1. Amia is a role-playing server, not a PvP arena server.

2. All PvP must have a role-playing reason. PvP without a sensible reason is not allowed. Your character's alignment is not a valid reason for PvP. Summons, such as undead, are a valid reason but do not excuse you from the below protocol.

3. You must give the other party a reasonable chance to back down from the PvP In Character.

4. IC Actions lead to IC Consequences. If you initiate a conflict (by insults or thievery, for example), you can't expect to get away with it. You cannot ignore other players' RP or declare it null.

I will then continue to walk the SAME path as if NOTHING happened, since the PVP you started and finished is illegal, thus out of character, and anything out of character does not happen.

No. Druids are basically the Undead-police, Worse than Kelemvorites really.

No. Druids are basically the Undead-police, Worse than Kelemvorites really. You do -NOT- defile the dead, and rise them from the earths vomb to fight for you.

If you did it once, you're bound to do it again. Hence - Die die die

I'm curious as to why undead give grounds to automatically pvp someone without RP?

I'm curious as to why undead give grounds to automatically pvp someone without RP?

They don't. RP is there. He is complaining about being attached, period, because he is walking around with undead near Druids. the solution is obvious: Do not walk around with undead. Undead are one of the most polarly charged forces in DnD along with celestials and evil outsiders and their presence immediately changes a situation. The player of a necromancer should undertand this and ot be angry OOCly if the expected reaction occurs and people are willing to attack him over having undead. Indeed, why kill the undead and let the source escape? No, you take down the creator and halt the flow at its source.

A druid sees someone with an undead pet and says, "This vileness must be stopped. Destroy this unnatural creature and lay it to rest, or I will." After this is said, it is then acceptable to attack the UNDEAD. If the druid attacks the player with the undead pet, that is illegal pvp, unless you include the character in your threat.

Illegal interactions include saying, "Is that an undead?" Then attacking before a response.

Question... is my druid required by oath to stop the "source" of the undead? I can definitely see putting an end to extant undead, but the source thing is a little unclear. Is that expected, or is it acceptable?

Question... is my druid required by oath to stop the "source" of the undead? I can definitely see putting an end to extant undead, but the source thing is a little unclear. Is that expected, or is it acceptable?

Don't be surprised if the next level 3 cleric with a death domain summons that you attack without appropriate role-play is me. I will report you. I will then continue to walk the SAME path as if NOTHING happened, since the PVP you started and finished is illegal, thus out of character, and anything out of character does not happen. That way, your aggressive friends can get frustrated because I am ignoring you, attack me too, and get reported as well.

Two wrongs do not make a right and if you're baiting people like that to try and force a rule breaking I'm more likely to slap you than the guy who attacked in the first place.

Ghnnnnnnnnn... No. What happens, HAPPENS. Hell, if the druid is to trigger happy, he might get fallen - but the RP? Yeah, it happened

Right, but I'd doubt a reasonably wise but physically weak druid would attempt to kill a significantly powerful necromancer, when, if he/she doesn't, he/she might instead live to protect nature in other ways.

No offence Tormak, but that just reeks.

So if an evil character gets attacked for acting evil, it's fine.
If the evil character continues to act evil in the exact same way, but learns from his mistake and starts killing off his attackers, that's not fine.

I like to think of it as a sting operation to weed out the trigger happy folks who obviously graduated from the "More Dakka!" school of problem solving. I'm not saying they shouldn't attack, I'm saying they should RP their way up to the attack just like everyone else. If there's IC threats made, and hostile moves taken leading up to the attack, that's fine. If I go afk and return to find that I'm dead, that's not fine.

In fact, I tend to take offence if that happens.

I'm curious as to why undead give grounds to automatically pvp someone without RP?

Hmm... I think you're right, Koragi.

It's one of my faults - I get trigger-happy with posts when i'm riled up.
-----
Either way, Pvp is valid if RP happens BEFORE The pvp, giving an out, and everything.

But i am personally not happy with his reaction if he get's punted for having a dead guy walking about.

[What OP said]
^
This. Is not good. At all.

They don't.

What an undead summone does however is give an opportunity for escallation of conflict RP. What you see is what you get. Having the undead for all to see is an invitation for conflict. It could be as simple as "Unsommon that of I kill you", or fairly involved RP that takes several minutes. The point being is that, just like having OOC information in your bio, it would be OOC metagamming for a PC to ignore your undead summon in areas where they are not allowed.

No its not, you can't detect magic link or whatever. You don't know who summoned the undead that happens to be following that character. If i say, "No I don't know whose it is but it keeps following me" theres no grounds for pvp, just kill the summon and let me on my way. If i'm correct this is just another line in the epic comedy. Its a running joke OOCly and at least three people who have posted in this thread know the running Joke I'm talking about.

Tormak, the OP is specifically talking about people who see Undead and automatically attack it without giving the IC out. His examples clearly illustrate that.

I highlighted in red - there was an IC out. Unsummoning the undead is a valid out AFAIK.

Yurell, those two responses were marked with what the OP was stating as a difference between a good response and an illegal PvP attack. I know it's an IC out. I marked it with "A good response" and the one without the IC out as an "illegal response".

Ainjyll, as far as I know, there is no such thing as legal PvP with "no RP involved"--as outlined by others, the druid would still have to offer an out.

They don't. RP is there. He is complaining about being attached, period, because he is walking around with undead near Druids. the solution is obvious: Do not walk around with undead. Undead are one of the most polarly charged forces in DnD along with celestials and evil outsiders and their presence immediately changes a situation. The player of a necromancer should undertand this and ot be angry OOCly if the expected reaction occurs and people are willing to attack him over having undead. Indeed, why kill the undead and let the source escape? No, you take down the creator and halt the flow at its source.

Right, but I'd doubt a reasonably wise but physically weak druid would attempt to kill a significantly powerful necromancer, when, if he/she doesn't, he/she might instead live to protect nature in other ways.

Tormak's quote pretty much says it all. A druid can attack someone with no "RP" involved. Having that undead summon is "RP" enough to warrant the attack.

Which, in my mind, is fine as long as it works both ways. Good can attack Evil for having evil summons and Evil can attack Good for having good summons.

If that quote is only the stance by Tormak alone and not the DM team as a whole, then please, by all means, correct me. However, it reads as the stance of the team.