COMMUNITY - FORUMS - AGING & DYING
Penalty for killing on the battlefield?
+2

Just curious after a recent debate with a fellow theory crafter.

There is a mention on the WIKI for a 4x death toll "spirit loss" on the battlefield, but there is no mention on the person doing the "coup de grace"

I'm certain I already know the answer to this question. But, is there a penalty for the person on the battlefield who does a "coup de grace" on an incapacitated foe like there is for a murder out in the wild away from a war?


  • "The only thing certain in Life is Death, do not fear that which is known." - Orashna, Master Warrior and Expert Herbalist
...
3/29/2018 2:26:28 PM #1
+0

During "Staged Battles" there is no spirit loss and there is no CDG.

But staged battles are not the only time enemy factions will be fighting. Skirmishes before and after are normal spirit loss and CDG is available.

3/29/2018 2:29:22 PM #2
+0

I'm pretty sure I've also read something to confirm what TheCoz said, but honestly I can't remember where.

The only thing I can think of where there would be negative after affects of someone killing a lot in battle would be to make a bounty token for an enemy war criminal? Not sure how viable that option is but I do wonder about it.


Luna Server NA-East ; Citizen of the Kingdom of Kairos, Duchy of Ashira, County of Agrion Discord: https://discord.gg/msw2Qm

Member of the Azmar City Council, Student of Tyto Academy

Friend Code: C80DCC

3/29/2018 3:07:52 PM #3
+9

There is spirit loss for a staged battle. 4x your normal loss. But your refresh timer on when you can take another spirit loss is longer. And I would assume the person doing the cdg would face no criminal penalties since both parties agreed to fight to the death.


3/29/2018 3:13:39 PM #4
-5

Posted By Kaynadin at 10:07 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

There is spirit loss for a staged battle. 4x your normal loss. But your refresh timer on when you can take another spirit loss is longer. And I would assume the person doing the cdg would face no criminal penalties since both parties agreed to fight to the death.

Why not, charge all the losing side's survivors with murder... winner makes the rules!


3/29/2018 3:17:59 PM #5
+7

Why should there be? Killing enemies in a staged battle is no crime, thats heroism. They came to die. Thats why people do battles, right?

However, the fame associated with killing many enemies may result in higher spirit-loss, IF you die anytime after getting all those kills.


Friend Code: 30EF47

3/29/2018 3:24:12 PM #6
+1

Posted By Gromschlog at 10:17 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

Why should there be? Killing enemies in a staged battle is no crime, thats heroism. They came to die. Thats why people do battles, right?

However, the fame associated with killing many enemies may result in higher spirit-loss, IF you die anytime after getting all those kills.

People don't go to battles to die, they go to win. It is war. If your goal is to deter your enemy you not only beat them on the battlefield, but punish those who got away with their lives by charging them with crimes against the state... not saying it'd be right or the game would allow it, but it's a legitimate strategy unless we are told otherwise.


3/29/2018 3:38:41 PM #7
+8

Posted By TheCoz at 09:26 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

During "Staged Battles" there is no spirit loss and there is no CDG.

But staged battles are not the only time enemy factions will be fighting. Skirmishes before and after are normal spirit loss and CDG is available.

Unless there has been a significant change this is incorrect. The first death comes at a cost especially high if near someone of noble rank. Subsequent deaths however do not suffer a penalty.

Bloodlust is the increased death penalty incurred when players are in proximity to nobility. On the battlefield, "in proximity" is within unit range, whereas out of the battlefield it is the typical "adventuring range".[1]

When a player is within proximity of nobility and are coup de graced, they suffer a higher initial death penalty than the normal 2-day penalty. However, after the initial penalty, there is no penalty for repeated deaths for an increasing amount of time, depending on the rank of nobility.

Death Penalty Day-Multiplier[1]
Counts 4x Duke's 6x Kings 8x Example: If a soldier were to die within proximity of the king on a battlefield it would result in a 16 day death penalty to their spirit loss.

As a result, even if a soldier were to get a 16-day spirit loss penalty they can also go for a longer period of time without getting another penalty. This creates an effect where players within proximity of nobility try "extra hard" not to die, as the initial penalty is stiff. However after dying once, they become fearless and enraged, as repeated deaths come with no additional penalty - hence the term "Bloodlust".[1]

It should be noted that an increasing re-spawn timer and other balancing Astral Plane mechanics are still in play, to prevent perpetual battles.

3/29/2018 3:54:05 PM #8
+1

Posted By Gromschlog at 11:17 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

Why should there be? Killing enemies in a staged battle is no crime, thats heroism. They came to die. Thats why people do battles, right?

I agree that there shouldn't be any spirit loss penalty for doing a coup de grace on the battlefield.

I guess the questions are:

Will there be predetermined "battlefields"? Would someone be able to just run off such field in order to make the victor take a penalty if they do a coup de grace? Have the Devs yet started thinking about these mechanics? How would the game know "you're at war" and not just doing a coup de grace as part of a murder?


  • "The only thing certain in Life is Death, do not fear that which is known." - Orashna, Master Warrior and Expert Herbalist
3/29/2018 4:10:35 PM #9
+1

Posted By Orashna at 10:54 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

Posted By Gromschlog at 11:17 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

Why should there be? Killing enemies in a staged battle is no crime, thats heroism. They came to die. Thats why people do battles, right?

I agree that there shouldn't be any spirit loss penalty for doing a coup de grace on the battlefield.

I guess the questions are:

Will there be predetermined "battlefields"? Would someone be able to just run off such field in order to make the victor take a penalty if they do a coup de grace? Have the Devs yet started thinking about these mechanics? How would the game know "you're at war" and not just doing a coup de grace as part of a murder?

