by FaithfulToadd » Mon Jan 26, 2026 8:07 am What are you proposing?
For inquiring minds, the suggestion for Lawspeaker's Grace began with this thread, in an attempt to address a perceived abuse of so-called 'public' Charterstones. I'll spare you the details; you can read them on your own. It should be noted that many of my replies to that topic were written in haste, as a reaction to some ugliness, and were influenced at least partially by a misplaced sense of moral outrage. Moreover, it must be acknowledged that the Visitor status is, in fact, a protection to claims only - not their visitors - and that this appears to be its intended function. Lastly, the game does not, at present, make a distinction between Charterstones advertised as a public destination, and Charterstones which are not: even though the practical difference is very real to the unsuspecting player reading ads on the forum or in realm chat. This lack of a mechanical distinction is (as far as this Topic is concerned) the most important point in the broader discussion about Charterstones.
The aim of Lawspeaker's Grace is to help make such a distinction, allowing villages advertising themselves as a public destination to explicitly grant safety to visitors within their borders. Further, travellers are to be warned in cases where travelling to a village by Charterstone does not grant Lawspeaker's Grace.
Why add safe zones?
We can argue all day whether safe zones should be added to the game. Indeed, for those unfamiliar, the discussion about making PvP more or less optional has gone on for over a decade, and longer. For her part, the author of this suggestion has no further interest in arguing whether this idea should be implemented. Rather, she is interested in whether it can be, by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. This is her attempt to reach a compromise that satisfies both long-term players, steeped in the (arguably toxic) culture of the game; and those whom certain long-term players insist, time and again, do not belong to the presumed 'core audience' of Haven (coarsely referred to as 'sprucecap retards'). It is the author's belief that the latter group suffers unduly under the status quo, whether by ignorance of the game's more unintuitive systems and quirks; their naïveté about what strangers on the internet are willing to do to them (or about what the game will allow); or some special blend of the two.
Only time will tell whether such a compromise was worth pursuing.
Is this a good idea?
I can't tell for certain, but it's not obvious to me that the answer is 'no'. I'm as skeptical as anyone about the validity of ideas floated from the 'remove PvP' crowd. I don't consider myself a member of that camp; for my part, I rather enjoy the wild and untamed nature of the game, in spite of its most heinous pitfalls. My suggestion is prompted less by a strong desire to see PvP 'removed' as such; rather, I am dissatisfied with the ideas put forth by others on the subject. They lack rigor.
Proponents of removing PvP often suggest the first thing that comes to mind, with no consideration for how such a system might be abused; specifically, they propose that players with devilish intent simply 'not be allowed' to Attack innocent and peaceful players, sometimes misconstruing the Crime system as a possible means of distinguishing between them. When they are told their suggestion is flawed - that the game cannot meaningfully distinguish between devils and angels, and that their idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny - they dismiss the opposition as nothing more than narrow-minded refusal, and go away sulking. These players might be better served if a more robust proposal were made on their behalf, since it seems they are not willing to do this for themselves. Frankly, I don't hold it against them for not wanting to debate with y'all. To put it mildly, the community on the forum is fairly rough around the edges.
Further, I find myself extremely dissatisfied with the assertion that there exists some law of physics - some mathematical principle - which states that all new ideas must, as a matter of course, fail. That is to say, all new ideas, as they pertain to PvP, categorically:
- • must be abusable by the PvP crowd / griefers;
• must lead to more harm than good, as a result;
• and must, inevitably, render the game unplayable, given time.
In spite of my own misgivings regarding the shoulds and woulds of 'safe zones', my integrity (and aforementioned dissatisfactions with the ongoing discussion elsewhere) compelled me to write this suggestion in earnest, and account for its flaws as best I could. So, on behalf of the 'remove PvP' crowd; my fellow LARPers; and every hermiting, sprucecap nub who has died to underhanded tricks from 2009 onward: allow me to present a weekend's worth of thought on the subject! I give you:
Lawspeaker's Grace: A Proposed Implementation of Player-Managed Safe Zones; Offered in Pursuit of a Safer and Mechanically Assured Shopping Experience, and Supposed to Lessen Illegitimate Instances of Player-Inflicted Ugliness
It bears repeating that the aim of Lawspeaker's Grace is, chiefly, to help make a distinction between 'Public' and 'Private' Charterstones, allowing villages advertising themselves as a public destination to explicitly grant safety to visitors within their borders. Further, travellers are to be warned in cases where travelling to a village by Charterstone does not grant Lawspeaker's Grace.
