- Joined:
- Jun 16, 2018
- Messages:
- 188
- Points:
- 52
Years of Mono
LV
0
2.2 - Player vs Player
1. You may not kill or knock out players without a valid In-Character reason.
4. Attacking to kill should be carried out sensibly and not as a first resort, unless you have a good reason for immediate lethal action.
While reviewing the rules and talking with other players about situations they've had in game, I noticed that there may be a potential gap of understanding regarding these rules. Specifically in the instances of defending ones property.
For context, where I live (New York), even with the very restrictive gun laws we have, if someone breaks into my house while I'm there I can shoot them. Regardless of if they're unarmed, when someone is breaking into your home, you can immediately assume it's an active threat and can respond accordingly, however, it's not that simple. If I'm upstairs and I have no one downstairs and they break in, I cannot legally do anything to them unless they ascend the stairs. I have a "duty to retreat" and since no lives and just property are potentially being threatened I would not be allowed to respond, however if I'm upstairs and I have family downstairs when someone breaks in, I can now respond to that as I am allowed to protect my family and their lives.
With the above being mentioned I've heard of staff enforcing/referencing the above rules in situations where someone lockpicked into an area but they were unarmed and got shot as soon as they walked in. Claiming the guy shooting was RDMing since they were unarmed. However even in my restrictive state that would be seen as a good shoot (given they weren't on a second floor when the guy broke in lol). I personally haven't had to deal with this situation in game yet, so in the event it happens I just wanted to get it clarified as to what a "valid in-character reason" is regarding things such as castle doctrine, stand your ground, etc. etc. because as it is now, I'm in the boat with the guy shooting and I would have RDM'd people thinking I'm in the right.
1. You may not kill or knock out players without a valid In-Character reason.
4. Attacking to kill should be carried out sensibly and not as a first resort, unless you have a good reason for immediate lethal action.
While reviewing the rules and talking with other players about situations they've had in game, I noticed that there may be a potential gap of understanding regarding these rules. Specifically in the instances of defending ones property.
For context, where I live (New York), even with the very restrictive gun laws we have, if someone breaks into my house while I'm there I can shoot them. Regardless of if they're unarmed, when someone is breaking into your home, you can immediately assume it's an active threat and can respond accordingly, however, it's not that simple. If I'm upstairs and I have no one downstairs and they break in, I cannot legally do anything to them unless they ascend the stairs. I have a "duty to retreat" and since no lives and just property are potentially being threatened I would not be allowed to respond, however if I'm upstairs and I have family downstairs when someone breaks in, I can now respond to that as I am allowed to protect my family and their lives.
With the above being mentioned I've heard of staff enforcing/referencing the above rules in situations where someone lockpicked into an area but they were unarmed and got shot as soon as they walked in. Claiming the guy shooting was RDMing since they were unarmed. However even in my restrictive state that would be seen as a good shoot (given they weren't on a second floor when the guy broke in lol). I personally haven't had to deal with this situation in game yet, so in the event it happens I just wanted to get it clarified as to what a "valid in-character reason" is regarding things such as castle doctrine, stand your ground, etc. etc. because as it is now, I'm in the boat with the guy shooting and I would have RDM'd people thinking I'm in the right.
