1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. Hello Guest! On January 27th Stratics will be brought down for an extended maintenance period. This period may take upwards of 12 hours to complete. Please check the thread in the Announcements forum for more details.
    Dismiss Notice

What constitutes 'consent'?

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Radun, Aug 15, 2008.


You're mining in felucca and a red PKs you. You give him a murder count.

  1. You were in fel, therefor it's consensual pvp.

  2. You issued a murder count, therefor it's non-consensual pvp.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Radun

    Radun Guest

    Just wondering where everyone draws the line on consensual/non-consensual pvp regarding fel.


    or don't.
  2. Dermott of LS

    Dermott of LS UOEC Modder
    Stratics Veteran

    May 12, 2008
    Likes Received:

    IF the Devs at the release of UO:R had REVERSED the rulesets and made the newer facet Felucca rules and the established facet Trammel rules (instead of how it was done), then going to Fel at all could be considered "consent".

    But since they did not do this, nor allow player run establishments to "facet hop" their establishment intact, and since some of these establishments remained in Felucca run by NON-PvP style players, the act of simply entering Fel does not in effect = "consent".

    Right now, "consentual" PvP in UO is defined as joining systems such as Guild Wars or Factions. One could make the argument that Siege-based shards are also considered "consent" as you are consenting to the ruleset by playing a character there.
  3. Draxous

    Draxous Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Feb 3, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Why did you choose to go to Felucca and mine... instead of choosing to stay in Trammel and mine?

    Did you choose to allow the PK to attack you?

    It's pretty cut and dry.
  4. Ash

    Ash Guest

    With the current ruleset, true consent is one sided in that only the aggressor is consenting to PvP. Be it Fel, factions, Guild Wars, or guild mates doesn't matter, the aggressor is the only one that is given the option to consent or not. The only option someone that has to not ever PvP is to never go to tram and never join a guild (since guilds can be infiltrated by griefers that steal and kill within guild and thus can do so in tram).
  5. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    I'm kinda dumbfounded that anyone thinks that going to fel isn't consenting to pvp let alone the majority.

    let's see here... everywhere else you can't be attacked (unless you play on SP, which in and of itself is consent). Choosing to go from the places you can't be attacked freely to the places where you can is the definition of consent.
  6. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    if you wished to engage in pvp whilst mining.. then the scenario would be consentual. If you did not wish to engage in pvp, and someone came upon you and attacked you, it would be non-consentual.

    Past history of your behavior on that toon on that facet would not be mitigating circumstances.

    There are several other valid reasons for going to fel facet which do not involve engaging in pvp
  7. Radun

    Radun Guest

    Then why are you given the option to report the character for murder?
  8. Well as far as I know its a matter of pride to have lots of counts, so yes when I am PK, I do take the time to pass out the counts. That way they can sit at the Old PK house in the rocking chairs and talk about the good old days and the true # of kills they have :)
  9. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    Consenting to pvp and wishing to engage in pvp are two entirely different things :)
  10. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    The laws of the land say that murdering an "innocent" should result in the option of the "innocent" to report the murderor (eventually limiting their choice in travel destinations)

    It's all just game mechanics. It works like this... you consent to being a target of pvp by entering a pvp zone. By consenting to pvp you also gain access to the increased rewards (risk vs reward).

    Entering fel is consenting to pvp, but not necessarily wanting to engage in pvp...
  11. xStrikerx

    xStrikerx Guest

    Going to fel means you are consenting to PvP.

    The only time this isnt true is when someone takes you there via an exploit or you are a newb and stumble into fel without knowing what it really is.
  12. Kral

    Kral Guest

    First of all, I NEVER give a red a murder count.
    I ALWAYS give a blue a count.

    Secondly, in Felucca and Siege, you consented by playing the ruleset.
    Murder counts are just part of the free-for-all PvP system in Felucca and Siege rulesets.

    The way you pose the question you could argue that you should be able to give murder counts if you are killed in a Guild war or by a Guild mate in a Trammel ruleset, under the consent only ruleset of Trammel.