Staged battles have to be placed in advance and entered by 2 armies who are at war. An individual can't just run off to a 'battlefield' to escape consequences.


3/29/2018 4:25:56 PM #10
+0

Posted By Dekul at 12:10 PM - Thu Mar 29 2018

Posted By Orashna at 10:54 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

Posted By Gromschlog at 11:17 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

Why should there be? Killing enemies in a staged battle is no crime, thats heroism. They came to die. Thats why people do battles, right?

I agree that there shouldn't be any spirit loss penalty for doing a coup de grace on the battlefield.

I guess the questions are:

Will there be predetermined "battlefields"? Would someone be able to just run off such field in order to make the victor take a penalty if they do a coup de grace? Have the Devs yet started thinking about these mechanics? How would the game know "you're at war" and not just doing a coup de grace as part of a murder?

Staged battles have to be placed in advance and entered by 2 armies who are at war. An individual can't just run off to a 'battlefield' to escape consequences.

I think you mis-understood my question

My question is if there is no penalty for doing a "coup de grace" "on" a battlefield

Would people not then just run "off" of said battlefield so that if their opponent chased them down and did a "coup de grace" that they would be penalized for doing the killing stroke, where if they were on the field would not have been penalized?

What's the plan for these kills during a war to be "sanctioned" as legal vs being considered "murder" and penalizing the offender


  • "The only thing certain in Life is Death, do not fear that which is known." - Orashna, Master Warrior and Expert Herbalist
3/29/2018 5:25:29 PM #11
+19

So, I'm not going to answer this question just yet. Let me ask a few ethical questions, instead:

Should executing your opponent be an honorable thing to do on a battlefield?

Is the goal of war really to kill the enemy or is to force a resolution to a conflict in your side's favor?

Now, in most battles, you want to remove the enemy combatants from the battlefield, which does mean killing them, but it doesn't have to mean that in CoE thanks to the way our death system works. We could, for example, extend the incapacitation time in battlefields so that you don't have to CDG someone to ensure they can't return in time to rejoin the battle.

What I'm getting at with these questions is that our system means there are ethical implications to delivering a CDG, even in war: You can murder that enemy so you know they aren't coming back anytime soon, but should you? Are you really the hero, when you could have simply incapacitated them to accomplish much the same effect?

I'm curious how you all feel about it.


  • Snipehunter
3/29/2018 5:31:07 PM #12
-2

Hopefully this will lead to the fact that diplomacy is a way better solution for conflicts then war ever will be.


Tribe: Dras---Explorer---Adventurer---Cartographer.

3/29/2018 5:45:39 PM #13
-1

Posted By Snipehunter at 10:25 AM - Thu Mar 29 2018

So, I'm not going to answer this question just yet. Let me ask a few ethical questions, instead:

Should executing your opponent be an honorable thing to do on a battlefield?

Is the goal of war really to kill the enemy or is to force a resolution to a conflict in your side's favor?

Now, in most battles, you want to remove the enemy combatants from the battlefield, which does mean killing them, but it doesn't have to mean that in CoE thanks to the way our death system works. We could, for example, extend the incapacitation time in battlefields so that you don't have to CDG someone to ensure they can't return in time to rejoin the battle.

What I'm getting at with these questions is that our system means there are ethical implications to delivering a CDG, even in war: You can murder that enemy so you know they aren't coming back anytime soon, but should you? Are you really the hero, when you could have simply incapacitated them to accomplish much the same effect?

I'm curious how you all feel about it.

I think this is a great approach, people in war don't stop and take the time to ensure people are dead.


Alt text - can be left blank

3/29/2018 6:04:08 PM #14
+1

Snipe-

I consider myself a fairly moral and reasonable person. I agree ethics should most certainly be employed in battle ... there is, after all, right and wrong even in battle.

I suppose I would question the means/ends. I agree that failure in battlefield diplomacy will lead to battle and then in turn removing the troops from the field will be inevitable.

Would an archer, aiming at an unknown opponent, at distance often over 100 yards meet the same fate/penalty?

I personally cannot SEE that far, but I can shoot that far.

Even close combat with spear/sword/mace or other melee weapon you may or may not know whom you are attacking. You might not see their visage due to armor or other obstruction.

I personally don't believe in "picking a fight" ... just to fight. But war is often founded on an attack of one's personal beliefs, religions freedoms, territorial disputes or other major difference between the opposing sides. Those fighting are usually just defending what they believe to be right, just and morally true. Some, it's true, are there because they have no moral compass and just enjoy the challenge, but I would believe the overarching army is there to defend those beliefs they hold true.

Why then, would you be penalized in defense of what you hold true, your beliefs, your religion?

Certainly, the foul and negative sides of war should be penalized: rape, civilian killings (unless they attack first), deaths of children, and the like. Or further breach more (morals): such as genocide.

Should you "finish off" an opponent that cannot continue the fight? I don't believe so, although human history would disagree. It was not uncommon for victors to systematically kill all men, boys and children old enough to carry/yield a weapon. This happened quite often.

What would we do in reaction to a Valet or Squire, who, in reaction to his/her liege attacked you as you approached? How would/should this be punished?

More questions than answers ... tough subject.

Regards, T. Hanmi


3/29/2018 6:19:52 PM #15
+1

The way I see it, if you have a proper casus beli, then you should be able to deal with the 4x penalty for the first time you die, but not any more death penalty for the duration of the battle. But, if there is NOT a proper casus belli, then the penalties should be increased, because that is not war, but just mass murder.


Countess of Tarnham

City of Keld, County Tarnham, Rhynelands Duchy, Vornair. Luna Server (NA-E)

...
Log in to post