Setting Hostile - are these considered CvC?

pedsdmd · Post by **pedsdmd** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:33 pm

I'll give my 2 cents

Turning Inviso and running away- Not Hostile

Cowardly? Yes

Casting darkness- HOSTILE

That is a hostile spell. A PC can be attacked, sneaked, cast against etc...

The question I guess is should the casting PC set to hostile..Yes IMO. But since the PC ran its a forgivable offence

Katroine · Post by **Katroine** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:51 pm

DanishPastry wrote:
[hijack]
Don't transition back and forth between areas in an attempt to lose your followers. It's a lame thing to do and many a DM would lay the smack on you if they spotted you doing so.
[/hijack]

*quote for emphasis*

I see this so bloody often and it makes me cry inside. Anyone who has ever adventured with me knows that I am the world's slowest transitioner ever and when someone does that, they suck all the fun out of whatever reason I had for chasing them.

Krator · Post by **Krator** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:52 pm

Katroine wrote:
DanishPastry wrote:
[hijack]
Don't transition back and forth between areas in an attempt to lose your followers. It's a lame thing to do and many a DM would lay the smack on you if they spotted you doing so.
[/hijack]

*quote for emphasis*

I see this so bloody often and it makes me cry inside. Anyone who has ever adventured with me knows that I am the world's slowest transitioner ever and when someone does that, they suck all the fun out of whatever reason I had for chasing them.

Also, it doesn't work. They still follow and will get a few attacks at you just after transitioning.

Zyndro · Post by **Zyndro** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:06 am

pedsdmd wrote:
Turning Inviso and running away- Not Hostile

May not be hostile, but that's not the point. If someone goes invisible and runs off, they do so knowing the "cop" pc has to set them to hostile before pursuing. This means the runner gets away solely due to the time the cop pc wasted to set someone to hostile. This is a way to exploit the hostile-setting rules to get off scott free every time. The only way the pc cop could catch you is if they attacked without setting to hostile first, in which case they'd probably get in trouble.

Tigg · Post by **Tigg** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:12 am

There should be like, some expeditious retreat item or something that the law enforcers get... cop cars are about the fastest things on the road

Fifty · Post by **Fifty** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:37 am

I don't use a mage character, but I get the impression that it is harder to dispel someone's attempted invisibility spell if they are not set to hostile? If that is the case, then using the invisibility spell to escape without setting hostile first is a bit lame, as the law enforcer will logically be ready for such attempts.

My advice to law enforcers would be to set all suspected crims to hostile, just in case they try to run. Unfortunately, that will get them moaned at and create more hassle for them. There is also a ruling that says setting hostile has an IG, IC visibly threatening behaviour to go with it, not always the sort of image they want to present.

white-black · Post by **white-black** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:53 am

Fifty wrote: My advice to law enforcers would be to set all suspected crims to hostile, just in case they try to run. Unfortunately, that will get them moaned at and create more hassle for them.

Yes, I think I'll start doing that, myself. It's a pain - it's happened twice in the last few weeks that I've been discussing something relatively calmly with some suspected criminal, and they've just suddenly run. But I can't use a rod of grease at them, or a paralyzation spell, because first I have to open the player list, then look for the name, set them to hostile, then cast the spell, by which time they've vanished over the horizon, leaving behind a trail of smugness.

Very Irritating.

And there's nothing to do about it, except setting them to hostile as soon as you meet them, and risking some interesting behaviour in return.

Dralix · Post by **Dralix** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:59 am

Micah Ormane wrote:
pincushionman wrote:I have to disagree here about whether casting darkness initiates CvC - disagree with ALL of you. This is not ordinary CvC, this is about law enforcement CvC, which should be recognized as a special case. CvC was not initiated when the darkness was cast, nor when the officer responded to such an act. CvC was initiated the moment the officers confronted the perp, whether you like it or not. Combat was initiated later.

The way I see it, resisting arrest, either by fighting or running away, is an "attack" in the context of law enforcement CvC. Do the officers a favor, yeh? They're already working at a disadvantage due to the engine and the rules. If you're going to cooperate, there's no reason to set dislike, but if you're going to resist arrest, YOUR ACTION is what will provoke combat, whether or not it's an "attack."

That's just my opinion. But if you use the justification of "not actually attacking" to finagle your way out of setting hostile, don't be surprised if law enforcement officers start setting hostile the moment they arrive on scene in the future.
I like this.

