]

1. Because *character* conflict can lead to *player* conflict, it is requested you send a Tell to the player of the character indicating that conflict between your two characters may be imminent. It is then also requested that if the other player does not want to engage in character conflict, you try to respect that.

However, if you feel you have a very good reason for refusing the other player's request not to fight (example: the other character is being belligerent, demeaning, condescending, etc - and your character would not ever put up with that or just walk away), you may still attack as long as you follow the remaining guidelines. If you do not send a Tell stating conflict may be imminent, or refuse a request for no CvC conflict, make sure you keep logs, take screenshots of the encounter, and be prepared to explain your reasons to a DM should you be questioned.

Rule 1. This one never bothered me. As it states it is requested that you give an OOC warning. If you are intending to do subdual damage, and the intent is clearly expressed ICly then I do not think that any warning is needed. I do feel that if you plan to kill another PC that should be expressed. If they choose to metagame with that information, it is a separate issue that needs to be addressed.

Rule 4. I always assumed you just changed your "like" status very shortly (immediately) before an attack, as Balanor stated previously.

[Aviel]

Just to be sure: is there a specific warning if a char has 3 death marks against it? Or do you have to keep track of that yourself?