I had a random idea that I haven't thought through yet, but see what you think. Let's introduce a new statistic that measures how violent you are. This is not a quantity to possess, nor a status you can alleviate or adjust, it's just a statement of fact.

For example, in your stat readout, you might have a new line:

You exude an aura of perfect serenity.

or

You are possessed of a peaceful character.

and so on ranging from peaceful -> violent.

Novices begin with this statistic at 100 (serene), and various actions can lead to it decreasing towards -100 (which represents unrestrained violence). These actions include killing another character after declaring, killing guards, or defiling a shrine.

There are no ways to become more peaceful other than the passage of time, and each month your violence score gains 2 in the direction of serenity.

So, what does this do? Well, there are a number of effects:

1) Those on a score of 100 who enter enemy territory will not be killed by guards (though totems/statues will still hit), instead, any guard that finds them will deposit them outside the city boundary and simply warn the organization.

2) If your violence score is more than 100 points above an attacker's, you will be immune to their attacks, provided you have not declared on them.

3) Those who have a violence score below 0 will not be able to karma curse.

4) Those who have a violence score below -50 will not gain karma from offering.

5) Those who have a violence score below -90 will not be protected by the Avenger on prime.

How much would you lose for each hostile act? Well, that's a question for balance. I would think something like you lose 5 + (their score if > 100)/5 for every person you kill outside your own territory (off-plane or not). Defiling a shrine might be 5 for the act (per month), 15 if you finish it off. Killing guards might be 15 per month.

Meh, I just think that since EVERYONE talks about 'non-combatants', there should be a way of telling who they are.

Edit: Note there are no actual negatives for being violent. It's not punishing anyone, or at least, I tried to make it so that it wasn't punishing anyone. Kill as much as you want, but then don't expect to turn around and use Karma/Avenger against others.

...

...

...

...

I love that idea.

No. Scrap this and probably number one (you can be annoying in enemy territory without being violent, especially if you do things like the gorgog quest or whatever that hurts people) and the rest is fine.

Without thinking about it too much, that sounds good.

Influencings has to be 100% immune to this factor as well or else it just wont work

Looks all great actually, though the -50 violence no karma is not so great really. Since it would basically ensure the only way to get karma would be then to kill people that are in areas they're enemied to for karma which would increase their violence, or do quests. How about instead they gave 50% for offering instead of the total?

Karma from offerings is ridiculous anyway. Most people who use Karma to full effect (IE, keep a constant blessing) get it by doing high Karma quests. There are several quests that let you get way more than 10% Karma in less than an hour, easily.

Another idea to add to those:
At 100 peacefulness, you cause less damage with all attacks - but influence proportionally better. The attack penalty doesn't affect people under the 21st level, of course.
At -100, your ability to influence is severely impaired.

Thinking about it a little, I've decided that you're right about (2) being a bit excessive. Immunity would be a little restrictive if people found ways to abuse it.

How about:
(2): Those with a violence score more than 100 points above yours will receive only half the damage from any physical or magical attack?

Doesn't stop killing, but gives them a higher chance of escaping a single attacker.

As for (1), I'm still not convinced it would be much of a problem. Let's say person x is being really annoying with the gorgog quest, stealing fae, whatever, and becomes enemied while remaining serene. Then they decide to abuse this to try and sneak into (say) Serenwilde.

ex-
A frost hag moves menancingly in your direction, then pauses with a wicked grin spreading across her features.
You are roughly dragged through the forest to dirt trail entering Serenwilde and hurled with surprising force to the north.
You hear a frost hag calling out something about a vermin hunt behind you, and sense departing would be prudent.
Your inner peace is disrupted by your deeds.
e-

(Serenwilde): A frost hag says, "In the light of Mother Moon, the trespasser Elryn has been cast from the forest! Death awaits his return."

Even that is insane. It's especially weird because then guardians aren't as restricted as the rest of us, heh. That idea is just -not- going to work in any way, shape or form, full stop.

Second one, eh. If statues still hit, I guess? It means they risk nothing though.

I'm also not convinced either will be helpful. The good ones are the ones that prevent fighters using curses and avenger, which I'm convinced we shouldn't be using.