So do I. I think it effectively captures the spirit of the "attacker must set hostile" rule, which is not to disadvantage the other. By running away from law enforcement without setting hostile, you are doing the same thing.

lloydy · Post by **lloydy** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:02 am

my 2 cents

EDF members or any of the law enforcers should set anyone they are trying to fine hostile if they plan to attack them if they try run

That way as soon as they try to run you can open fire and there is no argument

Law enforcer tend to be hostile to a criminal they catch red handed

Criminal being caught and about to be fined tend to be hostile too

So just hostile them it also lets them know OOC thier actions can get them DPed and IC it shows the law enforcer means business

lloydy

KaiRal Windspar · Post by **KaiRal Windspar** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:19 am

There's problems with this method, as well.

Catburglar Joe is told to halt by EDF Jake.

Scenario 1 - EDF Jake sets Hostile off the bat) Catburglar sees Hostile PC walking towards him and does the natural thing to toss up a defensive spell, EDF Jake has no Spellcraft so a dialog becomes a brawl.

Scenario 2 - Catburglar Joe sets Hostile right off the bat) EDF Jake sees suspect become hostile, busts out the bow and drops him like a wet sack of kittens.

Scenario 3 - It's all a misunderstanding) Catburglar Joe is just back frmo robbing the entire Eastern Residenceds blind and an EDF officer tells him to halt. Meanwhile, EDF Jake is hot on the heels of someone who killed the Councilman and District Representative in the Artisans District. No matter who sets hostile first, if the other PC does anything hinkey, brawl ensues.

I find the wording of the Gentlemans agreement is meant to specify that an attack is imminent, and CPUs definition of attack is just one interpretation, and a bit too broad imho.

Personal feelings:
I will never set a Guard to hostile, period. I have runins with them all the time, but I will never engage in CvC combat with them unless they attack me - so Hostile is completely un-necessary. If a Guard sets me to Hostile, based on the already talked to death considerations of Hostile being IC, it may come to that. I'd prefer not to see that.

KaiRal Windspar · Post by **KaiRal Windspar** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:23 am

I don't use a mage character, but I get the impression that it is harder to dispel someone's attempted invisibility spell if they are not set to hostile? If that is the case, then using the invisibility spell to escape without setting hostile first is a bit lame, as the law enforcer will logically be ready for such attempts.

Just a note; You can't counter spells they cast on themselves, only spells cast on you.

Dralix · Post by **Dralix** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:00 pm

KaiRal Windspar wrote:Personal feelings:
I will never set a Guard to hostile, period. I have runins with them all the time, but I will never engage in CvC combat with them unless they attack me - so Hostile is completely un-necessary. If a Guard sets me to Hostile, based on the already talked to death considerations of Hostile being IC, it may come to that. I'd prefer not to see that.

And that's the difference between the letter of the law "hostile before attacking" and the spirit of the law "do not disadvantage your adversary." Once you run away from law enforcement, you've disadvantaged your opponent should they decide to pursue.

KaiRal Windspar wrote:A bunch of scenarios where hostile leads to misunderstandings

Let's use some common sense here. If you're being questioned by law enforcement and might run away, send a tell saying "I'm going to hostile you now in case I decide to bolt." If you're law enforcement, "I'm going to hostile you in case your actions dictate the need to subdue you." We're not talking about an assassination here where someone is relying on the element of surprise. By this time, it's already clear that there is a confrontation.

KaiRal Windspar · Post by **KaiRal Windspar** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:06 pm

Dralix wrote:Once you run away from law enforcement, you've disadvantaged your opponent should they decide to pursue.

Huh? So... now running away means you have to set Hostile? I am assuming this means in context of casting spells to cover said escape? Or do you imply that it's hostil even if you don't cast?

Dralix · Post by **Dralix** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:16 pm

Read this very thread. You'll find players of law enforcers telling stories of people getting away because they ran, leaving the law enforcer to set hostile before taking action to subdue them.

I'm not saying you have to set to hostile before running. I don't have the authority, or desire to do so. But spokey just told me that I'm responsible for the fun of the other players. So of my own free will, I have decided that if I'm ever in a situation where I might run away from law enforcement, I'll hostile them first. I'll call it the Dralix Agreement.

white-black · Post by **white-black** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:17 pm

KaiRal Windspar wrote:
Dralix wrote:Once you run away from law enforcement, you've disadvantaged your opponent should they decide to pursue.
Huh? So... now running away means you have to set Hostile? I am assuming this means in context of casting spells to cover said escape? Or do you imply that it's hostil even if you don't cast?

