Change Rules Of Arson

[Cjmate 1270]

Because it's an effective way to send a message. In most scenario's it's one of the most effective ways to have an impact. Via burning that building you're forcing someone to react. To do some damage, I mean if you're attacking someone. You can kill them sure, but death doesn't matter. It's cheap, due to the monks reviving people 24/7. So arson comes into play, it's an effective way to attack your enemy (say an enemy nation) and to have an impact in roleplay.  Or quite simply, they find it fun.  Obviously it doesn't always work out like that. But for the most part, you can't deny the arsonist is having a large impact on somebody via his actions. 

 

Now I don't do arson personally, since I don't have a Va. This is merely conjecture on my part. But in regards to changing the arson rule, I wouldn't say revert to the old system. From my point of view, the staff could:

 

• a) Bump up the difficulty of arson VA's. (Possibly even wipe the current ones if they're such an issue. I mean villains are meant to generate "fun" rp for other people according to the VAT ).
• b) Remove Va's - in the hopes that by cheapening it further so people no longer do it as much. Or due to this scenario showing failure of the VAT for some. I mean with arson such a common and cheap thing...
• c) Add further restriction on what you can and can not burn. For example you may not commit arson in a Capital City without the consent of one of the region owners. 

Those are some of my suggestions, I haven't been overly effected by this so I'm not sure that's enough/too harsh. At any rate, I do see the problem. 

I think that c is brilliant.

[Cyndikate 2303]

I do not support this rule. The victims need to start building fire proof homes. Like stone or brick

 

I do not support this rule because it halts RP. I don't go around burning things willy nilly, but if it's necessary to provide RP to an entire city, or to create RP, then I have to make sacrifices. I can't have my RP and more importantly the RP and the storyline of other players being halted because one guy is so protective of his blocks.

[zaezae 1098]

How about just make it as to the owner must be ONLINE but you do not need permission, as it gives the owner a chance to defend their belongings. However, if they aren't present or can't defend their home /oh well/. I hate "permission" just out of the concept of "May I do as my character would, or would you rather railroad him for me?"

[Sky 0]

Come on, 

 

We finally get some VA rules loosened and then everyone starts complaining.

 

If it was done in the medieval time, the enemy would wait for the military of the place to be gone. (Or not, if they are sadistic)

 

I always say, if it has decent RP motive behind it, then who are we to really stop it because the other person will be mad?

 

Recently, no one can do anything without worrying about the other party getting mad at them OOCly. 

 

Remember kids RP hate is fine, but OOC crosses the line! 

 

Oh, and it also boils down to how the GM sees the matter, and don't give me this "Each GM is different" stuff, YES every GM is different but if it is so blatantly an OOC driven motive or breaches some sort of rule, the GM (No matter who it is, or which group they belong to) will not let it go on!

 

Do what a little fishy has taught us and;

 

[Eleatic 1033]

please.

 

My inn was burnt down with no RP, and a sign(I was offline for 4-5 days due to OOC). No chance of finding out who it was. Crappiest RP I've encountered thusfar on my time in LOTC.

 

Bring back the Arson rule, it was there for a reason. 

[Archbishop 1784]

I support this. I can't leave Abresi without worrying that my house will be burnt down because the amount of houses that are burnt down in Abresi is far to high, and the fact its the same person doing it to each house. Even Abresi's krugsmas tree was burnt down by the same person, worst rp ever.

[Cyndikate 2303]

Here's an idea, build a house out of stone and bricks. Problem solved

[Archbishop 1784]

House would look ugly. Another thing is in medieval times houses were not made out of stone at least not the top floors and roof of the building, so building houses out of stone.

[Cyndikate 2303]

House would look ugly. Another thing is in medieval times houses were not made out of stone at least not the top floors and roof of the building, so building houses out of stone.

This isn't medieval times. It's a fantasy roleplaying server.

A beautiful house can be made out of bricks. Pure stone house with some specs of wood would look okay.

You have to choose between pretty and security or if you're creative enough, a happy medium.

[monkeypoacher 8055]

Yes. I'm tired of people raiding and attempting to randomly burn down my buildings. +1

[Cjmate 1270]

This isn't medieval times. It's a fantasy roleplaying server.

A beautiful house can be made out of bricks. Pure stone house with some specs of wood would look okay.

You have to choose between pretty and security or if you're creative enough, a happy medium.

1C - Arson / Destruction of Property- The act of lighting a building, tent, support, or whatever else makes logical sense, on fire. Destroying the property of an individual, whether to use it as a entrance, to gain resources, or to cause chaos. (In the instance of destroying/burning a building, or for small or tasteful destruction, such as the vandalism of a gravestone, removal of a tree, or destruction of a window, the amount of damage falls to the discretion of the GM overseeing it. Such thing as total burning down of a building should rarely happen.) The deliberate act of going someplace with intention of breaking belongings. Whether it be from item frames, signs, chairs, stairs, windows, etc.

 

This va does not only apply for fire, but for stone as well. You can knock out supports and cause the entire thing to crumble, so let's not stick to just fire. If we must insist on sticking to just fire, it is breaking immersion. You say that this is a fantasy server, but it is heavily restricted to being medieval by the community. The game seemed to be based on GoT at one point. Most people that have a half decent community build with immersion in mind. This is why you see places like Aldersburgh and old Furnestock fall apart, they are terribly planned and poorly place.

 

I may have focused on the old rule in the first sentence of my post, but I tried to make it clear that I do not want the old rule back. You should not have to have permission to do anything with your va, but I think that most people who are in agreement with me have stated that they want to have a chance to actually be online for the event. This is my problem. Most of my issue with your argument can be found on the quote I made to Jistuma on the second page.

[Birdwhisperer 1174]

Moved to the Great Library. It shall be sorted into appropriate category shortly.