New Status Effect: Lawspeaker's Grace
-----------------------
- 0.1 Lawspeaker's Grace is conferred to visitors automatically on a per-village basis, at the option of its lawspeaker. Lawspeakers may, through the government menu, toggle whether their village will confer Lawspeaker's Grace to new visitors. Once toggled, it takes 30 seconds for the change to take effect.
0.2 Travellers visiting by Charterstone are conferred Lawspeaker's Grace for 30 minutes.
0.3 Travellers visiting by Visitor Gate are conferred Lawspeaker's Grace for 5 minutes.
0.4 A visitor may instantly abandon Lawspeaker's Grace at will, i.e. cause it to expire. Doing so plays a visible animation.
0.5 Lawspeaker's Grace cannot be conferred by villages where the main province's Thingpeace has been broken. The village's 'main province' is determined by the location of the Village Idol.
0.6 In the following situations, Lawspeaker's Grace cannot be conferred. Travellers arriving by Charterstone are warned accordingly before confirming the travel:
- • the village in question is not granting Lawspeaker's Grace to new visitors;
• the Charterstone belongs to a village in a conflicted province, i.e. a province with the Thingpeace broken (see item 0.5);
• the Charterstone is attempting to place the traveller in a conflicted province, i.e. a province with the Thingpeace broken;
• the traveller in question has a cooldown from a previous instance of Lawspeaker's Grace, including one granted by another village (see item 0.8);
• the traveller has been blacklisted (see the New Government Action: No Soliciting!);
• the traveller is a criminal, i.e. they currently have the Red Handed or Outlawed status effects;
• or the traveller is wearing a Bandit's Mask or similar item, concealing their identity.
0.8 Whenever Lawspeaker's Grace expires, a cooldown is applied. The base cooldown lasts double the time that Lawspeaker's Grace was conferred, up to 1 hour. For example, if Lawspeaker's Grace lasted you 3 minutes, you get a cooldown of 6 minutes.
0.9 Lawspeaker's Grace most notably prevents you from Attacking or Pushing others (including animals, but not including carts (see Caveats, bullet 4)), and prevents others from Attacking or Pushing you.
0.10 Lawspeaker's Grace also prevents several other actions and conditions, which are not pertinent to its intended function as a Public Market safety feature:
- • building into an existing build sign;
• creating a new build sign;
• placing a new stockpile, with or without a wheelbarrow;
• using Repair;
• using Destroy;
• picking up items dropped on the ground by someone else;
• picking up from a container or stockpile, or purchasing from a barter stand, those items which have Theft scents attached to them (see Caveats, bullet 1);
• using a cart, wagon, wheelbarrow etc., if that object contains any item which has a Theft scent attached to it (see Caveats, bullet 1);
• lifting an object (i.e. a container or rowboat), if that object contains any item which has a Theft scent attached to it (see Caveats, bullet 1);
• equipping a Bandit's Mask or other item used to obscure one's identity;
• moving within 1 tile of any other hearthling, unless that hearthling is already within 1 tile (see Caveats, bullet 3);
• pushing a wheelbarrow within 1 tile of any other hearthling, unless that hearthling is already within 1 tile (see Caveats, bullet 3);
• moving at Sprint speed, while mounted or otherwise;
• harvesting a World Resource;
• moving within 15 tiles of a World Resource;
• entering any type of boat, ship, coracle etc. (see item 3.5);
• traversing Deep Water tiles (even with Swim active (see item 3.5));
• crossing into a conflicted province, i.e. a province with the Thingpeace broken;
• or interacting with a siege engine (including wrecking balls) in any way.
0.12 Harvesting a World Resource adds 5 minutes to the cooldown of Lawspeaker's Grace, up to the maximum of 1 hour.
New Government Action for Lawspeakers: No Soliciting!
-----------------------
- 1.1 No Soliciting! immediately adds a target memorized by the caster to the village blacklist. If the target of No Soliciting! is not known to the caster, the caster automatically attempts to memorize them, if the target is onscreen.
1.2 When a hearthling under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace is blacklisted with this ability, they receive a warning, and their Lawspeaker's Grace effect is shortened to 1 minute. No Soliciting! does not extend the length of Lawspeaker's Grace under any circumstance.
1.3 Any hearthling on the No Soliciting! blacklist may be pardoned, i.e. removed therefrom, either by the lawspeaker, or a deputy who has been granted permission by the lawspeaker.
1.4 Blacklisted hearthlings may, of course, be pardoned in absentia. Blacklisted hearthlings do not need to be memorized to be pardoned - rather, they can be targeted directly from the blacklist menu.
