Setting Hostile - are these considered CvC?

[Kareth]

I was just involved with a CvC incident at Elf Gate - and I am not going to mention names here as I discussed it with the players involved afterwards and there was some confussion.

However, one player cast darkness and ran off while the second one cast invisible and also ran off - neither of these players set me to "hostile".

This made it hard for my character as a member of the EDF to respond as not only did he have to cast counterspells but also to switch the players to hostile - by which time the players had fled the zone and were lost.

My question is in this case would these spells be considered CvC and as such should hostile be set first?

[Baralis Truthbender]

Actually I was wondering the same thing.
As the player casting the darkness spell during said event I only saw it as a valid escape and saw no use in setting Kareth to hostile. If Darkness is considered to be a hostile (CvC) action then I would love to know it so that there are no misunderstandings in the future.

[Isengrim]

I'd say that the mere fact you were trying to escape EDF's judgement made you hostile to Kareth, thus you should have made him hostile even before casting. But that's just me.

[Jazz]

*moves from Ask The Team to General Discussion*

[KaiRal Windspar]

Damnit... I did want a Team Ruling on this one.

[Isengrim]

*moves from Ask The Team to General Discussion*

*coughs* I was almost sure it wasn't in AtT when I replied... And it's in NWN GD now, not Avlis GD - perhaps there would be better?

[KaiRal Windspar]

*engages broken record* How about putting it in CvC Organization Discussions?

[loki70]

Think it's been stated that if you do anything that puts someone else at a disadvantage or otherwise effects their character in a way that they do not desire, yes, you should set them to hostile before you do it.

[Defender]

I'd say that the mere fact you were trying to escape EDF's judgement made you hostile to Kareth, thus you should have made him hostile even before casting. But that's just me.

The EDF and Kareth are hostile to everyone... *smiles* jk

That doesnt mean that everyone is hostile towards them.
Personally, a simple spell such as Darkness is not really a hostile spell, as it does NO damage to anyone. Just because someone THOUGHT it was hostile, doesnt make it so.

If Kareth wanted to set the man to hostile, then that would have been Kareths opinion of the man. No one says that the other man thought Kareth was being hostile. Maybe he just wanted to escape from his bad breath or something. *smiles* jk again.

D

[Jazz]

And it's in NWN GD now, not Avlis GD - perhaps there would be better?

Crap...and now I can't move it any more
Fekking sleep grief.

[KaiRal Windspar]

And it's in NWN GD now, not Avlis GD - perhaps there would be better?

Crap...and now I can't move it any more
Fekking sleep grief.

*points and laughs* j/k

No, worries. We all know you meant to put it in CvC.

[KaiRal Windspar]

Is Darkness an attack? Nope. It's dangerous, and going to get others mad at you yes, but is not in itself an attack if your intent is to cover a retreat.

Keep in mind, the spirit of 'Set Hostile first' is if you intend to attack.

If you're casting to cover a withdrawl, I see no reason to set Hostile. If you are randomly casting Darkness into a crowd to be a pain in the ass, the Hostile situation will be taken out of your hands very soon. If you are working with someone else and casting Darkness to cover their attack, you should set Hostile.

Otherwise, it's up to the other guy how pissed he is at being blind and if he will attack or just let you go, in which case Hostile is his choice.

Edited: Poorly worded opening, mia culpa.

[Li'll Divvil]

Just to clarify, did you cast darkness on yourself and ran off, or on Kar?

If you cast it on yourself, I would say you do not need to set the other hostile, since you are not casting on him, but if cast on the other then yes you should have.

I seem to remember a previous discussion about this that ANY spell cast on another character without his/her consent is a hostile act, even with something seemingly harmless as darkness. I mean YOU know it's harmless, but the dummie fighter without spell lore who get's the lights turned out, will start yelling I am blind I am blind, since he doesn't KNOW it's darkness and he just needs to walk 20 ft, for all he knows he's been blinded (you're not supposed to SEE anything in magical darkness, unless with ultravision, right?). And I would consider being blinded a hostile act and would definitely come after that person (at least for an explanation).

So yes IMHO any spell cast on another without their consent is a hostile act and as such would fall under the CvC rules etc..
(Oh and for cryin' out loud don't start the healing thing again please, there's not even a skeleton left of that horse)

I guess on this I do not agree with Kai. Mages SHOULD always consider the effect using area spells have on groups of people, it's no excuse to say, oh but this might get out of hand. If a mage intends to be a pain in the ass, he can expect that the crowd will respond likewise. The spellcaster is responsible for his/her actions, just as the druid shifting into a dangerous form at EG can expect some weird reactions, etc etc.

I think that in CvC it said somewhere it was the responsibility of the attacker (ie the one who makes the first offensive act) to set hostile BEFORE the act.

That being said I have NO idea how to resolve this when he cast it on himself and then escaped.

my 2 cents

[Alphonse]

casting invisible on yourself and then running off which is the other situation Kareth asked about is definately not a hostile act so setting hostile wasnt necessary.

If they then intended to cast offensively from invisibility they would need to set hostile

[KaiRal Windspar]

Just to clarify, did you cast darkness on yourself and ran off, or on Kar?

If you cast it on yourself, I would say you do not need to set the other hostile, since you are not casting on him, but if cast on the other then yes you should have.

Darkness can also be cast on the ground near you or the intended target.

And again, in that thread there was alot of talk, but no real decision on what constitutes an attack. Running away is definately not an attack.

[Katroine]

It's hostile. Team said so right here.

