Set to hostile metagaming?

[eclipse]

Is set someone to hostile as soon as one log in is a metagaming?.

I'm asking it cause on the servers I have played before is used to set hostile someone else, sometime even as soon as one logs in, it's normal.

I'm using the words that Psye Shaar have posted on Hala forum about dislike/like, these can surely explain better my thoughts. (thanks a lot Psye Shaar)

Setting hostile in itself is an OOC action - and also a requirement if you intend to initiate any kind of physical CvC (fighting, spells, psionic abilities)


If someone sets hostile while there is some obvious conflict between PC's - arguments, misunderstandings, revenge, hatred, etc, etc - then that could be perceived as taking an aggressive stance. It doesn't mean that they are definitely going to attack, just that the tension has effectively risen a level. This may be enough for some to attack under the pretence of 'self defence' - "I thought they were going to kill me, so I just killed them first" - but to the eyes of any witnesses, they are then the person that attacked first.

Every situation will be unique, so as per usual, common sense is a big factor here and any/all hostilities should already be being RP'd accordingly. (Assassinations etc are a different ball-game altogether)

One last point: Under NO circumstances must anyone ever initiate CvC with any PC that is using a merchant/crafting placeable or anything else that would have them caught in any kind of conversation loop.

So if I have an IG reason to get an aggressive stance to someone, I think it's correct that I put him/her to dislike as soon as I log in but seems doing it is perceived as metagaming to someone.

Any suggestion on how we can deal with setting to dislike here on Arkaz?
I would like to have a set of Arkaz rules about that not made only by the DMs but with the players that play here as well, that's why I'm not posted it not in Ask the Team Section' but here as 'General Discussion'

Thanks in Advance

[Daemona]

This is such a touchy issue on every world I have read posting on over the years. I have also seen them change over time. During the war on Avlis if you entered the Wilderness server and had a name that looked elven, you would be set to hostile even though you were not a known army type. We don't have any war here so this is not really a consideration presently.

If the reason is strictly game mechanics I personally do not have any objections. As an example mages need their offensive spells, how would you target Dae? Where she as a monk is not limited by the engine and can attack anyone without being set to hostile.

To my understanding there are also certain advantages to setting to hostile which again could be viewed as metagaming. For example the loss of hide points for a stealth character. True or not I don't know. But I have rarely ever had Dae attacked IG by another character and do not like CvC at a personal level. The exception to this was for a mage to OOCly test out new spells. Both the players agreed to this OOCly and announced it OOCly at the start, during and end of the testing. The other player really felt bad OOCly as their characters were and are good IG friends.

The only time she was set to hostile was when she was sitting with another character that had a problem with the ones setting to hostile. At that time there were a lot of sneaky NPC's attacking her guild and she always had psionic see invisible and clairvoyance running. The mage entered the area, she saw him and he was red but she just kept on RPing. She did mention ICly to the other player what she saw and before long the attack came. As they were sitting side by side and the character used magic missles, she was not hit but ICly she has no idea who the character was trying to hit. They dropped pretty quick to her though

Kyle experienced the disadvantage of setting Dae hostile once on log in. She was running with her clone and as a henchman it does not always follow instructions well for some reason. I did not see him in the graveyard but the clone did. He was in bleeding before I could call her off and Dae was only headed to the hamlet.

Personally I would say if there is no significant chance of confrontation to not set to hostile to avoid some of the limitations of the mechanics of the engine.

[Alphonse]

Hostile MUST be set before initiating CvC. This is non-negotiable. Hostile is OOC only.

When you set hostile is up to you. On log in, or right before the attack. If you set hostile early, and an AI auto-attack happens its up to the other player how they react. They can decide to ignore it as OOC, or treat it as IC. If you have a PC that can do serious damage with an auto-attack its probably best to set it right before attacking (rogues with high sneak attacks spring to mind

[makelovelikewar]

On a related but slightly different angle: I like the courtesy of players communicating OOC regarding potential CvC before any CvC actually happens. Checking to make sure all players are okay with CvC, if they're agreeable to risk their PCs DPing, etc. This courtesy defuses the encounter so all players can feel comfortable participating or declining. (Players, not characters! Characters can be as uncomfortable as they want! )

Thoughts?

[eclipse]

Thanks for the replays.

Most of the players around Arkaz have played in other servers and different ones, with different IG and OOC backgrounds sticked with the servers' rules they come from.

That's why I like to ask the Arkaz players on how we have to deal some unofficial rules as players agreement with DMs helps

[Kanteletar]

Thanks for clearing thing up. Now all is well known. No more questions Game on!