Page 1 of 3

Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 07:33
by gorboth
A friendly reminder!

If you read you will notice that listed among the activities
that are considered "Griefing" is that odious practice known as Quest
Disruption. Three words apply:

Thou Shalt Not.

Few things in Genesis are more precious to my own sensibilities than the
art of roleplay, but this is one of the unique things that acts as a trump
card to even that. No, you are not allowed to mess up someone's quest and
use roleplay as an excuse for doing so. Sorry, you can't assist the Uruk
in Rohan and claim he is your Uncle Stanley. Nope, you can't protect the
sheep near the Dephonian Temple in Calia and claim you are a staunch animal
rights activist.

Don't do it! If you do, I'll ... I'll ...

I'll kill you! (well ... your character, at least. You, I'll just frown at.)

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 10:51
by Hektor
Thank you Gorboth for keeping a close watch on griefing such as this. This is one of the things that for certain would be a major detriment for a newbie to try out this game.

That being said, I do believe in Common Sense and "if in doubt - do not", but I wonder about a certain scenario that I could easily see developing from this:

Without revealing too much, there is a blue dragonarmy npc who is killed multiple times a day because people "they can" and they do like some of the trinkets he carry. That has always seemed acceptable, even though he is a part of a quest.

Now imagine that a knigget named Sir Troubadour and his good buddy the warrior Nestle want some of the dragonarmy npc gear so they can kill bunnies faster. They go to donk this poor fellow and in wanders a blue dragonarmy officer player (wow - long word, do not say that 3 times when drunk!) lets call him Crazeya. Naturally Crazeya would feel obliged to protect his buddy (as he rightfully should by RP terms in my book.... and in the good spirit of Genesis has done a gazillion times with other things as it does give him an excuse to pin another player finger to his "wristband of self-esteem +1".)

Attack! Nothing wrong with that picture if you ask me.. except..

Sir Troubadour goes: Whoa Crazeya I am like you know getting this guys hufflemaduff-pipe for the tingaling quest.

Then next time it is Warrior Nestle or buddy There-is-dill or maybe Eggtor who is "doing the tingaling" conveniently. - maybe Troubadour goes: Sorry failed the quest last time, so I am trying again - go away or I get Gorbie to smack yous, hah hah!

Now. With that in mind it does not seem fair to Crazeya under the "sheep clause" mentioned in Gorboths note? How far can the guys go in "doing the quest"? Crazeya has no chance of knowing if they actually did the quest or not. Is this "guildnpc" now all of sudden not to be protected anymore because people "might be doing a quest" or vice versa - can we no longer kill npcs that have parts of a quest (even though some of them have the best gear in the game - which is obviously intended for a player to enjoy?)

Where are we drawing the line? I know the Admin cannot really make a clear line here and we have to accept the "common sense" and case-by-case approach on this one (in cases where it is certain that a quest is being conducted - attacks are always forbidden - others we need to see what the emerging pattern suggests).

But I am curious to peoples thoughts on the subject. Anyone?

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 16:23
by Draugor
Hektor... have you been drinking?

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 17:52
by Rhynox
So, this means mages won't be able to attack those doing quests in Minas Morgul anymore? Hmm... I kind of doubt that.

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 17:59
by Alorrana

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 18:04
by Rhynox
When Irk wanted to enter, a nazgul told him to write a post in the Sparkle board asking permission and some groveling. So, I think he just swarmed through the guards and did the quests anyways. :twisted:

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 18:06
by Alorrana

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 18:24
by Cherek
I dont like rules like this. Just like the rules about pfighting its unclear. What is allowed and not. Nobody knows.

What if I kill myself into Vingaard Keep to finish a tour from Tarshir? Is that okay? I mean, I am an evil goblin trying to solve a quest? If I was a knight I'd stop the goblin. Then I can expect Gorboth to kill me?

I am solving quests on the Holm, some SU comes and attacks me since its "the hunt" and Holm has rules. But I am questing? Which of the rules apply here?

MMs killing those who sneak into MM through the backdoor quest? Thats not okay anymore I assume?

I think we can come up with tons of similar situations without knowing what is okay and not. Its gonna be confusing for the AoP to sort this out and have it make sense...

Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 20:37
by Bromen

Obviously Crazeya knows that troubadour is lying because they just want to kill bunnies faster.


Re: Quest Disruption

Posted: 10 Aug 2010 22:51
by gorboth
Yep, this one is not going to be something locked down by completely black-and-white clarity, nor is it going to be something that I will permit to go the way of the American legal system.

Bottom line: The ability to quest is essential to the Genesis experience, especially for new players.
Bottom line: If you compromise this, you will be subject to punishment at Administrative discretion.
Bottom line: If you abuse this principle, and claim you are questing when in fact you are just being a jerk, you will also be punished.

Punishments all-round! Party time! :D