[KaiRal Windspar]

You're absolutely right, and I stand corrected on my improperly worded post earlier. The rule from the Gentlemans Agreement states;

1. Set your enemies to dislike: This is always the responsibility of the attacker and can be done as soon as right after logging in or as late as a split second before the actual attack but the bottom line is that it must be done.
http://www.avlis.org/viewtopic.php?t=63315

Emphasis mine.

Hostile !=Attack. That has also been said countless times in discussing if Hostile state is IC.

[Moredo]

The invis part is a no brainer, you're allowed to chicken out and run away without setting hostile.

Where as with the darkness it gets more blurry, imo it depends on who he casted the darkness on. And also a bit on what he inteneded to do after the casting. Run away or attack?

Casting the darkness on himself.
- If his intent was to run away, then not hostile, that's akin to casting mass cammo, and HiPSing to escape.
- If you were close to him, (ie. close enough to get caught up in the darkness) then it would be hostile an hostile action as he most likely meant it as his first attack spell.

Casting the darkness on you.
- If he meant to cast the darkness on you, and then charge you, it's an hostile action.
- If he meant to cast the darkness on you, and then run away, it's still a hostile action, seeing as he leaves you close to blind and defenceless.

Anyway, it's all what I'd call a 'grey' area, that's avoided altogether if you follow Katroines simple rule of thumb: "If I think there will be fighthing, I set to hostile at once". Meaning, sometimes you treat the hostile setting a bit OOC, seeing as it *is* a bit OOC (yes, I've read the 'it's IC' team ruling). What I'm saing is that in an event like this, where you acted as an EDF officer, it's best just to set to hostile at once, so you got all your bases covered. And just because the other PC is standing there with that menacing red glow, doesn't mean it needs to come to blows.

[PsiOmega]

The mage who casts the spell is initiating CvC with your character, even if the spell does not directly damage you.
http://www.avlis.org/viewtopic.php?t=63 ... ss+hostile

It is commonly considered good form to set your PC enemies to dislike when initiating CvC. This is always the responsibility of the attacker and should be done a split second before attacking, at the latest.
http://www.avlis.org/viewtopic.php?t=63315

Emphasis mine...
Of course, what people consider good form varies.

[pincushionman]

I have to disagree here about whether casting darkness initiates CvC - disagree with ALL of you. This is not ordinary CvC, this is about law enforcement CvC, which should be recognized as a special case. CvC was not initiated when the darkness was cast, nor when the officer responded to such an act. CvC was initiated the moment the officers confronted the perp, whether you like it or not. Combat was initiated later.

The way I see it, resisting arrest, either by fighting or running away, is an "attack" in the context of law enforcement CvC. Do the officers a favor, yeh? They're already working at a disadvantage due to the engine and the rules. If you're going to cooperate, there's no reason to set dislike, but if you're going to resist arrest, YOUR ACTION is what will provoke combat, whether or not it's an "attack."

That's just my opinion. But if you use the justification of "not actually attacking" to finagle your way out of setting hostile, don't be surprised if law enforcement officers start setting hostile the moment they arrive on scene in the future.

[Thalarian Arc'Thass]

If you cast darkness as AoE spell or on a specific target, it is to be considered a hostile act and setting to hostile is required. This has been answered before.
Cast darkness in an area with NPCs and see what will happen. They will attack you.

However, you do not have to turn the other guy to hostile when you cast Invis (or buffs) on yourself.

[Micah]

I have to disagree here about whether casting darkness initiates CvC - disagree with ALL of you. This is not ordinary CvC, this is about law enforcement CvC, which should be recognized as a special case. CvC was not initiated when the darkness was cast, nor when the officer responded to such an act. CvC was initiated the moment the officers confronted the perp, whether you like it or not. Combat was initiated later.

The way I see it, resisting arrest, either by fighting or running away, is an "attack" in the context of law enforcement CvC. Do the officers a favor, yeh? They're already working at a disadvantage due to the engine and the rules. If you're going to cooperate, there's no reason to set dislike, but if you're going to resist arrest, YOUR ACTION is what will provoke combat, whether or not it's an "attack."

That's just my opinion. But if you use the justification of "not actually attacking" to finagle your way out of setting hostile, don't be surprised if law enforcement officers start setting hostile the moment they arrive on scene in the future.

I like this.

[Baralis Truthbender]

Okay so next time use Invis...got it.

To clarify I cast Darkness in the area not on any specific target with the clear intention of not paying my fine and getting my arse out of there

[DanishPastry]

Let's take a good old Thief/Cop example. Thief is caught by Cop and either quaffs a potion of invis or casts darkness to make his escape. In my opinion both of these actions initiate the CvC and thus the Thief has to set hostile before downing the potion / casting the spell. When he doesn't the Cop PC has to open the player list and set hostile before he can pursue the Thief, leaving him at a great disadvantage.

Of course, there may be interactions between "regular" PCs where turning invisible or casting darkness should not be considered as the initiation of CvC. Common sense applies.


[hijack]
Don't transition back and forth between areas in an attempt to lose your followers. It's a lame thing to do and many a DM would lay the smack on you if they spotted you doing so.
[/hijack]


Edit: Perhaps I should not have skipped reading all the other posts in the thread. What Moredo says is true, Cop PCs usually set to Hostile right away, so my example is kinda moot.

[Alphonse]

[hijack]
Don't transition back and forth between areas in an attempt to lose your followers. It's a lame thing to do and many a DM would lay the smack on you if they spotted you doing so.
[/hijack]

*busted several people for this when he was DMing*

*chuckles remembering the one who tried to hide in the champions keep in Elysia*