Open comment period, proposed changes to ALFA's CvC policy:

[Regas]

Regas, I really think you should look at Xan's implied consent idea.

I assume you mean this?

I think that a rule that you must give people an OOC warning that if they continue to do the same things that they're doing then your character may attack theirs solves the same thing without the headache of people being able to refuse it. That covers spontaneous situations without a history between the two. Premeditated situations should still require a DM though.

Player 1: "If your character keeps insulting mine then I may attack you."
Player 2: "Ok. Noted. Thanks." *character spits and walks off

I agree I like the notion as well, I've framed it slightly differently but it's in the policy post here:

Once a PC's behavior has solicited a request from another player for CvC that player must stop the ic behavior if they wish to decline CvC.
-Examples of provocation include but are not limited to brandishing weapons, casting spells (buffing), antagonistic language, obvious hostile or openly provocative actions (defiling altars, killing innocents ect).
-Make use of non-lethal combat, the ic legal structures of the settings, and other appropriate rp methods to offer a range of responses short of lethal CvC where appropriate.
-Logs and screenshots should be used when dealing with pc conflicts.
-Griefing, meta-gaming or trying to game these rules will lead to sanctions or banning.

Is that close enough to what you're looking for?

[Ronan]

I actually felt the suggestion's power was that it was more arbitrary, succinct and broad. The aggressor can define whatever reason he wants, as these may vary greatly between PCs. Maeredhel for example would kill any Banite just for being an evil Banite, while BG PCs seem to mostly accept their presence.

For example:
PC A: "Hello."
PC C [Tell]: "My PC hates elves. If A does anything to piss him off, he might make a stylish hat out of her face."
PC A [Tell]: "Ok... I'll pass, thanks."
-or-
PC A [Tell]: "Hmm, I'll take my chances."

[Magile]

One finial note, I am going to propose, subject to admin and HDM discussion, that evil alignments are added to the extraordinary approval list.

Indeed. No steps forward, two steps back.

[StephenUmpf]

I will offer my opinion and a suggestion...

I feel CvC of some sort is important. However, from reading this, it seams the whole pre-approval process is a bureaucratic time suck on limited resources.

Keep it simple.

Full CvC is allowed for RP reasons. However,

You may NOT engage in CvC when:

It primarily results from a random encounter between two or more PCs in a public or outdoor location (wilderness, road, tavern, shop, etc.). ALFA is geographically much smaller than it should be, and so we must fudge random encounters in order to support PC diversity.

A PC 'hates' all members of another race or public faction which is not normally kill-on-sight in their environment.

It is a random act of violence; that is what NPCs are for. The CvC must be sparked by RP on both sides of the conflict.

There is a large level difference, unless the defender is a known antagonizer of the attacker or the attacker's faction(s). High-level PCs should have better things to do than pursue lowbies.

The aggressor is willfully causing grief or disrupting others' ability to enjoy the game without meaningful context to role-play. We often enjoy PCs coming into conflict, but if players do as well then something as gone wrong.

If after your Character dies, you may petition a raise based on the circumstances of your toon's death (see above). Your toon was killed because of a PGer CvC asshat would be a great reason. Also, why not if appropriate, be given permission to create daughter, son, or other like minded toon?

If Players create CvC situations for the sake of CvC and destroying others fun, they should be stopped.

If you want to avoid CvC, don't roll up characters that inherently upset other typical PCs and walk them into the local adventure's watering hole (for example CE drow necromancers with an outgoing personality).

[Regas]

Thanks for the comment Stephan,

This is essentially the system we have now and it's broken. If players acted rationally where CvC was concerned we wouldn't need any of these rules.

[Regas]

The idea of requiring extraordinary approval for evil pcs is not going to pursued. I got it from Ronan (who doesn't even remember writing it ) and it was not supported by any so far in the HDM team. So don't get your panties in a bunch over it .

[Ithildur]

So, clarification please... the 'red flag' policy, if adopted... what CvC policies apply for 'good citizen'/non Redflagged people? The current CvC rules?

[Galadorn]

I may be mistaken, but, I think the "Red Flag" system is a very open CvC policy system... kind of like what is happening now wrt to CvC, but comes into effect when any player appears (to whom I don't know, maybe DMs? Admin?) as the previously mentioned "asshat"...and thus becomes flagged to never again be allowed to initiate CvC, and other players are then also not allowed to CvC their current? or current-and-future PCs? until said asshattery label has been removed.

Who decides and what "level" of asshat may yet need be defined, polled, documents written, etc, to determine just exactly how much asshattedness a player engages in to become labelled....one... do we have horses in ALFA yet?

[t-ice]

I actually felt the suggestion's power was that it was more arbitrary, succinct and broad. The aggressor can define whatever reason he wants, as these may vary greatly between PCs. Maeredhel for example would kill any Banite just for being an evil Banite, while BG PCs seem to mostly accept their presence.

