Quas and I are in disagreement over at Dio's on the circumstances in which it's acceptable for ragers to attack non-"official" enemies.

Say I'm an evil rager. On Monday I'm attacked by FortGuy. I make him flee and nobody dies. He's not a mage.

On Tuesday I'm walking down Eastern and see FortGuy. Can I punk him?

Note: there are no mages in the area and raiding isn't an option. Either I'm either too low level or we already have the key & scepter. There are mages online, and I'm actively engaged in hunting them when I happen across FortGuy. That is to say I'm not ignoring official enemies in order to satisfy my grudge against FortGuy.

Thoughts?

Do you have the items?

Is it someone who always attacks you no matter what?

Basically, with Ghrimriddor I asked there if it was cool if I attacked Poerlouge and a couple other "non-enemies" that would attack me everytime they saw me (and in the case of the bloody bard, sleep + rape).

But, at the same time, there were often Tribunal assassins that would try to assassinate me (while wanted) that I would not try to kill, various warriors, etc.

It's all in the role and the current leadership of the village.

-Say I'm an evil rager. On Monday I'm attacked by FortGuy. I make him flee and nobody dies. He's not a mage.

-On Tuesday I'm walking down Eastern and see FortGuy. Can I punk him?

In this situation I would generally say yes. As a villager you have a right to defend yourself from a plausable threat and may even iniate combat to affect that. The key in this example is that the two people happened upon each other and the villager reacted to protect themselves in this encounter. The rest of your stuff about mages being online doesn't even matter.


The behavior I am refering to is the distinction between fighting and hunting.

If for example you are hunting for mages and see fortguy solo killing dark arial guards you can't run up and kill them.

Obviously in this case they are engaged in something else so you can't claim self defense.

To go back to your original example if you see fortguy on east road and notice he is moving towards galadon and decide to follow him. Then track them to the inn, then follow them into voralia, then along shepards row to tir-talath and then attack them in tir talath when they are obviously trying to avoid you you have crossed the line from attacking to hunting and at that point your behaviour becomes out of bounds.

But as much as I'd love to see a definitive Battle God answer on this, it seems unlikely given that it would be seen as a direct endorsement or condemnation of active characters. So at best, you are looking at getting say, Twist's thoughts, which while useful, are not Thror's and so don't carry the weight of someone who can actually do something about it.

>In this situation I would generally say yes.

You sure seemed to say "No" on Dio's.

>If for example you are hunting for mages and see fortguy solo
>killing dark arial guards you can't run up and kill them.

If you can kill him when you happen upon him on Eastern Road while hunting mages, why can't you kill him when you happen upon him in Arial City while hunting mages?

>To go back to your original example if you see fortguy on east
>road and notice he is moving towards galadon and decide to
>follow him. Then track them to the inn, then follow them into
>voralia, then along shepards row to tir-talath and then attack
>them in tir talath when they are obviously trying to avoid you
>you have crossed the line from attacking to hunting and at
>that point your behaviour becomes out of bounds.

Alright. Let that be the example then. I'd like to hear Battle imms' thoughts.

We can see in when individuals "initiate" combat. If a BattleRager is actively hunting (engages) a non-enemy/mage, they will get a slap on the wrist. Whether their target is PVEing is irrelevant.

If we see it consistently, they will get booted from the Village.

A slap on the wrist, but nothing major for first couple offenses? Could be why you see some peoples' perspectives get skewed into thinking "it's ok" to do or it "goes unpunished."

I base my leadership of the Village off of consistency. I won't boot someone for a first offense (for something like this).

Sorry if that disappoints you or other players but there's more to a character(and situation) than what we see in a single login.

The policy as you've described it here is a good one.

Splntrd

You read me wrong. I'm not disappointed. That makes complete sense to me. Was pointing out to players why their assumptions are so bad all the time.

Not sure if you saw Pyrox's slap on the wrist but it was setting DB back down to 75% from 100%. That takes a long ass time to get back up.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Auto firing skills are relatively easy to get back up through leveling. Of all of the BattleRager skills, DB would be the one I would think is LEAST likely to be a pain in the ass to get back up.

...and yes, I think skill reductions, imm xp removal, setting diseases on characters, etc - are all fine ways to strongly encourage cabal members to act within their role. Compared to the alternatives (titles, cabal removal, etc).

It's a less public way of getting the player's attention.

