After seeing all of the threads, I would like to add my 2 cents:
I believe that dueling must exist and should be consent-based. Everyone should agree that two people who want to kill each other should be allowed to do so. And because of this, the dueling question should be left alone.
However, I firmly believe that cities should be safe-zones -- they should be designed to promote free and unfettered trade as much as possible. Allowing any sort of damage to a player within a city will hurt trade and ultimately hinder the success of PS. The two issues may seem unconnected, but people generally spend more money when they feel safe than when they feel scared. Hence, cities should be safe.
Where I differ from most people is my belief that outside of a city gate should be a free-for-all. That is, everyone can hurt everyone. When people die, whatever they were carrying is also fair game, and the dead players should return empty-handed to a spawn point inside a city. To prevent intelligent players from losing everything, everyone should have access to a black-box within a city to place items for safe-keeping. Hence, good players will only carry what they need. This would also add a level of challenge to the game.
But won?t this idea also hinder trade outside of a city? I think that?s fair to assume. But if we place the only supply of valuable raw resources outside of a city, then we have made those resources scarce. By scarce, I mean that it will cost effort, time, or money (for bodyguards) to get resources. This may seem absolutely insane, but please remember that we are also looking to build an economy within PS. Basic economic theory teaches that in order for an economy to function, resources must be scarce (
read this if has been a while since econ101). We can debate the morality of PvP and PKing all we want, but the ultimate issue is creating an economy that will support a society (because societies build around economies, not the other way around). Basic economics dictates that resources must be scarce, and we need to do more than just have random placement of gems. We need to make them difficult to acquire. This would place value on them and the products they buy. These products will in turn place value on our society, and then we would have a great game.
A second reason (if that one was not enough) for having anarchy outside of a city (which should make intuitive sense because only a city should be civilized) is that the role of guilds and certain professions will have increased importance. Guilds would have to figure out a way to get resources into the city safely. Doing so would spur economic growth in very important sectors like mercenaries, body guards, curriers, etc. Why are these sectors important? Because they drive demand for weapons, spells, and other quest-oriented skills. And by allowing the demand for these products to flourish, we would promote the very heart of the game, skills and quests.
If my 2 cents was not clear, I support a safe-zone within a city and anarchy outside of a city.
A Cal State professor has delved into the topic. See
this article to read an informed opinion that supports what I am saying.