Pip's Poll: Duelling Rules

[Tarcaldy]

Originally posted by r.guppy
Did not say it did just think that it is a good reason to vote yay. and my reason being i think it will stop the idiots running round trying to fight anyone in sight.    
 And if they RP a duel it is not a problem.   )

But what does that have to do with this Poll?  The update is for what Karyuu said ? The updates only help combat repetitive abuse?. Not even a rule but a feature to control a form of spam.

[r.guppy]

This poll is about duels and how to go about doing one Yes, So if i am say shopping at Harnequists and a Idiot challenges me (duel) in middle of shopping, how is that a duel ?. Yes i have the right to auto decline but why should i ?.

 Daunt get me wrong i do like the odd duel, it is far better than telling my player to kill monster, it is more challenging to fight someone how is in control of a player.

 But stop and think , do you not see the DEVs in my opinion are saying to us do it right or we will make it harder to duel.

[Karyuu]

Janner, the development team\'s new rules only prevent players from sending out invite after invite after invite, or challenge after challenge. That is all. How you choose to roleplay around those challenges, or not roleplay, is up to the individual players.

[r.guppy]

I would like to point out to you that since i started playing this game the penalty for duels has gone up not down.

 So daunt you think it is time we as players started to help, by voluntary agreeing on way to go about duels, as now if all you want to do for what ever reason to PvP, you have to stand around till time is up and challenge again, and if it is still abused then i fell it will be harder next update again.

 I would also like to point out this was intended for guilds, so that we agree at lest on a starting point as to how to go about duels in the hope that new players see and hear how a duel is done and learn that it is not common to randomly challenge someone to a duel.

 I do not expect the rules we agree on to be followed to the letter, it was intended as a guide only.  
  )

[Verrliit]

Janner dear,

the Devs have been very clever with this.  


You can no longer challenge player after player until you get a fight.


So now, if you want a fight, you will have to RP for it.  


That is the Devs\' message.



Again, I say we should make a \"Code for Honorable Duelling\", that Noobs can read in the library.


To aid in this, I call for the historians among us, to let us know the details of duelling customs in days gone by.  (Links would be good)



Verrliit

[r.guppy]

I would be happy for a \"Code for Honorable Duelling\" to be placed in the library.
 Bowes to Verrliit
  )

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by r.guppy
This poll is about duels and how to go about doing one Yes, So if i am say shopping at Harnequists and a Idiot challenges me (duel) in middle of shopping, how is that a duel ?. Yes i have the right to auto decline but why should i ?.

 Daunt get me wrong i do like the odd duel, it is far better than telling my player to kill monster, it is more challenging to fight someone how is in control of a player.

 But stop and think , do you not see the DEVs in my opinion are saying to us do it right or we will make it harder to duel.

Do you even know what autodecline is?  Autodecline means that you never even see the duel confirmation dialogue box.  It\'s as if you were never challenged.


Janner.... really....

[r.guppy]

Yes just about the response i have got accustomed to  so i say again why should i?
 
 Daunt get me wrong i do like the odd duel, it is far better than telling my player to kill monster, it is more challenging to fight someone how is in control of a player.


 and to Parret you zanzibar.... really....

[Sensotaka]

At Lady Verrliit\'s request and for those interested, I present the origional \"Code Duello\" (Dueling Code). It covered affairs of honor between gentlemen both in Europe and America (particularly in the south) and was used extensively until dueling was outlawed.

Most affairs of honor were settled at a place generally agreed on for such matters (like the \"Dueling Oaks\" in New Orleans) and perhaps it would be a good idea to have a place similar in the realm reserved for such matters of honor.

Should members of the realm choose to civilize dueling, I suggest that they adapt this code and use it as a model. Bear in mind though that the Code Duello was used only by men of honor. To those who have no honor it was worthless.

(see also: PIP\'s POLL)

SensoTaka Kishu : Leader of the Defenders

The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won\'t decide, or can\'t agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.

Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.

If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary\'s sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.

In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor\'s shoulder, then break the aggressor\'s sword and say, \"I spare your life!\" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.

Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A\'s pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.

Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.

Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.

Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman\'s care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies\' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.

Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.

Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children\'s play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.

Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.

Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.

Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.

Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.

Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-cock is to be considered as a miss-fire.

Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.

Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.

Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.

Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.

Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:

If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.

