Rule clarification for a newbie.

[Blackthorne556]

Hi folks, I'm new here. I've read the rules in full and have submitted my whitelist application, but I will ask one clarification of the rules.

I understand "No KoS" easily enough. And I understand the idea that people are to be given an opportunity to respond to "demands" before being attacked. But I also read rather deeply into the line - "Role Play over Rule Play".

Some friends and I intend to play together as survivors of the doomed UN task force that was wiped out in Chernagorsk. We intend to be "do-gooders", committed to helping other survivors any way we can, and trying to pull together some semblance of order in the aftermath of this disaster.

So, the clarification part -

Lets say my men and I are wandering across country, when we see a group of bandits doing "evil deeds". Lets say they are holding up some poor passerby. Now, I understand the rules for inherited KoS rights. But keeping with our RP, would I be within my rights to commence an unannounced assault, given the situation, the role we perceive ourselves to play, and a desire to adhere to role play standards?

Again, I'm basing this query off of the line in the rules that Role Play takes precedence over RULE Play. Frankly, our characters would not have any "Demands" for persons who do evil against the innocent. We would seek to intervene, and to dispense justice. Why ask a group of dangerous people to leave someone alone when we can end the standoff with ruthless military precision?

I'm not asking for loopholes here, I just have an idea of how we want to play and I want to make sure we don't cross any lines. I should note that I intend to have my men operating on orders to shoot to wound, rather than aim for the kill, but clearly order can break down in the heat of combat.

I hope I have placed this in the right section of the forums, if not I apologize.

---

I note that my post was moved, and quite expediently. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[sung]

No matter the situation, you must always have KoS rights to attack someone. If you were wandering by, and noticed a robbery, you would have to re-initiate upon the bandits. If they comply, they are your hostage and the hostage rule is now in play. If they choose non-compliance, then you have the KoS rights necessary to do as you wish - just as long as your assault on them does not ruin any potential roleplay from developing.

The term "roleplay over ruleplay" comes into play when you have KoS rights on someone, but the situation is not at the level of a firefight - meaning there is potential for hostile roleplay and/or negotiations to take place. A common phrase used is that despite having KoS rights, it is not always necessary to use them.

Make sure that you are always prioritizing roleplay over ruleplay (in simpler terms: roleplaying with your enemy instead of executing your KoS rights).

[Blackthorne556]

Understood. Thanks for the clarification. It may be a challenge in some situations, but we will comply.

At what point can a "tense situation" be construed as "immediate danger"? Do I have to wait for them to open fire upon us, or can I take flanking maneuvers, or evasive, erratic behaviors as justification?

Again, I'm not trying to pry loopholes here. I want to respect the rules of the community. But I also want to come out on top in a standoff, without trading away my initiative.

[sung]

If your given demands are not being followed, and the victim is showing clear signs of non-compliance (this could vary from running away to get into cover or simply raising a weapon at you and shooting) by all means, kill them. It is not your fault that they chose non-compliance.

Make sure that you are factoring in things such as latency, lag and other client side issues. Giving a time frame like 10 seconds is long enough to make sure that everyone has time to understand and comply to your demands.

[Blackthorne556]

Very good. Thanks again for quick and concise answers. If I could pry just one more from you - What about the fate of hostages. I know that there is no "non-consensual perma-death". And I read the rules about hostages and needing an IC reason before executing them. Can I rest easy if we give the offender a "trial" and they are found to be guilty? I can see such an event being a beautiful RP opportunity for both us AND the bandits.

[sung]

Like you said, you need a reason for execution.

This would mean you'd have to have some sort of dirt or past with the victim so that you have a good enough reason to execute.

This can also be linked back with roleplay over ruleplay. Often, executions are used as a means of perma-deathing a persons character (this is often a pre-determined scenario between two parties) or as a cheap way of forcing them into forgetting the entire encounter.

What I suggest, is that you hold a trial for the person. If they are found guilty, fake out their death by shooting next to them, purposely missing so that you don't kill them.

The perks of keeping your hostage alive after the encounter far out weigh the negatives. I strongly suggest that you only execute if you have reason to, otherwise it would be going into the territory of ruleplay (ruleplay often being dubbed as RDM aka Random Death Match). Again, prioritize the roleplay and try to give the victim an enjoyable experience as well as an opportunity to remember the encounter.

It could develop into further storylines that would be an even better opportunity for beautiful roleplay.

[Blackthorne556]

Alright. Well, I think this thread may be considered "solved". Thanks for your patience and quick replies. I give you my beans, Sir.

[sung]

Feel free to contact us again if you have anymore questions.

/solved