quest giver protection

[2d0x]

I don't think a "solution" is necessary, because as I see it there is no problem.
Think that was what the other dude was trying to say.

Personally, I leave a runestone next to the questgiver telling people it is a questgiver and asking them not to destroy it. If they destroy it anyway, oh well, that's life.

I understood pretty well what the "other dude" wanted to say. In the current state, I am also not particularly worried about the safety of quest givers. However, the problem is voiced...
The only inconvenience is the credo (usually you have to run far and a little annoyingly when the quest giver is behind the fence). I just cancel this quest. But this is a local solution, not a global one.
If for you the protection of quest givers is not a serious problem, there is no need to actively prove that the problem does not exist for anyone.

Personally, I, perhaps, like the idea of special quest "sacred" biomes, where one cannot build, destroy or establish claims. Is it necessary in the current implementation of the game? Hardly.

[Hrenli]

Personally, I leave a runestone next to the questgiver telling people it is a questgiver and asking them not to destroy it.

One might argue that such runestone makes it easier to identify a quest tree at a first glance and destroy it on purpose. For example, at the start of this world we had a dude who went on a killing spree chopping quest trees left and right.

[Hrenli]

What you do with questgivers should be entirely up to you.

I agree. And that's exactly why I think there should be a way to find out if that tree is a quest giver or not. To be able to make an informed decision. Some sort of blood spitting effect when you try to chop it (as I think was proposed earlier in this thread) would suffice.

[Damon_Cooper]

Quest giver should be free spirits inhabiting the object (tree/stone), they should move to another nearby object should their vessel be destroyed or claimed.

this

[CaddoPuma]

...Personally, I leave a runestone next to the questgiver telling people it is a questgiver and asking them not to destroy it. If they destroy it anyway, oh well, that's life.

In general, I agree with blinx and Embers: I try to preserve quest givers whenever possible. But I have to admit the difference between a runestone that asks or gently suggests to preserve it and one that adamantly commands, "Quest Giver! Do NOT Destroy!" is a huge difference and I have often been tempted to defy those commands just to spite those who presume to act like they have the authority to give such orders. I havent defied any of them in this world, but the temptation is STRONK!

But players should be free to make a decision that is unpopular with other players (like killing a quest giver). And other players should be free to react in ways that may or may not be popular with other players. And yet other players should be free to counter react to that reaction in ways which may or may not be popular with even more other players. etc., etc.

[2d0x]

In general, I agree with blinx and Embers: I try to preserve quest givers whenever possible. But I have to admit the difference between a runestone that asks or gently suggests to preserve it and one that adamantly commands, "Quest Giver! Do NOT Destroy!" is a huge difference and I have often been tempted to defy those commands just to spite those who presume to act like they have the authority to give such orders. I havent defied any of them in this world, but the temptation is STRONK!

But players should be free to make a decision that is unpopular with other players (like killing a quest giver). And other players should be free to react in ways that may or may not be popular with other players. And yet other players should be free to counter react to that reaction in ways which may or may not be popular with even more other players. etc., etc.!

In fact, the only difference is in your imagination.
Suppose you feel yourself a rebel, destroy the quest giver and amuse your ego. But other people will take your deed like this: "some idiot makes it difficult to play".
You are free in your decisions, but remember that everyone will perceive your action in different ways. And this perception is unlikely to coincide with your fantasies.

The Wolf And The Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. ‘There’s my supper,’ thought he, ‘if only I can find some excuse to seize it.’ Then he called out to the Lamb, ‘How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?’
‘Nay, master, nay,’ said Lambikin; ‘if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me.’
‘Well, then,’ said the Wolf, ‘why did you call me bad names this time last year?’
‘That cannot be,’ said the Lamb; ‘I am only six months old.’
‘I don’t care,’ snarled the Wolf; ‘if it was not you it was your father;’ and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out .’Any excuse will serve a tyrant.’

The moral is that you want to perform an unseemly act, but not suave enough inscription - just an attempt to justify yourself.

[MagicManICT]

But I have to admit the difference between a runestone that asks or gently suggests to preserve it and one that adamantly commands, "Quest Giver! Do NOT Destroy!" is a huge difference and I have often been tempted to defy those commands just to spite those who presume to act like they have the authority to give such orders.

Freud would say something along the lines of "Why do you feel the need to defy such bold statements? Tell me about your father."

But players should be free to make a decision that is unpopular with other players (like killing a quest giver). And other players should be free to react in ways that may or may not be popular with other players. And yet other players should be free to counter react to that reaction in ways which may or may not be popular with even more other players. etc., etc.

Well, that is the core point of freedom of action in open world games. It's that drama that stirs from such actions that keep us here instead of pulling our hair out and quitting... though some may have done that that more than once already. I think this is the biggest reason I am against any kind of protections against actions in games. And it's the reason I'm here, and not in a bigger game that likes to enforce consequences.

[CaddoPuma]

In general, I agree with blinx and Embers: I try to preserve quest givers whenever possible. But I have to admit the difference between a runestone that asks or gently suggests to preserve it and one that adamantly commands, "Quest Giver! Do NOT Destroy!" is a huge difference and I have often been tempted to defy those commands just to spite those who presume to act like they have the authority to give such orders. I havent defied any of them in this world, but the temptation is STRONK!

But players should be free to make a decision that is unpopular with other players (like killing a quest giver). And other players should be free to react in ways that may or may not be popular with other players. And yet other players should be free to counter react to that reaction in ways which may or may not be popular with even more other players. etc., etc.!

In fact, the only difference is in your imagination.
Suppose you feel yourself a rebel, destroy the quest giver and amuse your ego. But other people will take your deed like this: "some idiot makes it difficult to play".
You are free in your decisions, but remember that everyone will perceive your action in different ways. And this perception is unlikely to coincide with your fantasies.

The Wolf And The Lamb
Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. ‘There’s my supper,’ thought he, ‘if only I can find some excuse to seize it.’ Then he called out to the Lamb, ‘How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?’
‘Nay, master, nay,’ said Lambikin; ‘if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me.’
‘Well, then,’ said the Wolf, ‘why did you call me bad names this time last year?’
‘That cannot be,’ said the Lamb; ‘I am only six months old.’
‘I don’t care,’ snarled the Wolf; ‘if it was not you it was your father;’ and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out .’Any excuse will serve a tyrant.’

The moral is that you want to perform an unseemly act, but not suave enough inscription - just an attempt to justify yourself.

I understand this perspective, and I am sure it is valid in many cases. However, I would use the fact that in over a year of game play, I have never killed a quest giver and have taken great pains to protect public access to at least 1 of them would serve as evidence that I am not looking for an excuse to slay quest givers but in fact get really angry at people who try to tell me what to do unless they actually have some legitimate authority to do so.

[saxx]

Should just make it a crime

[2d0x]

...but in fact get really angry at people who try to tell me what to do unless they actually have some legitimate authority to do so.

...and your imagination immediately helpfully draws the image of an arrogant person? But you know nothing about who wrote, as well as about the reason for such a message.
For example, I write for my friends and acquaintances: "Do not cut down a tree!" You come, read and think: "How dare they insult me with decrees!"
Just act according to your morality.