I've been lurking for some time on these forums, watching the back and forth banter about novices and non-novices being attacked or robbed, and the general griefing going on that drives away new players and old players, alike.

I have an idea that has been brought up in the past. It's usually been shot down by those with the loudest voices on the forums... But I'll mention it again, because I think it would work well with Lusternia's influencing system, and keep everyone, not just those who enjoy fighting, happy.

Not everyone enjoys fighting. Yet everyone is subjected to it. And those people who just want to do quests, who just want to influence, who just want to live a peaceful life in Lusternia for their own fun might appreciate this idea... Those who fight, won't. Because to the fighters, this idea takes away the easy target of those who can't fight, of those who don't want to fight. The people who want to experience Lusternia in a different way...

But it is those people who get frustrated and leave the game after they find themselves being slain, for no reason other than they belong to an opposing organization. And they either don't know about the Avenger system, or that system just doesn't work for them, because if Griefer A slays Quester B, and Quester B has suspect, Griefer A gets their friend Griefer C to slay Quester B so that Quester B can't call Avechna on either Griefer A or Griefer C because Avechna only works if Griefer A and C strike again within a certain time period... But Griefer A and C have other friends who can strike Quester B, or the Griefer team just doesn't care about Avechna, it's not a big deal to them because they just want the kill. But poor Quester B can't figure out why he's the target of such violence, when all he wants to do is commodity quests and influence. So Quester B gets upset and stops playing... And tells his friends, "Lusternia sucks. Try someplace else."

It's been said that it's up to the playerbase, not some implemented coded system that will stop griefers. I disagree, because there will always be people who are abusive of other players.

So, on to the regurgitated idea...

Pacifism.

(If Avalon can do it, so can IRE)

A person chooses to be a Paficist. This pacifist status lasts for a year's time. Once the year is up, the person can choose to go unprotected, or become a pacifist for another year. During this time, the pacifist CANNOT:

Harm other adventurers.

Harm NPC's, not even rats or weevils.

Use skills of an aggressive nature, inlcuding briar walls, ice walls, fire walls, etc.

Be involved in Covens that are acting aggressively.

Defend home territories if there is a raid.

Use the arena.

Take place in events like Hamster Hunts where killing is allowed.

Enter enemy territories. Statues, Totems and guards will hit through pacifism, just like Grace.

Be immune to aggro creatures like Sabre Toothed Cats and Gorgogs.

The pacifist CAN:

Influence NPC's and debate other players.

Do any quest, until there comes a point where there is killing involved in a quest, like Tosha. Otherwise the quest cannot be finished. (Many quests involve killing, even the Finks and Gnomes quests, this is something that pacifists will have to decide upon before they choose the protection of pacifism. However there are many quests that don't require killing, the Dairuchi Rockeater quest, the Estelbar Tae'dae Cubs quest, the Acknor Chieftain quest, etc.)

Be slain by room attacks, ie Vapours, etc.


It would take a lot longer for a pacifist to gain levels, because there aren't as many NPC's of high level to be influenced. You can't influence creatures on Astral... Being a pacifist would have it's drawbacks. But it does allow for people who don't want to fight to be left alone.

The way I see this, the people who don't want to fight are those people who want to focuse on roleplay, on peaceful questing, on maybe being in a guild or city/commune position where they can take care of things and contribute in a different way.

For those people who enjoy fighting, or want to learn how to fight, they obviously won't choose pacfism. I don't see Daevos, Ixion, Narsrim, Amaru, etc taking on pacifism, because they enjoy the battle too much. They're here to fight. That's fine.

Someone asked me how to keep someone from abusing this system, they gave the example of, a high-level player kills a bunch of other players, then takes pacifism to hide from retribution. Here is my response to that:

If you have killed anyone within the past Lusternian year, you must wait a Lusternian year from the date that you killed your last person. Then you may take pacifism. Until that time, it is your own decision not to kill, not to defend yourself and kill anyone taking retribution on you. You can take your licks. You can hide in the Portal of Fate, hide at your city's/commune's Nexus... That happens all the time, anyway. But you have to actually have a year of play time... No logging off and waiting a week or so. But I don't see any self-respecting fighter taking the route of killing a bunch of people and then hiding under pacifism to get away from retaliation. Anyone who did such a thing would be a complete arse.

I've tried to look at this from all angles. Please let me know if I've missed one. But please, don't flame me for it.

Hmm, very well thought out. I like it!

Well, here's one angle...

In Glomdoring, at least, nothing matters but the Glomdoring. Your life doesn't matter, you're *expected* to defend the Glomdoring if it's being attacked. If you die... well, you died for the good of the Forest, your home. It's a Good Thing.

