I’m generally an advocate for broadening the definition of PvP for this reason. On the surface a lot of people will look at the scenario being described as MH being a meanie PvPer, and PP being a collaborative feelgood player. But actually, they are both engaging in PvP. PP is using social tools, MH physical ones.
I think that most of us will agree that it’s good manners for PvP aficionados to be selective about whom they engage in conflict and try not to bother people who don’t wanna be bothered. It’s obviously domineering arsehole behaviour of the geared up military man to challenge a low xp cafe worker to a duel at dawn. But subjecting the military guy just doing his job to moral shaming and social ostracisation after he shoved someone away from a security barrier is also PvP. And if he’s giving signals of, “I don’t really want to fight you, however I will have to per my role if you keep trying to sneak past the barrier” that is an attempt at conflict deescalation; ignoring it, and then socially persecuting him afterwards, is the same type of unsolicited ahole behaviour as trying to start a fight with a low xp cafe worker.
In text, hitting someone isn’t a worse offence than calling them names like it is in the real world. The latter is often a lot more effective at taking a character out of commission (by making them less fun to play).
So, PP is subjecting MH to unsolicited PvP, that’s just as bad as randomly attacking a character in any other way. A lot of bad feelings seem to arise anytime someone is attacked using something other than their weapon of choice, which they may innocuously pretend isn’t a weapon at all when it advantages them.
