I don't really know Zark. I might say that your experience with combat roleplay might be a little.. Tilted. Not by anything you're doing wrong of course or anything.. But let's just say that when someone's combat RPing with the admin of the server involved it kind of beckons for them to be on their best behavior. Since my time as a player here I've witnessed or experienced these kinds of problems three times in the past, and have had second hand accounts of at least two more. One of the second hand accounts I believe was punished, but none of the occasions I was present as a witness or participating in the roleplay.
That number, five, might not seem like a whole lot at first... But bear in mind how /rare/ character against character combat is in the server and you'll quickly realize that that is a /lot/ of tomfoolery. In the interest of keeping this thread on topic I won't diverge into explaining or giving details on those situations, but you can have them should you be so inclined.
Instead I'll get back on topic and address some of the things you've said.
Part of the thing is that you said you shouldn't force characters to take an arrow in the knee and become crippled. (I agree with that, of course.)
Long lasting or permanent damage isn't the kind of injury I was alluding to - I meant more temporary wounds that more or less only exist to determine the outcome of a fight.
Balance in combat roleplay is a very, very delicate thing. And as I said, nine times out of ten if an archer attempts to shoot a sword wielding character, the sword wielding character will make it a grazing wound or a miss and proceed to run over the archer because of the bow's slow firing rate and uselessness as a melee weapon. (This is why I said the first shot for an archer is crucial to their usefulness in a one on one combat roleplay, and why they're the most hurt by the current situation of things. Believe me, I've been in that situation.)
The sword wielder will and does do this without even thinking about it, as it's 'fair' in a sword against sword roleplay to avoid the first strike or what have you so that your character can retaliate and you'll have an 'even' fight.
Now there's a second part I have to address which was the wording of the proposed rule... Yeah, I kind of messed that up. So instead of trying to 'fix' it to read better, I'll just explain my background on what I was trying to do with the rule.
"3. Players that willingly engage their characters into violence-oriented roleplay [...]"
Yeah, that was a little vague. Essentially I was trying to seperate this rule into two demographics. In demographic (A), you have all your warriors, villains, rapists, ect. These characters are specifically designed to, and engage in combat on an every day basis. It's for this reason that they should be giving more fairness (not less) to those they're combat roleplaying with. However, also demographic A is meant to cover those who are not trained combatants willingly participating in a violent conflict as well. Such as a tailor trying to murder a bartender. The tailor falls into demographic A because he's instigating violence (And thus should be held to go about it fairly, because he's the one starting it.)
Then you have demographic B, which is any character /NOT/ willingly engaging in combat, who retain all their rights to deny injury forthright. The bartender having murder attempted upon them by the tailor falls into this catagory. That violence is being brought onto him/her, and they may very well be uncomfortable with the situation as a player, or simply not want their character to be murdered. That's why we have the right to deny injury and rules against forcing it -- This I am intimately aware of, which is why I made an attempt to preserve the right to deny injury for those not who are not setting out to combat roleplay with their characters.
"Any character that is willingly engaging in violence in a current conflict or relevant one has permissions for injury opened on them. [...]"
This is /not/ meant to allow for auto-hitting where powergaming is permitted. Take our new IC Death rules for a comparison on this -- as you alluded to the killing rules. Any character that kills another has permissions for their own character to be killed opened on them. That is as I understand it, a current rule. Not exactly a perfect rule, I am aware.
What that phrase I was including was /meant/ to do, was to remove the right to deny injury for any reason from the player (Which still exists in combat roleplay. Should a roleplayer in combat /not/ wish to get stabbed, all they really have to do is say so in OOC and it's irrevocable law at that point, if I'm not mistaken. Because the right to deny injury is and always has been forthright in Mesalia. Take when Mordecai was killed for a good example. He was shot in back with an arrow. ICly, anything that I did to avoid that injury would have been powergaming /something/. If Mordecai moved or dodged the arrow, that most definitely would be power gaming. If I stated the arrow /grazed/ Mordecai? That's -STILL- power gaming, as Tig's character was an excellent archer and realistically would not have missed at that distance at a stationary target -- And beyond that, to tell Tig that his character's aim was off just because /I/ say so is definitely power gaming.
Yet all I would have had to do to escape that death is OOCly say "You can't kill my character. No."
As I was told many times on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with being able to do that -- As I already illustrated with the tailor/bartender scenario above. Player's characters shouldn't be taken from them against their will.
But simply retconning it, or forcing Tig's character to miss or give only a grazing wound is a little powergamey. Mordecai was a combat character. He was built for combat so by all rights, I as a player should expect for him to get wounded in combat, period. And I shouldn't be trying to escape that. Mordecai /could/ have been hit from behind with an arrow that missed his vital organs but still put him in the clinic and took him out of that situation and that would have been fair as sunshine as far as I was concerned. He was shot in the back from less than ten paces, and anyone in that situation /shouldn't/ be trying to worm out of that situation as it's only realistic.
Yet people /do/ try to worm out of these situations. All the time. Because they have the right to. Any injury they don't agree with they have the right to deny (on grounds of realism or not) partially due to the view that combat roleplay is ALWAYS equal give and equal take. It's not. It should be the amount of give and take that is reasonable and applicable to the situation if it's ever going to be fair to the realism of the characters themselves. The fact is, a master swordsman should probably take a lot more ground than they give to a novice swordsman. That's unequal give and take, and it's correct. A novice swordsman attacking a master swordsman from behind and by surprise however - it's the situation reversed. The master swordsman shouldn't avoid that injury -- nor should they have any right to deny it. It'd just be OOC meddling with roleplay (or a fair bit of powergaming).