By our very laws, pacifism would have to be banned, for this one reason alone.

I really like the idea, however, I see two possible issues with it... though I still hold the opinion that some creative thinking can take care of them:

1- If I recall correctly, under some circumstances, losing a debate can cause a loss of experience... though I don't recall how. That being the case, what would prevent a player from being shielded and still run around after people and ego-shatter them? or debate while a telepath is there to mindburst?. Also, if such a thing occures, will it not force everyone to learn how to debate, which is the same thing- forcing to learn something you don't want to.

2- Village influencing: in peaceful ones, it'll pose no issue. However, if there is a physical conflict... there will be a problem since said debaters would be able to just go on debating without any actual risk to themselves.

These can be easily solved... as most rooms with denizens are defended with that ability which now escapes my mind... you get it at CR3- so basicly, acts of battle don't usualy take place. But there is some importence to the estblishing of said safe space, by who, and preventing others from getting in.

Just my two penny



And Xenthos, I agree... but it is quite logical that not all orginizations will allow such a thing. Those who won't, won't. Pacifists will still go to the said place in which they will be allowed to be pacifsts... nothing really changes.

Xenthos - All cities and communes have the ability to ban whatever they like and make such a thing a law. If a person in your commune wishes to be a pacifist under the pacifist system, they will have to contend with your rules.

Narses - In influencing, whether or not it is a peaceful village, the goal is to win the village over to your commune/city. As I said in my above post, pacifists can be killed by room attacks, but it would be much better to debate them out so that they can't influence.

Then my further question is, what org will allow a large number of their members to be 100% declared pacifists? Most orgs expect you to defend things which are of vital importance- the Avatars, the Supernals, the Demon Lords, for example.

It'd seem like pacifists would mainly be rogues, unaffiliated with any org.

Xenthos - There will always be those who enjoy the fight, who choose to fight, and who want to learn to fight better. As I read in another thread in the idiots forum, those who don't care to fight, shouldn't fight. Because all they do is die, and give their killers a small portion of their experience.

You never lose experience from losing a debate, EXCEPT you DO lose experience from losing an influence battle. So, if you are debated out during an influence battle and don't run before the denizen hits you, since you are at 0 ego from losing the debate, you lose the influence battle as well, and thus you lose experience.


One question that has kind of been asked already is, are debating and influencing aggressive? By the game mechanics, neither is, but if a pacifist can influence in a violent revolt without having to worry about being killed, it would be extremely unbalanced. Though the admins don't consider it abuse of grace to influence in a violent revolt under grace, the vast majority of the playerbase does consider it abuse, and in lieu of administrative punishments, takes it upon themselves to punish people who "cheat" in this way.

The entire difference between a violent revolt and a peaceful revolt is that you have to stay alive while debating in a violent revolt, and don't have to worry about violence at all in a peaceful revolt. Segregating that by the player and not by the revolt defeats the entire purpose of violence in revolts. The current system of Sanctuaries and Crusades during violent revolts is beautiful - it gives everyone a chance to do something helpful, people who fight and people who don't, while keeping influencing and fighting skill both important. If an entire side was Pacificstic and thus immune to fighting, that balance would break, and it would degrade the game even further.

Also, debating can be used to weaken someone for a telepath to mindburst them. Thus, debating can be offensive. However, you can't let pacifists influence, and not debate, unless you prevented them from STARTING debates, but allowed others to start them.


An alternative solution is to modify Grace of Innocense to not work in a revolting village nor work off of Prime, and then make it last until someone rejected it.

And yet, there are large in-game penalties for failing to defend things. The Star might fall, or the Necromantate. These are things which an organization *strives not to let happen,* because it is such a large blow. I just... don't see any organization giving their blessing to pacifists, especially in a time of War, due to the fact that so much can be lost if nobody defends.

Again, a pacifist can be killed by room attacks, but it would be better to debate them out.



The fighters who want to be fighters, who want to learn the ways of combat will be there to defend when such occasions arise.

Not everyone thinks that doing commodity quests and influencing is fun... Those people tend towards the ways of combat, for that pvp experience.

Because of the drawbacks of being a pacifist, not everyone will choose to take the pacifist path. The people you will see becoming pacifists are those who just are not interested in the aspects of combat. They help and serve their city/commune/guild in a different way. Commodity quests, or positions where a lot of log-reading and paperwork needs to be done, or rituals written, or whatever.

Xenthos- there -are- pacifists within the game. They -do- find their place within the ranks of certain guilds. If said guilds and orginiztions have no issue with it- why not?.