Pacifist boy here thinks that people who maintain blessings just do quests. I'm going to argue with that.

All I know is that I never offer anything.

We already have enough systems and pk is already vastly hindered on prime. Why not just make PK a lawyers game like achaea? The thought is nice but really not needed.
Does the stuff work in enemy territory? I mean essentially you could be completely peaceful, walk into a mine and kill a miner.
2) If your violence score is more than 100 points above an attacker's, you will be immune to their attacks, provided you have not declared on them.
So people can sit and talk all the smack in the world to you? Now if you ikill them you can 1) get cursed, 2) have status, but atleast you get to kill them once. People know who non combatants are and we don't need another system.

hmm I'd like it just to display how peaceful someone is. The restriction and stuff I don't like (I'm VERY peaceful IC and always die to gaurd, but I still think if your enemied, you get shot when you go to Mag/Celest/Gom/Wilde. That's the way it should be.

Nice concept, terrible application would happen. It's stupid that people who offer at so and so level wouldnt get karma, since easily80% of the people who keep up 2 or 3 blessings do so from bashing almost entirely, with quests being along as a matter of convience.

You wouldn't be able to enter a mining village and kill a miner if you were enemied. The guards would throw you out instead of killing you, but still. And you'd lose peacefulness so they attack the next time.
People don't know who non-combatants are. I've been jumped randomly several times even though I don't fight. There simply is no explicit way of declaring yourself a non-combatant.

I like all of this.


I really like this, and it does seem logical. Why bother to take their time killing someone of no threat when they can toss them out and laugh at them while they drag themselves away?


This would be great, but I can't think of any reason why this would be plausable.

This all sounds good.

Blech, don't like this idea. Means you hurt the bashers.

The idea of watching for 'aggression' sounds neat, but I realy get iffy on the actual affects involved.

Firstly, you'll have to include the quests that damage another group, like the gorgog quest and most of the sea battle (any part that damages 'ships'/creates new 'ships' or involves Maryl/Ladantine directly) since such quests can do more damage than a basic PK.

As for the effects:

1) Those on a score of 100 who enter enemy territory will not be killed by guards (though totems/statues will still hit), instead, any guard that finds them will deposit them outside the city boundary and simply warn the organization.

I can go with that.

2) If your violence score is more than 100 points above an attacker's, you will be immune to their attacks, provided you have not declared on them.

Way too abusable, even in the 'half damage' form posted later. Grace and Innocence has already been used to hurt the enemy, either by performing quests, acting as scouts, doing 'nonviolent' acts like picking up monoliths or acting as teleport points, ext.

3) Those who have a violence score below 0 will not be able to karma curse.

I can actualy see the point of this. As it is, if I'm violent enough to get that low then I'll probably prefer to attack back rather than Curse. Besides, I've found it feels alot better to accept the death, hold Suspect, and hope they come after me and evoke Vengeance or just enjoy being safe for 30 RL days (of course assuming I'm nonviolent. If I'm violent it hopfully won't last 30 days).

4) Those who have a violence score below -50 will not gain karma from offering.

5) Those who have a violence score below -90 will not be protected by the Avenger on prime.

Those ARE negatives to being hostile! If you've been utterly raid happy enough to go to -100 and decide that you've gone too far and want to turn a new leaf you'll be stuck sitting by guards for 10 RL days. The anti-offering thing just sounds silly meanwhile.

Overall, I think just adding a way to tell the folks who havn't done more than hunt a spectre or turned in a pixie from the folks who slaughter Kelpie and raid dwarves will be a good thing for both sides: everyone can see who the ones being aggressive are. From there IC reactions from the community should do the rest (I know I'd leave a Serene player alone, but I'd be sure to Favor those 'raiders' in my guild who can keep at 0 or below in Violence, proving their activity).

So the general idea I like, the consequenses put down I don't like.

No. We already have more checks and balances in place to moniter combat than we need. Those who are highly violent already have to deal with curses, more expensive curse remove, status, vengeance, and auto-vengeance. We don't need another worthless system heaped on top.