I like the PvP consensual unless provoked through RP... but also even then it should be noted to the player that PvP is imminent... not just a random, "I'll use this as justification and attack"
What about this example?
Orog a badd-ass 1/2 orc fighter comes upon Bill a low-level mage. Orog and Bill get into a conversation and Bill accidentally insults Orog. The player behind Orog lets the player behind Bill know that PvP is about to happen. The player behind Bill, not wanting to enter into PvP for whatever reason, then RP's Bill into backing down, apologizing and the like. The player behind Orog may be a bit miffed that Bill backed down, but he gets his apology and the like.
In this case there is mutual respect behind the players! It is up to them to come up with a way out of the situation and advancing their characters at the same time. The next time that Orog and Bill meet, perhaps then Bill is much nicer or perhaps he just runs away.
And I've seen a few examples of the "paladin of Tyr" walking past the "dark, evil necromancer" and how PvP is justified. If they were in town and the town rules/laws forbade that... then the Pally could not justifiably attack. Also, what about bystanders? How many might die if a full-fledged attack were to occur with innocents around. This does not necessarily mean that combat is eminent... unless the players (and the characters) are blind to everything else.
I recall Paul, my last PC in my other server... a righteous Cleric/Pally/Fighter of epic level. He had many severe disagreements with Tamerous, a Ftr/Mage/Pale Master, over his adventuring career... not a single one erupted into PvP combat. Neither of the players really liked PvP and we always found ways to resolve. Same with Mordrid, an evil Mage that Paul found in the wilderness and accidentally saved... they had tangled before, but in this case there were just verbal fireworks... and both of the players had a lot of fun.
What about this example?
Orog a badd-ass 1/2 orc fighter comes upon Bill a low-level mage. Orog and Bill get into a conversation and Bill accidentally insults Orog. The player behind Orog lets the player behind Bill know that PvP is about to happen. The player behind Bill, not wanting to enter into PvP for whatever reason, then RP's Bill into backing down, apologizing and the like. The player behind Orog may be a bit miffed that Bill backed down, but he gets his apology and the like.
In this case there is mutual respect behind the players! It is up to them to come up with a way out of the situation and advancing their characters at the same time. The next time that Orog and Bill meet, perhaps then Bill is much nicer or perhaps he just runs away.
And I've seen a few examples of the "paladin of Tyr" walking past the "dark, evil necromancer" and how PvP is justified. If they were in town and the town rules/laws forbade that... then the Pally could not justifiably attack. Also, what about bystanders? How many might die if a full-fledged attack were to occur with innocents around. This does not necessarily mean that combat is eminent... unless the players (and the characters) are blind to everything else.
I recall Paul, my last PC in my other server... a righteous Cleric/Pally/Fighter of epic level. He had many severe disagreements with Tamerous, a Ftr/Mage/Pale Master, over his adventuring career... not a single one erupted into PvP combat. Neither of the players really liked PvP and we always found ways to resolve. Same with Mordrid, an evil Mage that Paul found in the wilderness and accidentally saved... they had tangled before, but in this case there were just verbal fireworks... and both of the players had a lot of fun.
Comment