For example:
PC A: "Hello."
PC C [Tell]: "My PC hates elves. If A does anything to piss him off, he might make a stylish hat out of her face."
PC A [Tell]: "Ok... I'll pass, thanks."
-or-
PC A [Tell]: "Hmm, I'll take my chances."

I suppose the question is is the latter response "cvc concent" or not? I would take those tells as a friendly warning, a kind of friendliness you should always engage the player of a PC your PC will be unfriendly to. Assuming this encounter leads to PC C batting for PC A's face, there's no reason why it couldn't be that PC A escapes the sitution if he doesn't want the fight (and does RP that, be it a yield or a desperate dash to escape).

So our rules allowing "if you come talk to me, I might kill you" is counterproductive. "If you come talk to me, I might attack you" is fair enough. Big difference there.

The problem is that once this kind of situation is defused, the players assume that their PCs are trying to kill each other and will start to build their defences. Including pre-empting the other under favorable conditions, gathering up friends (among other players), trying to drive away friends of the other player, and so on until the drama fuskball is in full roll. This situation needs to be solved, either by the players agreeing to leave each other alone, the DM team forcing the aggressor to leave the avoider alone, or the DM team ruling who dies and move on. If it comes to one dies, odds are the on-engine stronger PC would want to resolve it with a fight on the engine, and the other wants to resolve it with more "RP". The DM team must choose which path is forced if the players won't agree.

In my opinion if the players can't agree on how to resolve the situation, the DM team needs the right to decide what are the appropriately weighted dice, roll them, and tell the story of the winner killing the loser in an appropriate (and hopefully epic) way. Not a single DM but the HDM and all involved DMs in the team.

[Wild Wombat]

Wow, I would really like to know which concept (1 or 2) was the least likely to get members to stomp off in a huff if it is enacted.

Personally, I absolutely *hate* CvC. Will avoid it at all costs. I don't want to ruin another players fun. That is my personal opinion. I do not for one minute think that anybody else should be subjected to following my guidelines. Hell, if they did, ALFA would be an in-game love fest .... what fun would that be?

The point of this post is that I want the path of least player resistance in this and I have not been back long enough to have figured out what it is.

I know that I can deal with a hard-core CvC place. I successfully avoided CvC for years back in the day. So, no change is necessary from my point of view. But, let's be calm about this and deal with the outcome of the vote like adults!

*sings* Why can't we give CvC Rules a chance? *hugs*

/ramble

[I-KP]

Sadly implied consent doesn’t work here either and is also vulnerable to ‘acts of twattery’. Personally, I’ve experienced two players use this approach as a form of zoning. (Issuing CvC threats before even a word was spoken. And yes, they were both playing Warlocks. *sigh*) Implied consent is too woolly, too vague, and grants the person issuing the ‘warning’ unilateral control over when an encounter is terminated. IMO implied consent is a grossly lopsided approach that gives too much (narrative) power to one party.

I don’t envy the admins’ position on this one because even though we are all here for the RP there is a contingent of players herein who slip into ‘twat mode’ far too readily.

[boombrakh]

I'm so torn over all of this. I like the fact that there is CvC even though I've never been on the giving side of things. I hate the idea of losing my PC to some asshat who thinks that levels = right and in my opinion, killing an enemy is not a great way to write an interesting story. Anyways, chiming in. I am probably going to abstain from voting in this poll because I can't really agree with any of the choices wholeheartedly.

[Ithildur]

I've yet to see CvC asshattery personally in ALFA [edit: ok, maybe one questionable cvc as a DM], whereas the threat of a character played by level headed folks potentially turning hostile under the right circumstances always lent an edge of intensity and grittiness to ALFA's RP which to me has always been part of it's hardcore nature.

So I suppose I lean towards keeping CvC quite viable as an essential part of a complete RP breakfast; perhaps the answer indeed is to judiciously apply the red flags to the small number of folks I keep hearing are prone to asshattery, and let the rest proceed without undue restrictions.

That's kind of a black and white and idealistic perspective however, I think, and places a weighty responsibility on the shoulders of the PA (?) that determines who merits a red flag. It also will not guarantee that questionable CvC will never happen amongst the 'unflagged' folks... but there really are very few guarantees in life unless you make everyone robots/zombies, which is effectively what you end up with if we eliminate CvC or go overboard with restrictions.

[Brokenbone]

Conditionality (like "if you continue to do X, I deem you have consented to CvC") is slippery stuff to get into.

"Stop insulting my guy, his girlfriend, or the horse they didn't ride in on" is the easy example.

"Fail to give into my demand for x" is the hard example.

It could be an arrest (submit to my authority, or I deem CvC ok), it could be a mugging or a more nice form of confiscation (surrender item XYZ or I deem CvC ok), could be anything. Rules, including new ones, attract rules lawyers. People can rationalize anything you can throw at them to get to their desired result, if that's where they'd like to go.

[Veilan]

Yeah. With this problem, for once, the issue doesn't seem to be sloppy rule design, but people.

This whole things looks an awful lot like trying to somehow codify common sense and basic courtesy... good luck.