    If your trying to argue that the Felucca / Siege free-for-all PvP is not truely FFA if you can give counts...some people like getting / giving counts. Reds are part of the play style of Felucca.
    Take murder counts away, and you diminish Felucca / Siege by removing Red's.
  13. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    Well put
  14. Omnius

    Omnius Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    May 27, 2008
    Likes Received:
    lol murder counts to blues are a means of revenge to make them red and counting reds is a means of showing props, withholding counts in either case is a way of saying it was an unearned insurance payout or unfair fight.
  15. Ash

    Ash Guest

    In the terms of Fel, those that enter that don't wish to PvP are acknowledging they can be attacked. But if you imply consent from that, then recognize that it is done through coercion.

    In this case the power scrolls, the only way to acquire them naturally is to enter PvP lands. What others call choosing to enter, I call coercion. Since there aren't always power scrolls you desire for sale, the only means to acquire them is to take on champ spawns. So without the coercion to lead people places they wouldn't normally go, then a clear choice to PvP or not would be made.

    Double resources and higher fame wouldn't count towards coercion as those items can be obtained elsewhere.
  16. Pax

    Pax Guest

    When you enter a dangerous dungeon do the monsters wait for your consent before they attack you? Not the vast majority. We all know that when we voluntarily enter an area where we can be freely attacked, be it a dungeon *or* Fel, tacitly, we have given our prior consent to the possible consequences, because we all should have at least some idea what dangers might be waiting for us there. ... (and *voluntarily* is an important word, since some players have been tricked, wound up in Fel and been attacked completely against their consent).

    Except for the most neophyte players, we all know that Fel is PvP, and we understand what that means. Because we all know that, we *are* consenting to the possibility of being attacked by another player if we enter Fel. I don't PvP but, when I go to Fel I understand the possibility I'll be paying through the nose for insurance if I'm not very careful. That's just part and parcel with going to Fel.

    Putting it plainly: Going to Fel = consenting to PvP, like it or not.

    Yes, Fel is a juicy plum with all its double resources, Champ Spawns, etc., however, if you want to harvest some of its riches, you're going to have to be willing to fight for them if the need arises... just like everywhere else we go in the Tram-rules facets that offer greater rewards in exchange for greater dangers.

    By the way, in UO the term PvP has never had anything to do with being consentual... (Garriot would either cry or laugh out loud to hear modern UO players had twisted his original game that much). Quite to the contrary, from the first, the PvP in UO was forcefully stated as being completely nonconsentual, no matter what. That fact was non-negotiable.

    In the earliest years of UO, the statement from the creators and their representatives made it plain nonconsentual PvP was the preferred playstyle with the addition of the cold jibe: "...and if you don't like it, leave." Further, that playstyle was all that was accepted as *truly* "playing the game" by UO's creators, and remained so for the entire time before Tram came in... and probably after, in the hearts of many.

    What PvP in UO has always meant is the rawest form of Player-vs-Player combative interaction, which includes as a valid playstyle not just attacking an equal, but attacking and murdering helpless innocents. Consent was never considered, because it didn't matter, and it was certainly never required.

    Be well - Pax
  17. Erekose

    Erekose Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    May 23, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Silly poll. If you are in Fel you consent to the possibility of PvP happening, period. Murder counts are a game mechanics feature and have nothing to do with consent or not.
  18. Eslake

    Eslake Guest

    So if someone walks down the street after dark they are consenting to be mugged?
    It makes the same sense as what some of you are trying to say about going to Felucca.

    What is really funny is that these same people saying it would scream bloody murder if someone suggested making the whole game Trammel and giving us a PvP switch.

    If everyone in Fel were consenting to PvP as they say, it would not change anything. Those same people would all have their PvP toggle ON, since they are consenting now, and the only difference would be that we had more places to PvP in. Right? ;)
  19. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    instances when you have to go to fel to complete a quest, participate in a player run event, participate in a GM event, complete escorts, and others are being blissfully ignored. not to mention acquiring power scrolls and exploits.