In every cabal. I would like punishment of all types to be WAAAAAAY more common. Yes, butthurt will happen, but they won't stop playing over it.

You say that because you don't think it would ever happen to you. And yes people stop playing over that kind of thing. Why? Because in many players eyes an event like that has ruined the character, whether it's true or not.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

Meh DB is notoriously slow to go up, you should know that as a Battle IMM . Took over 100 hours for me to get it to 100% on Pyrox. Fire giant int ftl. My point to him was a slap on the wrist isn't just hey don't do that, but a black mark on your permanent record and possible messing with the char.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

So, ragers aren't allowed to have "personal" enemies outside the boilerplate cabal enemies (mages, scions, nexus)?

Really?

If you are Joe Elf Rager and you see random orc in range on the Open Sea, I think you can attack them.

It's chasing them back through Hamsah, Eastern, Voralian, and then the orc village that's probably bad.

Yeah. I don't get why that's bad. If you're shirking your duties as a rager because you're constantly roaming Thera looking for non-cabal-enemies, then sure. Slap that guy down. But to say that if you engage someone against whom you have a personal grudge you can't subsequently give chase through one or two areas? That's just silly. IMO taking the time to chase someone from Open Sea back to the orc village doesn't amount to "blowing off your rager duties".

V: Never should you pursue those who are not our true enemies without the
leave of the Gods of Battle. This includes those who hunt you as an
individual, for whatever reason or cause they choose to embrace. If pursued
by those who so dispute your beliefs, and if you are unable to avoid them,
make a stand and defend those beliefs, but do not draw the Village into your
personal battles.

The way I read it, it looks a lot more like, you don't chase someone from Open Sea to anywhere. You beat them up and try to make them run away and kill them if they don't. If you are forced to retreat, you probably don't run to the village since that would potentially "draw the Village into your personal battles". At the very least you don't get other villagers involved if at all possible.

I don't think my villagers have been played that way, but then I can't think of a villager I played that had personal enemies to really worry about... They had so many real enemies, there wasn't a need to go after personal conflicts.

It means you don't go out of your way to hunt those of different moral alignment/ethos of you.

If they attack you, defend yourself and kill them. You can chase them and kill them if necessary. Do not however, go around initiating the conflict.

You have to understand that this is within the context of the situation. If I see Joe Paladin sitting outside of the Village trying to take down Bob Duergar Warrior, I'm not going to smack Bob down.

If I see Bob Duergar warrior jumping on Joe Paladin at the Inn of the Eternal Star, I'm going to make a point to tell Bob to focus on why he is a Battlerager.

Let's say that Joe the Fort elf bard spots Bob the Battle fire warrior on eastern road. Bob runs from Joe and goes to sit in the top corner of Aldevari, out of anyone's path. Is Bob allowed to spam 'bash Joe' in his corner?

I would understand that the answer to this is yes, Bob is allowed to spam bash joe in this situation. However, Bob is not allowed to run and chase to attack Joe. If I've understood correctly, Bob is also not allowed to stand in an important road, wait and spam 'bash joe', waiting for Joe to pass by. But if Bob stands in a remote corner that no-one really needs to come to, telling Joe to not come near, I would consider it OK to bash in that situation. Is my reasoning correct?

I would completely agree that your reasoning is correct.

If BattleRager tries to avoid the confrontation but is continually being harassed, sending a strong message through bloodshed is acceptable.

Taking every opportunity to continue to send that message (by actively hunting Joe) is not acceptable.

Would be nice if someone had posted that from the get-go instead of all the theorizing.

I agree- that pretty much says "you don't chase people unless they're cabal enemies".

Correct. There is a reason for the title "Hunted by Battle."

We also have a very specific item on the plaque that discourages BattleRagers from harassing non-enemies.

It is always paramount that the real and true enemy is hunted and that no one, NO ONE, detract from said goal of killing magi. This being said, then anyone whom you allow yourself to have a grudge against is a detraction from the real goal of the village.

Much of this happening as above was, in the past, handled at the lowest level possible ie other villagers, drillmaster, leader, as they have the biggest say in day to day affairs of the village.

Those named Hunted by Battle are a different story and as such, are an annoyance that they are considered Mage Like, in that they are or have killed many villager, assaulted the village many times, constantly travel with mages, and have been noticed doing this by the Immortals.

This is my opinion as a serial villager, Multi-Village Leader and as a player who likes the cabal above the others.