1.5 Only the Lawspeaker and their deputies may cast No Soliciting!
1.6 The Lawspeaking skill is required to cast this ability.
1.7 There is no experience or authority cost associated with this ability.
1.8 Line of sight is not required to cast this ability, but a hearthling's description alone is not sufficient to blacklist them.
New Government Action: Deputize
-----------------------
- 2.1 A lawspeaker may Deputize another hearthling, such as a ranger, at the cost of some village authority. Deputies may cast No Soliciting! on behalf of the lawspeaker.
2.2 Becoming a deputy is voluntary. Hearthlings whom the lawspeaker would Deputize must accept an invitation in order to be Deputized.
2.3 A Deputized hearthling remains so until they, or the lawspeaker who Deputized them, revokes this. Revoking or abandoning the status of Deputy has no effect on village authority.
2.4 New deputies cannot pardon blacklisted hearthlings (see item 1.3) until explicitly granted permission by the lawspeaker.
2.5 Deputies do not need to be sworn members of the village in question.
2.6 A hearthling may not be a deputy of more than one village at a time.
New Hearth Magic / Criminal Act: Seize
-----------------------
- 3.1 Seize is the unlawful alternative to No Soliciting! It cannot be cast by a village lawspeaker or their deputies, if the target is standing in that village's territory.
3.2 Seize can only be cast on hearthlings under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace.
3.3 Attempting to Attack an otherwise valid target who is under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace will first begin casting Seize automatically, assuming the attacker is not a lawspeaker or deputy of the village in question.
3.4 When a hearthling is successfully Seized, they receive a warning, and their Lawspeaker's Grace effect is shortened to 1 minute. If Seize automatically began casting in an attempt to Attack the target, then a combat relation begins the instant the target's Lawspeaker's Grace expires, provided the caster is still in range, and their path unobstructed. Seize does not extend the length of Lawspeaker's Grace under any circumstance.
3.5 Unlike a visitor who has been blacklisted (see item 1.3), Seized hearthlings may not move. They may still travel to their hearthfire before the combat relation begins. Alternatively, they may abandon Lawspeaker's Grace in order to move again (see item 0.4).
3.6 Casting Seize requires all the same conditions that a successful Attack requires: Namely, the target must be in range, and the caster's path unobstructed.
3.7 Seize takes 1 second to cast, and the caster must stand still for this duration. If the target moves out of range, the caster's view becomes obstructed, or the caster moves, the spell is cancelled.
3.8 Seize is only available to hearthlings with the Rage skill learned.
3.9 Casting Seize is a Crime of Assault.
3.10 There is no experience cost associated with this ability.
Caveats
-----------------------
- • Marking stolen items as such is necessary for my proposed implementation of Lawspeaker's Grace. Consider item 0.10, bullets 7, 8, and 9. So far as this suggestion is concerned, it is not necessary to prevent the sale of stolen items via a barter stand - it is only necessary that players under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace cannot handle or purchase such items. Further, I do not suggest here that selling stolen items be made a crime.
• Carts must be less susceptible to being involuntarily dropped, i.e. 'The cart was blocked'.
• Bandying must become possible at a distance of >1 tile, so that two players under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace may still Bandy. Item 0.10, bullet 11 is necessary to prevent a player on the village outskirts being surrounded by alts, and forced to hearth home. Without adjusting Bandy's range to compensate, two hearthlings under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace could not bandy with each other.
• The Push action must work on carts dragged and wheelbarrows pushed by other hearthlings. Pushing the cart/wheelbarrow should not cause it to be dropped, nor should Push be considered a crime as it applies to vehicles. Item 0.10, bullet 12 is necessary to prevent a player on the village outskirts from being surrounded by alts operating carts or wheelbarrows, and forced to hearth home.
Parting words
Time to put my money where my mouth is. This idea isn't perfect, but as of January 2026 (the publish date for my original 'final draft' of this suggestion), I've satisfied all of my major objections to this idea, and daresay I wouldn't mind seeing this proposal implemented as-is for the next wipe. It is worth noting that there remains some weirdness with vehicles, e.g. carts and wagons, which I have not fully put to rest for myself. I don't think these issues will prove to be anything major in a practical scenario, but there are no doubt some other edge cases that I haven't examined. Please do point them out!
Thank you for considering my idea! I had a lot of fun writing it. More importantly, regardless of whether you are for or against Lawspeaker's Grace, I hope this post proves useful as a frame of reference for new players suggesting major changes to the game (as they pertain to PvP). If nothing else, it certainly goes to show the effort required to make a reasonable suggestion; I, for one, learned a lot.
Enjoy!