    In addition, if entering fel itself is the only act required to consent to pvp, then guard zones and private houses are a glaring contradiction not even touched by those whose agenda is being forwarded. If entering fel is consenting to engage in pvp, discussions here also fail to address the thousands of OTHER things that can be done in fel, from dungeons to crafting.

    Just because my car can go 100 mph does not mean I have to go 100mph. Like it or not, fel is not one huge battle ground we step onto once we walk through the moongate.... a pixal war zone where it's attack or be attacked.
  20. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    I feel we shall never achieve #2
  21. Pax

    Pax Guest

    That's not a good RL comparison. A more accurate one would be: If you walk down the street in a war zone, would it matter if you gave or didn't give your consent to be shot?

    You know, a PvP switch is *exactly* what we were all asking for on these boards way before Tram came in! Trammel and its radically different rule set wasn't an option any of us asked for or even considered. We didn't want to split the community, all we wanted was the opportunity to choose whether or not we PvPed. I think almost everyone realized splitting the PvMers and PvPers into totally different areas would fracture the game in unacceptable ways... and it did.

    It was the Garriots who split us up, not us players. I think it was due to their refusal to do the "unthinkable" (in their eyes) and make their entire game world safe from PvP for some of us, it seemed like too much of a capitulation. They were too dedicated to maintaining *somewhere* their beloved no-holds-barred, down-n-dirty nonconsentual PvP could continue in all its forms.

    Actually, PvP is allowed in Trammel between guilds... at least it used to be, and I think it still is. Order vs Chaos used to be another way to PvP in Trammel and, with this latest storyline, they seem to be hinting at starting that old conflict up again. Remember the choice Andrew(?) gave those of us who went through the black gate in Moonglow at the last, to choose to serve the Shadowlords or die? The Shadowlords are Chaos.

    Be well - Pax
  22. Eslake

    Eslake Guest

    Because it is a nearly perfect analogy.
    You go someplace for one reason or another, and run the risk of being attacked in some way.

    Just because that risk exists does not mean you consent to it, it simply means the risk exists.

    But since you hate RL so much, consider equally rational In-Game comparisons.

    If your blacksmith joins a smiths guild, you are consenting to PvP? After all, being in a guild means you risk being attacked by others in it, and according to you any such risk that is accepted is consent. So joining a blacksmith's guild is consenting to PvP.

    Or how about an in-game/metagame comparison.
    Is shopping in Luna consenting to be banned? ;)
    Apply your own statements and perspectives of going to Fel = Consent to that, and try to explain it away.
  23. Ken of Napa

    Stratics Veteran

    May 19, 2008
    Likes Received:
    LoL ! So you keep saying.

    I didn't vote because neither choice fits.

    My main Character's were born in Felucca (actually before there was a Felucca), and I still have my first home there. I don't PVP except when attacked, I don't enjoy the PVP system in UO but won't be chased from my home.

    Also as long as the game adds double resources in Felucca as bait, you can not consider just being there as consenting to PVP.

    Only if and when they add the many times requested PVP switch, will there be tryly consential PVP.
  24. Yalp

    Yalp Guest

    Exactly. Just like when I get in my car today, I accept the risk I may have an accident out on the road. It does not mean I will go ram the first car I come across. (aware of risk, non-consentual)

    However, if I take my car to the first demolition derby I can find, you can bet I will be ramming the first car I see. (aware of risk, consentual)

    There's a big difference.
  25. So when you go to Fel do you give consent to be stolen from ??
  26. J0KING

    J0KING Guest

    Very well put...

    If you go to Fel you are really consenting to PvP... the only way this would be untrue is if you are taken there against your will or if you are a new player that did not know...
  27. Pax

    Pax Guest

    You're exactly right! Consent doesn't enter into it in the way many people use the term *in games* (which usually has something to do with a switch). PvP in Fel is just a real possibility that you must take precautions to avoid, if you have no wish to engage in it.

