Consent Shadowrun Denver is a semi-consent-based MUSH. In other words, it lies between the purely-consensual MUSHes (where nothing can happen to your character that you don't agree to) and pure non-consent MUSHes (where anything can happen to your character, with or without any input from you). How does it work? Your character is yours. This means that other players cannot do 'seriously' bad things to your character unless you, the player, agree. The definition of 'seriously bad' basically includes any sort of major permanent harm to your character. Auto-Consent However, this doesn't give you carte-blanche to do whatever you want. You *do* have to deal with the IC consequences of your actions. When you take actions toward other players that can reasonably result in Bad Things <tm> happening to your character, then you are said to be Auto-Consented to the results of those actions. This sounds messy, but it really isn't. If you get up in Bob-the-Mega-Sammie's face, and start threatening him, then when Bob reaches out to wring your little neck you frankly have it coming. Bob can choose not to do anything about it, but Bob can also choose to deal with your insults and threats in-character as well. By taking the actions you did, you consent yourself to the in-character consequences. Who Determines What Is Auto-Consent? The short answer is, the Admins do. For the most part, it's pretty clear-cut. You mess with somebody, they can mess back. You play nice, and you have nothing to worry about. Auto-consent applies only to a specific situation. You go out and you deface Bob's car, and Bob catches you at it. Bob can deal with you however he chooses. However, this doesn't give Jimmy carte blanche to mess with you, now, because he doesn't like your shoes. Things that ARE Auto-Consent 1. Taking any aggressive action against another player character, except in self-defense or defense of property, territory, or allies. 2. Severely insulting another player character, especially to excess. This one has to be reasonably blatant to be invoked. 3. Vandalism, destruction, or theft of items or cash belonging to another player character. 4. Threats directed against another player character, including threats of exposure. This includes any form of blackmail. 5. Actions that present a clear, present, and significant danger to another player character's safety, reputation, relationships, or secrecy. To qualify, an action must represent a clear and significant attack. 6. IC betrayal, failing to keep an agreement, or seriously endangering another PC's life during a mission-critical situation. 7. Sending an assassin (including another PC) against another player. 8. Any sort of 'revenge' attack not performed in self-defense. This does NOT include rescue missions of captured PC's. 9. Attacking or intruding uninvited into another player's or group of players' base, stronghold, apartment, or residence. 10. Escalation of a situation from words to physical attacks. Things that ARE NOT Auto-Consent 1. Any sort of OOC actions, comments, or opinions. These can be dealt with on an OOC level if they violate policy. 2. Any action that the targeted character does not know occurred, or for which the responsible party cannot be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty. 3. Inaccurate or false information regarding the acting character, including rumors, word on the street, etc. In other words, if you didn't do it, you're not auto-consented. 4. Actions which the acting character could not reasonably know, IC or OOC, would be construed as problematic by the target. Example: Bob has a deep-seated hatred of French things. Jacques has a french accent. Jacques comes up, talks to Bob, and Bob wants to attack Jacques. No. 5. Actions which indirectly and/or without intentional malice interfere with the target character's goals. For example, if John outbids Bob at an auction, Bob can't take this as auto-consent to kill John. 6. Possession of items or information that the a character considers to be dangerous or harmful, unless a direct threat is given. 7. What you are or who you are. In other words, being an elf is not auto-consent to elf-haters killing you. Though they're by no means required to be *nice*. 8. Actions of self-defense against a clear and present danger, including danger to those who can reasonably be considered allies, or danger to what can be reasonably considered your property or territory. The exception for self-defense does not permit later retribution, only defense at the time. 9. Refusal to take a certain course of action desired by another player or player character, unless said player has a *strong* reason to expect such action as reasonable. What if I have no problem with PVP? Some players prefer having the risk of death in all their IC dealings. For those players, the Death_OK flag can be set. Any Death_OK player *always* consents to PVP, so long as *some* valid IC reason can be supplied. Any yes, wanting to take your cheese is a valid reason. If you choose to take this flag, it's a permanent thing. And once done, you may no longer invoke consent to protect your character. Clear And Present Danger This term gets used a lot in auto-consent. A Clear and Present Danger is one that is both immediate and obvious. Immediate in the sense that it demands some sort of response immediately, and obvious in the sense that the character can easily tell that action is required. A guy pointing a gun at you constitutes a clear and present danger, because the threat is both immediate and obvious. Suspecting that Jimmy is plotting against you isn't a Clear and Present Danger, because it's neither immediate nor obvious what is happening. Likewise, someone suggesting an idea during a planning session that you think puts your character at risk isn't a Clear and Present Danger, because while the threat is in fact obvious, it's not immediate. As in, you're not actually *doing* the run. When Does Consent Not Matter? 1. When you are auto-consented. 2. When dealing with admin-controlled plots, decisions, and NPC's. No, you can't invoke consent to avoid that NPC security guard shooting you. 3. Once you have given your consent for a scene. What Can People Do Without My Consent? 1. They can attempt to take, damage, vandalize, or destroy your stuff. 2. They can attempt to cause you damage, and can even take you down to D damage (though not past it). 3. They may insult you. 4. They may threaten you to whatever extent they wish. 5. They may capture you and hold you for a reasonable length of time. All of these actions auto-consent them to what you might do in response. What Can People Not Do Without My Consent? 