N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by r.guppy
Yes just about the response i have got accustomed to  so i say again why should i?
 
 Daunt get me wrong i do like the odd duel, it is far better than telling my player to kill monster, it is more challenging to fight someone how is in control of a player.


 and to Parret you zanzibar.... really....

You didn\'t even respond to the content of my post.....

[r.guppy]

I see no point in debating same thing in two threads so will stop in this one.

  )

[Seytra]

Originally posted by zanzibar
You\'re still being way too narrow minded on this. Seytra, I don\'t RP \"Evil\".  I don\'t RP \"Annoying\".  I don\'t RP \"Comical\", or \"Pathetic\", or \"Friend\", or \"Wise\".

It is of absolutely no importance what you RP. Your character has no relevance here. This is not a discussion about your character, it is a discussion about what the settings are, and what the quality of your RP is, as measured by it\'s adherence to the settings. And these most definitely don\'t contain the glitches that the current implementation contains (nor any other). And as in any RPG the setting, not the game mechanics, are what defines RP; things that are not in the setting must not be RPd, for else it won\'t be RP anymore.
Likewise, if the settings obviously intend something to be a certain way, then this is what is to be RPd, and nothing else.

Example: If in any PnP RPG there is a typo calling a Troll a Trll, do you in your RP call them \"Trlls\", or \"Trolls\"? The intent is clearly to have it say \"Troll\", but if you choose to ignore that, then you are violating the setting, and aren\'t RPing anymore.

Originally posted by zanzibar
I RP within a ~system~ of different personalities and people all working together to create something new and greater than the individual parts.  You and me doing things differently in the same place and time is what creates the complexity which makes RP interesting and good.  It\'s the same with everyone.  We all RP with different values and beliefs surrounding friendship, loyalty, violence, knowledge, riches, life and death.  Though you might prefer your combintation above all others, the others are no less valid by default.  Instead, you need to learn how to get along with others in a more complex system of RP where being ok, being healthy, even being happy isn\'t the normal state at all times.  In any RPG and in any story, people get  frustrated.  They get sick and die.  They hurt one another, and they find revenge.  But this is what makes the ~good~ parts of RP worthwhile and interesting and things to be treasured.  I wish you could see things that way.

Seriously, are you trying to mock me? Did I really post so incredibly unclear that I still failed to clarify the distinction?
This is not about RPing a good world, or a bad one, or whatever! This is solely about RPing within the settings and not outside it!
Yes, quite obviously RP thrives in conflict. However this conflict must be entirely IC, entirely within the settings and entirely agreed upon by the players (not the chars).

Thus, a bug that kills you most definitely is not RP. Conversely, if you are able to RP very well, and you agree with another RPer that the outcome of a fight is the very same death, then this is RP. However, spamming someone by dueling invites without having OOC-ly agreed upon the fight, then this is not RP: the victim cannot be sure that you are 1) 100% IC and thus have legitimate reason to, and 2) that you are a trustworthy and reliable RPer, i.e., that you will not abuse your part in the RP.

Also, what you are saying is valid only for exceptionally good RPers: building stealing, killing, etc. entirely into the game mechanics. This will not work out with basic or intermediate RPers (and these are what makes up the majority of all RPers). It will also not work out when the exceptional RPer isn\'t 100% sure that you are also an exceptional RPer. I have tried to explain this to you countless times already, and believe me, it is frustrating to have to try yet another time.


The other playerbase for which this works out well are OOC PvPers. However, this is just as much RP as is you sitting at your computer and controlling a virtual avatar in a virtual world: not at all.

Therefore, every player must have the option to \"live in the happy buble\" when and for as long as they wish. Every other system will lead to a lot of grief with
- basic and intermediate RPers (most simply aren\'t capable of taking serious damage to their chars)
- exceptional RPers who feel that the action was not conducted by another exceptional RPer, but by an OOC PKer or otherwise inferior RP.