    It seems odd that we're discussing "consentual" vs "nonconsentual" PvP now, the better part of a decade after the same sort of conversations filled the Stratics boards pre-Tram. The Garriots' official stance (parroted by their representatives on the boards) was that if you bought, installed and played the game, you automatically *consented* to "nonconsentual" PvP. That was a pretty clear-cut mindset that no amount of arguing could alter.

    Be well - Pax
  28. Pax

    Pax Guest

    Yes... if I'm dumb enough to let a thief catch me off-guard... and, with the "new" Stealth skill, that's become a very large possibility that creeps me out.

    However, if they steal from me through the use of an exploit (unblessing and uninsuring my items, for instance, as happened to a player who posted here a few days ago), that's an *entirely* different matter!

    Be well - Pax
  29. Teufel_Hund

    Teufel_Hund Guest

    Thats why I do not give a count...but it is consent because I went there to get the greater gains. Most of the time with no trouble
  30. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    Just because you are coerced with non-pvp rewards doesn't mean you didn't consent to pvp. Actually it supports the fact that you consented to pvp. You consent to pvp even though you don't want to pvp because the reward is worth it to you.
  31. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    That's a horrible rl comparison. In a war zone, you usually don't have the choice to leave and probably don't have an incentive to be there if you don't want to be involved in the fighting.

    the fel design is a perfect example of a consentual pvp system. To say otherwise is fighting against classic definition and will require you to draw parallels using apples to oranges comparisons. yes, both are fruit, but they are not the same thing.
  32. Pax

    Pax Guest

    Thank you for your kind words, now I have the Bighead. :)

    Yes, UO has changed. In many ways not for the better. The Garriots, for all their love of nonconsentual PvP, were programming geniuses when it came to building a world that came to life. In a way, that was PvP's downfall. The world was made too fascinating for so many of us who had no desire to PvP or, in my case just flat *couldn't*.

    The original packaging didn't mention PvPing, it talked about PvM, crafting, placing your own home and community. The first time I got PKed, as a newbie Lumberjack/Bowyer with my first stack of bows to sell, was a very miserable introduction to the *real* UO they neglected to tell us about on the box the game came in. I was furious. I actually *never* at any time during those pre-Tram days *ever* "consented" to PvP of any sort.

    But that was pre-Tram, when there was nowhere to be safe from PvP, and that situation no longer exists. Now I have Trammel and, if I choose to go to Fel, I actually do "consent", in the most straight-forward sense of the term, though I'm just as lousy at PvP as I ever was, and never attempt it. I have a choice, I am free to choose... and that makes UO come alive for me.

    There's a danger that changing too much of UO will take the life out of it and make it "just another game." I don't think any of us want that. That spark of magic that gave UO its life is wound up in freedom. Before we destroy too much freedom, we need to understand we may very well be destroying the very game we love.

    Even if we never leave Tram, we know they're there in Fel, and we know we always have a choice to chance them or not. Silly as it sounds, somehow, that makes a difference that matters, because it spreads the UO world wide open. Due to that complete freedom, to me UO is more 3D than any other game I've ever played, including Oblivion, because it's 3D inside my head.

    So, yes, if I go into Fel, I consent... though I can't and won't speak for others. But if attacked I won't enjoy it, so I will definitely run like the blazes to save my Trammie keister. :D

    Be well - Pax
  33. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    Stealing is part of the PVP system. Of course you do.
  34. Pax

    Pax Guest

    But, you do have a choice to walk down the middle of the street or stay in comparitive safety behind your lines. If you give up safety, you chance the consequences.

    Boy, you certainly weren't around pre-Tram for the consentual-nonconsentual wars. No, it is the perfect example of a *nonconsentual* PvP system, which is what the Garriots designed and fought for until the bitter end. It would probably never have changed if UO hadn't been bleeding such large numbers of subscribers to EQ (who loudly advertised their PvP Switch) back then. Do you think it was a coincidence Tram came into being less than a year after EQ started up, even though the Garriots swore prior to that they'd NEVER allow anything but a nonconsentual PvP format for their game?

