I've gotten enough messages about this, and there have been enough posts about this, that I'd like to explain why I'm not going to institute a PK-switch as has been envisioned so far. By way of explanation, a PK-switch is just a switch on a player. If it's turned on, you can be PK'd, and you can PK. If it's turned off, you cannot be PK'd, and you cannot PK. I am, on principle, very opposed to these. I think they are, in fact, quite lame. I mean no offence to anyone who has suggested them. They seem like a decent idea at first glance.

Permit me, however, to explain what I believe is wrong with a PK switch, and why I have less of a problem with Grace (which isn't going away, ever, don't worry). Grace means that you are protected from players (though not from hostile mobiles), but that you can't do any offensive actions. Basically then, being in grace is not only consistent in terms of roleplay (ie the Gods will protect you, but only as long as you are utterly non-violent). Much more importantly however, being graced imposes a significant penalty upon you. You can't bash, and you cannot use many of your skills. There are upsides, but there are also definitely downsides.

Similarly, being ungraced presents upsides, and downsides. You can do whatever you like mainly, but you stand the risk of being p-killed. It happens occassionally for no reason (though of course if it becomes a problem, I get out my shrubbing stick and start pointing it at people. No one wants that.) so it is always a risk. So there is an upside, and a downside, and they are fairly logically related, as with grace.

A pk-switch, on the other hand, has no logical downside for its participants. Role-wise (which admittedly is not a very strong argument for anything in my opinion), it lets you commit violence against individuals that are, in role, no different from players, but it protects you from players. To people who have no interest in p-killing, it has no downsides.

Now, furthermore, what a pk-switch does is almost entirely remove the possibility of players protecting mobiles, which, if done with legitimate role reasons, is acceptable within reason. The Church, for instance, reasonably protects the nearby innocents of Shastaan and Jaru, or at least makes some attempt to sometimes. Ashtan does not do the same for Thera, presumably because Thera's official position is rather anti-Ashtan (whom they view as an imperial power). Incidentally, along those lines, we consider more than just role. As in everything, the impact on the game is the foremost concern. If someone started trying to "protect" Azdun, for instance, we'd have to disallow it, as a) none of the inhabitants of Azdun want anything but your destruction, and b) it's a major bashing area.

A pk-switch also creates situations where people can attack you or your possessions, or openly insult you, leaving you powerless to retaliate in an effective manner. Unlike many games, Achaea strives to be a world where there are true consequences for your actions, at least in the short-term. You can't expect to get away with acting like a total ass towards people, as you _will_ be killed for it, over and over if necessary, and no God is going to protect you. We feel this sort of gameplay creates a more serious environment, as it makes one think about the possible real and serious consequences of actions.

Imagine a situation where an irritating player is always graced, and does things like follow you about, picking up the mobiles you have just slain (which can be done with grace, but as mentioned earlier, there are big downsides to grace), or insulting you openly and repeatedly. Nothing could be done by you.

For these reasons (and others which I won't go into right now), I'm quite against a pk-switch.

Penned by my hand on the 3rd of Phaestian, in the year 261 AF.