1. They may not kill you, or cause you to die. 2. They may not cause you permanent harm (such as cutting off limbs, mutilation, reducing your magic attribute, removing 'ware, etc). Note that *incidental* magic loss, 'ware destruction, etc. that results from combat may still occur. 3. They may not make your character unplayable (subject to Admin discretion). 4. They may not *indirectly* kill you, such as taking out contracts on you. Of course, if you are autoconsented, or Death_OK, then all bets are off. :) Other Exceptions 1. 'Antagonist' PC's are always considered to be Death_OK. These PC's are given to certain players, and exist to further plots and/or create conflict on the grid. 2. Playerplots are never considered valid locations for player kills unless full consent is given at the start of the plot. Giving Consent You may always give your consent for a given set of scenes to occur, and it is within your right as a player to 'limit' your consent. You may also hold the other character 'not liable' to autoconsent. All of these details may be worked out OOC, via pages, @mail, or some other means. Please log them in case of later questions or conflicts. For example: p bob=Hey, it's cool if your character gets up in my face. But let's go ahead and limit this to just words and maybe non-harmful things — let's not let this escalate to a shooting war. There's no need for autoconsent or what-not so long as we stay within that. Cool? What if I Think Somebody Is AutoConsented First off, it's required that you warn the other player OOCly and give them a chance to retract their last pose/action. As in, "Hey, if you keep this up, I think you're gonna be autoconsented". In many cases, especially if they are obviously new, you might even give them a chance to 'back out' of a situation. If you are in doubt, use +judge to ask an Admin to take a look. If no Admin is available, then log the scene and submit it to staff for verification. Why Have This Complicated Mess? The answer is simple: some players like PVP conflict, while others detest it. The purpose of this system is to strongly discourage players from starting PVP conflicts with non-consenting players, while still making certain that those players who start things are not immune from consequences. It's a compromise between two widely varying attitudes as to the function and result of roleplay, and like any compromise it is far from perfect. All situations will be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, so attempts to 'hide behind' the rules or abuse technicalities are subject to admin-discretion. Other Notes 1. Casting any sort of spell on an unwilling target can constitute autoconsent if they ICly know or determine who did it. 2. Autoconsent is based on the OOC intent to attack, not on the IC action. In other words, Bob declares intent to attack John. John wins both surprise and initiative. Bob is still autoconsented, even though he has not *yet* taken any aggressive actions in character. 3. Auto-consent is an out-of-character notion to guide in-character roleplay. The reasons why you don't kill a non-consented person are up to the discretion of the players involved and, ultimately, the +judging Admin. Maybe that bullet was a dud, and didn't *quite* do the damage. Maybe it's just random chance. Maybe your character decided to give the other one a bit of mercy because he reminds him of your long-lost brother. Whatever the IC circumstances; don't have your character say, "Well, I woulda killed him, but he wasn't autoconsented." 4. The entire purpose of autoconsent is to discourage initiating PVP. It is intended to penalize the aggressor, and to deal with the fact that in Shadowrun, the system is such that just about anybody can kill just about anyone, given the right circumstances. The purpose of this is to encourage and facilitate IC interaction, and perhaps even encourage the suspension of disbelief so important to any RPG. Examples Example 1 John comes up to Bob (an elf) in a bar, and starts mouthing off to him. Neither player is set Death_OK. John is talking about how elves are all a bunch of pussies, and how they should all be killed. This isn't just one remark, but instead is a whole tirade, with Bob obviously getting more and more ICly angry over the commentary. Bob pages John with, "You're right on the edge of autoconsent. If you continue with this, I'm going to ask for it. Just a friendly warning." John doesn't shut up, but in fact intensifies his tirade. Bob will have little trouble getting approved for John being subject to Autoconsent in this situation. However, if Bob attacks John, he is escalating the situation from words to physical attacks, and thus Bob is also autoconsented to John's actions against him. Example 2 This time, John's out in the parking lot spray-painting the side of Bob's car. Bob comes out of the bar, spots John with the spray paint. John is auto-consented to Bob's reactions to this, but the reverse is not true, because Bob is defending his property. In this confrontation, Bob could kill John, if he wished, but John could not do the same to Bob in return. Example 3 John comes up to Bob on the street (neither are Death_OK) and pulls a gun on him, demanding everything he's carrying. John is now auto-consented to whatever Bob may do about this, including killing him; Bob, however, is not autoconsented. Example 4 Bob is set Death_OK, while John is not. John may come up to Bob and attack him, assuming he has a valid IC reason (consent does not apply). Only if John attacks Bob can Bob respond to the situation in a lethal manner. Example 5 Bob and John are both set Death_OK. Anything goes, assuming a valid IC reason for the attack. What if I Don't Want To Deal With This? There *is* a real alternative to all of this that still lets you do PVP with anyone, potentially. It's called, page the other player(s) and ask if it's okay. Set limits for the scene's escalation. And agree ahead of time that there's no need to bother with autoconsent rules and what-not. Inter-player agreement always overrides and supercedes these rules, so long as all players come to agreement and things stay within the agreed-upon boundaries. Auto-consent provides a 'default' set of rules that are designed so that people who don't like PVP don't usually have to deal with it being imposed on them. They can *choose* by their actions to be involved in that sort of roleplaying, but it can't be forced upon them from the outside. To summarize: Life's Short. Play Nice.