[Sarinpa1]

Fine wording, that'd be swell.

[Lolzytripd]

I think a big issue that happens a lot is.

A) people think their big damage numbers in a fight with the last hit means they should kill you (even when you didn't agree to a death fight)

B) They roleplayed their final hit as some gorey finisher without prior consent and expect you to go with it.

[Autumn]

I agree with Sarinpa here, fine wording and I agree with Chaos' statement about honoring agreements, and would serve to better roleplay in the long run of things.

[Joseph Jostar]

i'd really rather not see every player-event turned into death-mandatory as a form of elitism, you guys know how we can get about what's the 'right' way or 'fair' or not, this isn't dark souls or anything... not honoring pre-combat agreements is a different matter entirely, though.

original post has the right idea, but good luck enforcing it without a gm present

[Snake]

Just like dark souls.

Memes aside, yeah. This one should go to the Wiki, where people most go for the rules whenever they wanna confirm or whatever, but let's wait for Dev's opinion about it before doing so, I guess?

[Neus]

If you both agree to something like this and have proof, and they decide to not honor the agreement, you can feel free to tell a GM and let them help resolve the situation. Also, GMs have the ability to kill off your character provided you are given fair warning and have the option to steer clear of it. For example, if you get arrested a lot for violent crimes, you will probably be told that the next time you get arrested for it, you will likely be executed.

[Chaos]

If you both agree to something like this and have proof, and they decide to not honor the agreement, you can feel free to tell a GM and let them help resolve the situation. Also, GMs have the ability to kill off your character provided you are given fair warning and have the option to steer clear of it. For example, if you get arrested a lot for violent crimes, you will probably be told that the next time you get arrested for it, you will likely be executed.

The issue raised in this topic, I believe, is that the 'no forcing death' rule, as its currently written, does not properly convey the 'you are forbidden from exploiting this' part. I don't think it's necessary, but the players keep saying otherwise.

If we were to tack an addition onto the rule, such as,

On the other hand, you are expected to honor agreements or situations that you intentionally accepted. While we encourage discussion if something happens, trying to use this rule to cheat your way out of consequences is not allowed.

This would curb the potential for people to 'misread' the rule.

[Neus]

I'd say you could append the rules page with that provided you make sure to note that it's only for agreements/promises made in OOC, not IC.

[Ranylyn]

If you don't want your character to die, avoid scenarios that put them in needless danger. Don't go after villains if you're not prepared to get villained. Stuff like that. Seriously, a big problem with why SL2 is so lacking in actual antagonists is because fearless derps engage them recklessly since they're hiding behind "I do not consent to consequences."

Now, if an assassin came after a character I put literal weeks into editing faceicons for and wasn't being reckless on, I'd be like "Listen, dude, sorry, I'm not letting you kill me, I'm just minding my own business, I've done nothing to earn that hit." I would not PVP them and then say this when I lose. I would say this in LOOC once their intentions become clear. On the flipside, if I actively make enemies with powerful people, it'd be nothing short of insanity to go "I refuse every last consequence of my actions and I refuse to take accountability for anything."

TLDR: While I like the principle of the rule, since people can't do things like force RP that makes you uncomfortable, I feel that people hiding behind the rule as an excuse to act brazenly need to just flat out be banned for godmodding. If you're going to roleplay a conflict, commit to the conflict and the consequences that arise. If you are not okay with that, then keep your head down and don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong.

[Sarinpa1]

Thanks Devvyboi.

And Ranylyn, as good as that would be, it'd not pass in this game with our community.

Some ..individuals might call it elitist, some might call it normal roleplay, but as we are, we don't really have the population to support that kind of sensibility.

As for Joestar, you can clearly see here that the GMs will have (have already) the authority to enforce it. I imagine it'll come with other sanctions if a GM has to deal with it.

So I don't think people will care if $h1tter#123 dies a littl bit later. Especialy, let's say, if they have an added forced vacation.

Anywho thank you for adressing this topic and its resolution, staff. It has crippled quite a few roleplays as is. so it'll be great to have it on the wiki for us to simply reference should someone try to cheese.