A tailor being attacked from behind however, should keep every right to say that they don't like the situation and refuse to allow that kind of injury to their character. Why? Because that player isn't involving themselves in combat roleplay willingly, and being involved unwillingly is stressful, taxing and unfair.
That's all I've essentially tried to set up with this rule. The wording might not be there, but that's all my reasoning above.
That number, five, might not seem like a whole lot at first... But bear in mind how /rare/ character against character combat is in the server and you'll quickly realize that that is a /lot/ of tomfoolery. In the interest of keeping this thread on topic I won't diverge into explaining or giving details on those situations, but you can have them should you be so inclined.
Instead I'll get back on topic and address some of the things you've said.
Part of the thing is that you said you shouldn't force characters to take an arrow in the knee and become crippled. (I agree with that, of course.)
Long lasting or permanent damage isn't the kind of injury I was alluding to - I meant more temporary wounds that more or less only exist to determine the outcome of a fight.
Balance in combat roleplay is a very, very delicate thing. And as I said, nine times out of ten if an archer attempts to shoot a sword wielding character, the sword wielding character will make it a grazing wound or a miss and proceed to run over the archer because of the bow's slow firing rate and uselessness as a melee weapon. (This is why I said the first shot for an archer is crucial to their usefulness in a one on one combat roleplay, and why they're the most hurt by the current situation of things. Believe me, I've been in that situation.)
The sword wielder will and does do this without even thinking about it, as it's 'fair' in a sword against sword roleplay to avoid the first strike or what have you so that your character can retaliate and you'll have an 'even' fight.
Now there's a second part I have to address which was the wording of the proposed rule... Yeah, I kind of messed that up. So instead of trying to 'fix' it to read better, I'll just explain my background on what I was trying to do with the rule.
"3. Players that willingly engage their characters into violence-oriented roleplay [...]"
Yeah, that was a little vague. Essentially I was trying to seperate this rule into two demographics. In demographic (A), you have all your warriors, villains, rapists, ect. These characters are specifically designed to, and engage in combat on an every day basis. It's for this reason that they should be giving more fairness (not less) to those they're combat roleplaying with. However, also demographic A is meant to cover those who are not trained combatants willingly participating in a violent conflict as well. Such as a tailor trying to murder a bartender. The tailor falls into demographic A because he's instigating violence (And thus should be held to go about it fairly, because he's the one starting it.)
Then you have demographic B, which is any character /NOT/ willingly engaging in combat, who retain all their rights to deny injury forthright. The bartender having murder attempted upon them by the tailor falls into this catagory. That violence is being brought onto him/her, and they may very well be uncomfortable with the situation as a player, or simply not want their character to be murdered. That's why we have the right to deny injury and rules against forcing it -- This I am intimately aware of, which is why I made an attempt to preserve the right to deny injury for those not who are not setting out to combat roleplay with their characters.
"Any character that is willingly engaging in violence in a current conflict or relevant one has permissions for injury opened on them. [...]"
This is /not/ meant to allow for auto-hitting where powergaming is permitted. Take our new IC Death rules for a comparison on this -- as you alluded to the killing rules. Any character that kills another has permissions for their own character to be killed opened on them. That is as I understand it, a current rule. Not exactly a perfect rule, I am aware.
What that phrase I was including was /meant/ to do, was to remove the right to deny injury for any reason from the player (Which still exists in combat roleplay. Should a roleplayer in combat /not/ wish to get stabbed, all they really have to do is say so in OOC and it's irrevocable law at that point, if I'm not mistaken. Because the right to deny injury is and always has been forthright in Mesalia. Take when Mordecai was killed for a good example. He was shot in back with an arrow. ICly, anything that I did to avoid that injury would have been powergaming /something/. If Mordecai moved or dodged the arrow, that most definitely would be power gaming. If I stated the arrow /grazed/ Mordecai? That's -STILL- power gaming, as Tig's character was an excellent archer and realistically would not have missed at that distance at a stationary target -- And beyond that, to tell Tig that his character's aim was off just because /I/ say so is definitely power gaming.
Yet all I would have had to do to escape that death is OOCly say "You can't kill my character. No."
As I was told many times on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with being able to do that -- As I already illustrated with the tailor/bartender scenario above. Player's characters shouldn't be taken from them against their will.
But simply retconning it, or forcing Tig's character to miss or give only a grazing wound is a little powergamey. Mordecai was a combat character. He was built for combat so by all rights, I as a player should expect for him to get wounded in combat, period. And I shouldn't be trying to escape that. Mordecai /could/ have been hit from behind with an arrow that missed his vital organs but still put him in the clinic and took him out of that situation and that would have been fair as sunshine as far as I was concerned. He was shot in the back from less than ten paces, and anyone in that situation /shouldn't/ be trying to worm out of that situation as it's only realistic.
Yet people /do/ try to worm out of these situations. All the time. Because they have the right to. Any injury they don't agree with they have the right to deny (on grounds of realism or not) partially due to the view that combat roleplay is ALWAYS equal give and equal take. It's not. It should be the amount of give and take that is reasonable and applicable to the situation if it's ever going to be fair to the realism of the characters themselves. The fact is, a master swordsman should probably take a lot more ground than they give to a novice swordsman. That's unequal give and take, and it's correct. A novice swordsman attacking a master swordsman from behind and by surprise however - it's the situation reversed. The master swordsman shouldn't avoid that injury -- nor should they have any right to deny it. It'd just be OOC meddling with roleplay (or a fair bit of powergaming).
A tailor being attacked from behind however, should keep every right to say that they don't like the situation and refuse to allow that kind of injury to their character. Why? Because that player isn't involving themselves in combat roleplay willingly, and being involved unwillingly is stressful, taxing and unfair.
That's all I've essentially tried to set up with this rule. The wording might not be there, but that's all my reasoning above.