Unforgivables

[Strider]

An act of contrition is a nice idea, but I would hope that it would be implemented only if a) there is a warning about the consequences of your actions and b) its easy to find out what said act is.

Yes. Although I would prefer that newbies left Tutori Island with the understanding that killing shop keepers, boat captains, guild "mascots" and the like, bears consequences over a whole punch of "Are you sure?" type prompts.

I have no problem with different kinds of solutions, Strider. [...] See the "1 year" as the idea that nobody should have to suffer longer than this (RL time) without any possibility to fix it.

I apologize if I implied you were. I am just unsure that I agree that no one should have to suffer more than a RL year for anything, although I do suspect you are basically right in most instances.

The Calians actually have a pretty good institutional memory as to what actions prompted which character to be acknowledged as an Enemy, but suffice to say anyone currently listed is there because they wronged the guild and have not endeavored to correct matters.

I wrote the above earlier in the thread following a paragraph on the genesis of the Calian Enemies list. It seemed to me that it was being misinterpreted or taken out of context and so I edited it for clarity. I have not yet reviewed all two decades of the list's operation, but it seems to me that in game the Calian Council's position would generally have to be to trust the judgement and notes left by those past. I don't want to hijack Booger's thread and so would prefer a PM or another thread, although, if you want to discuss this with those who can actually do something about it, contact the Calian Council in game.

[Anahita]

An act of contrition is a nice idea, but I would hope that it would be implemented only if a) there is a warning about the consequences of your actions and b) its easy to find out what said act is.

Yes. Although I would prefer that newbies left Tutori Island with the understanding that killing shop keepers, boat captains, guild "mascots" and the like, bears consequences over a whole punch of "Are you sure?" type prompts.

Yes, I agree, though if the punishment is a swift and sure death they'll learn quickly enough. Those NPCs with more subtle consequences (ineligibility to do quests, etc.) deserve a stronger warning at the time of the attack because its not obvious who they are. All the better if attacking prompts some message that offers a hint that they're a quest NPC, maybe it'll save people a future trip to the quest orbs if said warning prompts people to quest instead.

[Booger]

Good note, Strider. And I also agree with the "learning that actions bears consequence". Though in practice it only works to a certain degree:

Sometimes attacking someone will get everyone else there to jump you, but many times you just kill one after the other, and the rest will stay put, waiting for their turn to die. Killing some good guys will make you cursed for eternity, but in most cases it doesn't affect anything, and often creatures not intended to be killed are the best source of xp: Gnimpsh was great xp, and so are the monastery goats. Dwarven king was ok xp and gave 13 platinum per kill! Gayryn is ok xp. The smith, trainer, shopkeepers and questgiver in Rockfriends are all quite nice xp for their difficulty. Brunhilda/hay farmer/Dondel/Dondel's wife/Bodulas/Petunia/... all are probably ok xp for their difficulty, but I can't say for sure since I'm much bigger than them.
This inconsistency appears in all shapes. A sword with a great description of its sharpness, balance, featherweight and perfection might be much worse than another sword described as "A decent weapon". A room with a pit "you can't see the bottom" might kill you instantly if you enter it (you fall for several minutes until you hit the bottom with a splat) while a "fiery pit of hell" with several warnings about certain death might contain a medium sized "Great Balrog of DOOM" which you can just walk away from if you start feeling hurt.

So we learn to be careful with things that might be bad, like attacking a guard in a room full of other guards. And we normally learn to accept that there might be consequenses. But there is no way we can know beforehand what's bad. If I kill more than 100 orcs, it would be reasonable to have all orcs attack me on sight. Forever. And if I kill more than a thousand, it wouldn't be unrealistic if they put together a horde of 100 or so orcs to hunt me down and kill me. If I am attacked by a lone border guard on a road somewhere and kill him, I wouldn't expect to be punished for defending myself, and if he was alone, how would anyone even know it was me?

Kill a hobbit and a few of the other hobbits will attack you on sight... until you quit and return. Humans often have laws against killing humans, but even in civilized Sparkle I can kill Gayryn and his customers without retribution. If I go to Green Oaks and kill an elf, the rest of the elves there ought to be at my throat immediately. But no. I go to Dwarfheim and kill their king - not even his own guards will bother about it. So what makes rangers so much more revengeful and unforgiving than any other race/class?

I do understand the idea that if you kill a ranger then all rangers would be angry at you and want you dead. But this goes for all (most) civilized races/classes. Ranger-outlaw is a nice feature. Would be bad to have similar things added to every living being where this could apply, but something special for only rangers, fine. But with some moderation, please! First time you do it, you get ranger-enemy status for a week. Second time for a month and third time for a year. When having it for a week, additional killings don't add to the time, and when the status is removed you get a mail from some ranger npc saying that this was a warning. Don't do it again.

Also please bear in mind that even veteran DO-members, who have imprinted in their bones to NOT ATTACK OR KILL DRAGONS can do it by accident. It has happened and will happen again. With standard alias "l = look at" and "k = kill", it's very easy to mess up and do a "k ranger" though you meant to "l ranger". Some weapons make you aggressive and attack things at random, right? You might team with someone who eg is "ranger enemy" and end up becoming one yourself. Tons of things can mess up.

So:
* I don't see a need for special warnings, but descriptions and such should have some hints about it being a bad idea.
* I believe most people know and understand that there may be consequenses to doing things, though they have no way of knowing beforehand if or what.
* Even if you do know, mistakes do happen.
=> Instead be gentle with the punishments. No forever-punishments. And for the longer/tougher ones, do it for repeated offences.

[Booger]

Another thought (smaller one): Eye for an eye! In many of these cases you get in bad standing for attacking/killing someone. So how about getting pardoned if they kill you? Get killed by a ranger and you're no longer ranger enemy. Get killed by that quest master you killed and he will no longer be mad at you, etc. Ought to be a reasonable solution, at least for some cases.