And let me tell you two things:
1) I certainly am not an exceptional RPer. I can deal with some damage to my char, but by far not everything and most definitely not by just about anyone.
2) You most definitely don\'t come accross as an even basic RPer. Your \"RP\" looks like a sad attempt to justify your completely OOC PKing moods as IC. You also see yourself on the side of the person committing the crime (accepting the consequences of being on this side is ridiculously easy), and never on the side of the victim (accepting the consequences of being on this side is a lot harder). You make sure that you never will be by PLing. If you would somehow become mutilated so as, for example, having all stats permanently set to 10 by someone randomly poisoning you, I have reason to assume that you would not RP that, but instead delete and re-create your \"char\", or start using another char. How is that RP? So unless you can prove that you are actually capable of RPing every random negative consequences, don\'t try to force such a system on others. Your lack of distinction between IC and OOC is further proof that your RP isn\'t real RP.
So I view your talk about \"RP containing all that negative stuff\" as highly bigoted: you want to inflict, without restriction, these negative things upon others. Never did you even intend to take and deal with these things being inflicted upon yourself.

Sorry to be so blunt, but seriously I am getting sick of your continous rehashing of this same argument while you still fail to grasp even the most basic concepts of proper RP and why RP is not a free-for-all. Your additional unwillingness to distinguish between the settings and the highly preliminary implementation of PS is further hurting your points. All in all you come accross as having no clue of what you are talking about, while trying to hide your being a pure OOC PKer at best.

And seriously, the new anti duelling spam mechanics are weakening your points as well. They are proof that the devs also consider the unagreed, impersonal challenges as undesirable and not meant to exist. The new rules allow equally for OOC agreements as well as for IC ones (which imply OOC agreement), so they don\'t strictly enforce RP. However, they enforce proper OOC etiquette. This etiquette is the opposite of what you propose: being able to harm just about anyone as you please without their consent. You want to be able to tell any player who is unhappy about you harming them \"It\'s just how the system works, so deal with it, the world isn\'t fair, shut up!\". This is selfish and ignorant to say the very least. The system must be absolutely fair, because if you seek OOC unfairness, don\'t play games, there is plenty of unfairness to be had IRL. IC unfairness has to be RPd within the OOC-ly fair system. This is what you want to avoid, but the devs are trying to achieve just that. So clearly your way of doing PvP is what the devs don\'t want in PS.

[zanzibar]

Good god.  Right, this isn\'t about my character.  This is about the system that we RP within.  I don\'t RP evil, I don\'t RP Shalmaneser, I RP \"Planeshift\" same as you do.  But no, the issue here is not duel spamming because everyone is in agreement on it.



I merely skipped through your attempt at flaming because it was both so off target and off topic.  Take that time and energy and put it into trying to get at the meaning behind the posts of others before you so hastily respond to them.  If there was any real content in there, feel free to repost it without the spam for consideration.

[Seytra]

Originally posted by zanzibar
Good god.  Right, this isn\'t about my character.  This is about the system that we RP within.  I don\'t RP evil, I don\'t RP Shalmaneser, I RP \"Planeshift\" same as you do.

I RP my character. I don\'t RP a game. Also, please don\'t try to imply that your \"RP\" is even remotely similar to mine.

Originally posted by zanzibar
But no, the issue here is not duel spamming because everyone is in agreement on it.

Is everyone really? This is by far not clear, in particular not from your post. Maybe you should add a bit more text to make sure it is clear?

Originally posted by zanzibar
I merely skipped through your attempt at flaming because it was both so off target and off topic.

In fact, the recent discussion has been about duelling spam WRT the new mechanics. So it\'s perfectly on topic.

Originally posted by zanzibar
Take that time and energy and put it into trying to get at the meaning behind the posts of others before you so hastily respond to them.  If there was any real content in there, feel free to repost it without the spam for consideration.

I don\'t see you putting any effort or time or energy into getting meaning into your posts and / or trying to make clear what you are trying to say. So seriously, the best I can do is to guess what you want to say, and if that isn\'t what you wanted to say, then this is your fault because you didn\'t bother to make it clear, not my fault.

So how about you in the future clarify your poses a little so others will have a realistic chance of getting the meaning of them?

[Verrliit]

Um.

Now that the obligatory, \"I am better than you are.  I play and RP properly, and you don\'t.\" posts by Seytra are out of the way...

Back to topic.

In this thread, we are creating a Code of Honorable Duelling.

This is a discussion of what is considered polite and appropriate.

I think that all will agree, on what would be first and foremost, the most appropriate, polite and honorable thing.

That anyone who wants to have a fight with someone else, wait until we are finished writing our Code, and then use it to go duelling.



Verrliit