Just as every country has an army, it also has schools, and hospitals and whatnot- things that concern economy and well-fare while the army fights the battles and keeps the citizens alive. I don't see why have a couple of pacifists who would constantly empower the guards and simply avoid direct battle is so horrid.

Also, battle is a major feature in Lusternia, people are unlikely to choose pacifism and not fight unless they are true pacifists who just won't fight regardless of technical issues such as shields.

I think it offers another option for those who truly do not enjoy the aspect of battle in the game.

So we kill them with easily avoided smudges? Those are the only damaging room attacks I can think of that communes possess.

Also, they could still act as teleport targets, would still have a massive advantage in peaced revolts, would be able to stand around in a fight resurrecting allies, and could still make a general nuisance of themselves and be nearly untouchable. You can't kill someone who is shielded with room attacks if you can't nullify their shield.

My stance has always been that anyone who is turned off by the conflict shouldn't play Lusternia.

EDIT: I don't know why the boards turn any single newline into three of them, but it's pissing me off.

I do think the idea is worth exploring.

And yet, that does not respond to my actual point, which is that going pacifist by this system is essentially declaring, "I don't care about what happens to the rest of you. I don't care if something important to you dies, I won't defend it, it doesn't matter to me. It doesn't matter to me if the Star falls, because I still can't be attacked even if it does. I don't care if the Supernals die-- doesn't bother me!"

There are very few "true pacifists," that I've noticed at least. There's Ialie, and... not a whole lot more, because people are *expected* to defend. All right, there are others who hide in their manse, but do you *really* see an organization going, "Oh, you declared as a pacifist. All right, go do whatever, we don't mind if you wander off and do something else while Elohara dies..."

If you do, I think you need to spend some time reviewing just how much these conflicts can hurt an organization, and thus why they are so important to defend against.

You make a good point, Sylphas. Pacifists should not be involved in battles of any form. It goes against the role of being a Pacifist.

However, a Healer can farheal without being in the same place, perhaps standing at a Nexus surrounded by guards where he is not easily accessible to kill. I'm not certain, but I thought Celestines had the ability to resurrect without being in the same room, as well. I don't see much difference between that and a Pacifist's protection.

Novices with Grace can be used as Teleport Targets, giving the same advantage. Again, not much difference.

If smudge is avoidable, it will drive the pacifist to move from the room to avoid it, or be killed. Either way, the goal is achieved.

Xenthos-

by declaring you're a pacifist, you don't say that you don't care what happens to your friends/family/orginizations. I can -easily- see a follower of Raziela claiming that causing further blood-shed will only intensify the hate which stands against her teachings.

Being a pacifist means that you are not willing to engage another by the act of force. You can still support said efforts from the back, you can still gather commodities, empower guards and even defend said supernal with your body, you will simply not strike back.

personaly, I don't think it will be accepted by any orginization...because the game is built on extremeties. But if you do want to see things change, it is up to the players to allow for a change. If we keep the same sides and same arguments, you'll get nowhere.

Sylphas- I think that the examples you raised are technical- yes, they will raise an issue... but I am quite positive that there is some method of implementing said system while making sure it is not being abused.

And that is why it is up to the organizations themselves to figure out how to handle pacifists. I assume Magnagora will be against it. Glomdoring might be against it. How your organization handles it is up to your organization. If you make a rule against people in your commune becoming a Pacifist, and that rule is broken, then it is up to your organization to deal with the offender. Powerblock them for the year. Disfavour them. Don't allow them out of guild novicehood by adding five hours to their time every month. How you deal with it is up to you.

Which IS the point I'm driving at. I really don't see it being accepted either, so the only people who would be able to use it would be rogues... and Lusternia's aimed at making a rogue's life hard, not easy.

Moondancers have the ability to res at range, but there are skills to trivially prevent it from working during a battle. Healers can only farheal people in their local area, so if a city/commune is directly raided, then yes they can farheal from their nexus, but otherwise they need to be in the place where the attack is happening.

If you think farhealing and truesacing isn't participating in a battle, you are very wrong. If Shorlen had permagrace, he could just truesac every balance in a battle, making whomever was being attacked invincible. This is not how it should be.


And this is called "abusing grace" and is ground for being ostracised from Seren if I catch any Serens doing it.


Have you ever participating in a village influencing? It isn't that simple. Also, you only have to leave the room for one second to avoid a smudge, if it's the right second. Getting someone to move for a second every four doesn't hinder their influencing abilities in the slightest.

Hey hey hey hey hey.... lets start with a neutral organization first.