    No, for many, the Fel ruleset is anything BUT "consentual"... while you're there. The "consent" part comes in your deciding to go there to begin with.

    Be well - Pax
  35. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    People keep maing RL comparisons that are apples-to-oranges comparisons to try to look at fel in a way other than how it was designed from day one.

    Going to fel is like signing a disclosure statement.

    You consent to the possibility that you could get hurt because you want to do something that happens in that area. It's like if I want to jump on a trampoline, but the owner of the trampoline doesn't want to get sued. They make me sign a disclosure that I realize I could get hurt. Insert double resources or PS in place of the trampoline.

    I realize you don't sign a contract to enter fel and this is a serious game flaw. I think I need to make a KR mod of the moongate gump that warns people when they have fel selected that htey are about to enter a non-consentual pvp area. The only problem with that is so few people use KR right now.
  36. Sarphus

    Sarphus Guest

    Actually, I started playing UO when it was released. Back before our pvp system was consentual. I took a break from UO to try EQ (on a pvp server, but there really wasn't any pvp in eq) for about 1.5 years because my friends were. I came back when I got tired of running on a treadmill and found the devs had made UO's pvp system consentual.
  37. drinkbeerallday

    drinkbeerallday Visitor

    Jun 4, 2008
    Likes Received:
    consent is entering Felucca. if you stay in Trammel there is no PvP.
  38. Harb

    Harb Guest

    Good poll Radun, the question does provide insight into mindset. I voted "no," but intellectually it's a tough call. By mining in Fel, for the 99% of us who "know" the game's environment, we are consenting to PvP by the mere fact of where we're mining in Fel. What few of us agree with, is that it's somehow cool or empowering for a PvP tailored character to provide entertainment or enjoyment to another player from a "fight" against a "mule"/ "gatherer." Few in the latter cartegory are prepared to do anything other than recall, although there are some exceptions. It was once a tad funny to put a single collecting skill on an otherwise prepared character and see the results when the once popular "dude" rolled in for a perceived easy kill. We do "consent" when we perceive some form of balance in the potential battle, otherwise, it's just a "gank," frustrating for one and providing a false sense of bravado for another.
  39. If Poo was here to post, he would tell you of a time he went to hit on a lumberjack and found he almost bit more then he could chew. Seems this LJ had some fighting skills as well. So a mere miner could very well be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
  40. Spree

    Spree Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Mar 13, 2004
    Likes Received:
    When you kill the miner do you loot everything or leave him his shovels and picks so he can keep mining.
  41. Omnius

    Omnius Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    May 27, 2008
    Likes Received:
    By entering fel you are deliberately putting yourself in harms way and flat out granting consent to engage in pvp. You may be there to reap the rewards but you do so knowingly that you've opted for the chance to be killed by the most dangerous monster in the game.
  42. gunneroforgin

    gunneroforgin Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    May 21, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I am certainly not arguing to eliminate the pvp system. I am not arguing that fel is not a world full of pvp. I am simply stating that merely existing in the fel facet is not consenting to engage in pvp.[/QUOTE]

    Unfortunetly, It is what it is. You can be freely attacked in Fel if you go there so, there is implied consent for just being there. This is the risk vs reward conscept of the felucca rule set. As we all know.
  43. Eslake

    Eslake Guest

    Do you really want to go there? ;)
    Because the game was "Designed to be" a game where we could dispence justice on our own, NOT so that we could run around murdering each other.

    What we consider PvP now was so off the path they designed the game to follow, there was serious discussion about completely removing the ability to attack one another.

    The gist of this thread is to get a functioning definition of the word "Consent."
    The meaning of the word is the same in reference to the game as it is in my comparison of walking at night, but people seem to take offense at defining the word with real life situations so...

    To make it clear how stupid it sounds to say that simply going to Felucca = Consent to PvP, an in-game comparison.

    You attack someone and they fight back.
    You consented to PvP when you attacked.
    They consented to PvP when they fought back.

    But did you "Consent" to die?

    According to those arguing that Fel=Consent, you did.