No, not hostiile, but the law enforcer has to set the one running away to hostile before they can stop them - by which time they are generally far too far away to catch. Frankly, that to me is using the hostile rule in a metagaming sort of way to make it impossible for the one running away to be caught (although not deliberately so, in most cases, I'm sure).

KaiRal Windspar · Post by **KaiRal Windspar** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:22 pm

Okay. You do that. I don't think I will, because -
a) it doesn't make sense to set 'hostile' (which again is an IC state) when your sole intent is to flee.
b)

1. Set your enemies to dislike: This is always the responsibility of the attacker and can be done as soon as right after logging in or as late as a split second before the actual attack but the bottom line is that it must be done.
http://www.avlis.org/viewtopic.php?t=63315

Emphasis mine.
Am I the only person that clearly reads the word 'attack' there? Not encounter. Not opposition. Not even 'other guy'.

DanishPastry · Post by **DanishPastry** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:23 pm

/me signs the Dralix Agreement

KaiRal Windspar · Post by **KaiRal Windspar** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:26 pm

white-black wrote:No, not hostiile, but the law enforcer has to set the one running away to hostile before they can stop them - by which time they are generally far too far away to catch. Frankly, that to me is using the hostile rule in a metagaming sort of way to make it impossible for the one running away to be caught (although not deliberately so, in most cases, I'm sure).

Maybe I am just really good at multi tasking, but I have no problem hitting 'P', and moving the mouse cursor over to the list for a split secnod Hostile if I need to, assuming there is a dialog going on. I do this routinely in instances where I come across people I have IC rivalries and hostility towards, and I am not even in a CvC organization! *shrug*

Dralix · Post by **Dralix** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:28 pm

KaiRal Windspar wrote:Okay. You do that. I don't think I will, because -
a) it doesn't make sense to set 'hostile' (which again is an IC state) when your sole intent is to flee.

And as before, I'll send a tell explaining why I'm setting hostile, so that law enforcement doesn't misunderstand and attack when it's not warranted.

KaiRal Windspar wrote: Am I the only person that clearly reads the word 'attack' there? Not encounter. Not opposition. Not even 'other guy'.

Of course not. Ask the question whether you're the only one hung up on the letter of the law vs the spirit of it.

white-black · Post by **white-black** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:30 pm

*shrugs* Easy enough when there are two of you on the server - but I find it takes far longer than a split second when there are enough people on to produce a scroll bar on the side of the list. Especially as you have to keep an eye out on the main screen, to see which way they're going.

You obey the letter of the law - that's fine. But I can tell you, twice recently people obeying the letter of the law in that way have been able to escape from me for the pure and simple reason of my not being able to set them hostile fast enough. And that person has both times run at a moment that you couldn't have predicted from the dialogue between us - of course, a valid moment IC, but not a predictable one. We aren't all speedy super-fast clickers of buttons.

/me signs the Dralix agreement

Edit: Dammit, Dralix, you beat me to it again! In reply to Kai's post, this is

KaiRal Windspar · Post by **KaiRal Windspar** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:33 pm

Dralix wrote:Of course not. Ask the question whether you're the only one hung up on the letter of the law vs the spirit of it.

Sorry? Did you read the thread that resulted in this discussion? I did. It was all instances that had to do with people complaining they lost attacks of opportunity or counterspells or other reactionary actions when being attacked.

I don't think I recall any that mentioned running from combat.

So maybe that needs to be brought up again, and discussed more?

white-black · Post by **white-black** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:35 pm

Hey, that's a good thing to discuss too. It doesn't make this any less valid for discussion, though!

Edit: Erm.. and reading the first post of this thread... it's precisely about people running away from a law enforcer.

KaiRal Windspar · Post by **KaiRal Windspar** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:35 pm

Furthermore, this completely disregards the Team stated rule that Hostile is an IC thing.

Sorry. Hostile at peril of being attacked is not a situation I am going to deal with.

I'm done here.

Fifty · Post by **Fifty** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:50 pm

DanishPastry wrote:/me signs the Dralix Agreement

/me signs the Dralix Agreement.

Fifty · Post by **Fifty** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:52 pm

KaiRal Windspar wrote:Furthermore, this completely disregards the Team stated rule that Hostile is an IC thing.

Sorry. Hostile at peril of being attacked is not a situation I am going to deal with.

I'm done here.

Acting hostile != physical attack is imminent, is it?

Or is there a team ruling that contradicts me? I haven't read everything recently enough to know, tbh.