    People are trying to Change the definition of the word to accomidate their own preferences, rather than accepting that Consent and Acknowledging a posability are two entirely seperate things.

    Being in Felucca does not equate to consent. And it never will unless they remove all housing, guard zones, monsters, and other reasons for being there.
    Until those other reasons are removed, it is simply acknowledging a potential.
  44. Pax

    Pax Guest

    In order for it to be consentual, there *must* be some form of "PvP switch". PvP in Trammel has such a switch, the Guild System. When you're in Fel, such a switch isn't required, which means PvP is *still* nonconsentual when your playing within the Fel rule set. Technically, Fel is under the old Garriot rules: Everywhere is nonconsentual PvP and, if you don't like it, leave.

    In the old days, the only choice you had was put up with nonconsentual PvP or leave the entire game. Since Tram, that harsh ultimatum has softened to: if you don't want to put up with a nonconsentual PvP format, leave Felucca and stay in Trammel.

    Be well - Pax
  45. Before the intro of Tram ruleset, I might have argued/voted differently. With the choice today of where to play and what ruleset to play under, going to Fel is giving consent.
  46. Pax

    Pax Guest

    Right! :thumbsup: Fel is "consentual" in the same way dungeons are, if you choose to enter, you give tacit consent to whatever results the consequences of your choice may bring you. Who likes being made see-through by a monster during PvM?

    It's not a matter of like or dislike, consent or nonconsent once our choice has committed us to a dangerous situation, it's a matter of realizing that whatever happens after we've made our choice is a possibility we were aware of before we decided to enter their turf. Therefore, "consent", as such, occurs *before* we leave Tram's safe zones and enter Fel (or any other monster-filled area).

    Be well - Pax
  47. Radun

    Radun Guest

    not sure if that was a slip, but that's still how I see it... By entering fel, you're consenting to play where it's possible to be non-consensually attacked by other players.

    If entering fel was automatically giving consent to everyone else who was there to attack you, we would have a red and blue system anymore... everyone would be orange to everyone else.
  48. Speetz13

    Speetz13 Guest

    Has anyone thought of consent to non-consentual? Seriously?

    Consent means letting something happen. I can give consent too... my family to see my college grades. Someone can give consent to have sex.

    Being in Fel doesn't nessecarily have to mean that you are in the mind set of wanting and allowing other people to attack you.

    When you consent to have sex with someone, your DEFIINATELY not just acknowledging the possibility of having sex with that person even if you don't want to. Consent is agreeing to do a particular activity.

    Really, what this disscussin was originally about in the other thread, the one about letting reds into tram, i think wheather or not its consent is irrelevent. Deciding wheather punishment for someone killing a miner who has no interest in PvPing and is only there for the resources, or any other blue in Fel for a different reason, punishment for making their lives less enjoyable, should include not getting to go to Tram.

    Personally i don't have idea about that really tho. Prolly wouldn't make much of a difference.
  49. Pax

    Pax Guest

    Yup. That's what my posts have been about. :)

    That's why it was set up so that Reds were prevented from going to Tram, to punish them for their "evil" deeds. When Reds want to find out how many counts they have, they're required to say, "I must consider my sins." How much plainer than that could the intentions of the designers get?

    Be well - Pax
  50. Gowron

    Gowron Guest

    OK, I didn't quite have time to review all the discussion before posting this, but I did get enough to form a quick opinion.

    I'm not sure why there's a big issue of consent or non-consent in the felucca ruleset, but I do offer this feedback.

    Going to felucca entails certain risks, this is a given, and it is a part of the game. Because felucca gives double resources, it is enticing for a crafter type to venture there in the interests of saving time. Yes, there are risks involved as PK's all but run free through the whole facet. However, just the mere presence does NOT imply consent. Having said that, I can say, I don't like having reds attack me while I'm working my craft, however, I don't whine and cry about it either. I assumed the risk. Sometimes it paid off, sometimes it resulted in something of a loss. Either way, it makes the game interesting.

    If presence in felucca truly constituted "consent", then murder counts would no longer exist, and reds would quickly become extinct.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.