Shattered Kingdoms

Where Roleplay and Tactics Collide
VOTE NOW!
It is currently Wed Jul 02, 2025 3:28 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:18 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:50 pm
Posts: 3502
Location: Canada
SK Character: Karsh
Dulrik wrote:
People continuously bring up the problem that a tribunal member will attack an opponent with the intent of getting them outlawed. If this is really so abused, I can make it so that attacking a tribunal member will no longer be against the law. Given that they are immune to breaking the laws themself, it would seem to be fair. Opinions?


I like it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:29 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 6:56 am
Posts: 1858
That's a [REDACTED] idea.

If the law enforcement of a country doesn't want you in the country, they don't want you there.

About 100% of those people that get attacked and banished are people that kill/maim/murder in such a way that they never get a *hard coded* crime reported against them. When the law finally catches up to them, they're forced to attack them and collect a crime that way so that they can kick them out of the country. Then the criminal's player comes here and cries buckets because they can no longer get away with [REDACTED] in a particular country.

If you were banished, it's because the tribunal leaders wanted you to be banished in the first place, and you would have got banished off of a simple misdemeanor if they caught it.

This change will give more power to the criminal underground and criminal activities then it will to fix any bugs (because there is no bug in the tribunal leaders wanting you to be banished).

The simplest solution to avoiding this is to not do [REDACTED] that obviously upsets a particular tribunal and forces them to come after you. The fact that they are attacking you and banishing you simply means that they are DOING THEIR JOB.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:48 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:36 pm
Posts: 521
Dulrik wrote:
People continuously bring up the problem that a tribunal member will attack an opponent with the intent of getting them outlawed. If this is really so abused, I can make it so that attacking a tribunal member will no longer be against the law. Given that they are immune to breaking the laws themself, it would seem to be fair. Opinions?


I wouldn't shoot a police officer in the hopes of not getting arrested.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:50 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 2637
Location: Floating in Previous Player Ether
it makes ooc sense, but not IC sense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:53 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:50 pm
Posts: 3502
Location: Canada
SK Character: Karsh
Goldlantern wrote:
it makes ooc sense, but not IC sense.


Just like it makes OOC sense to attack someone you want to outlaw and then have the law in the area treat it as though the attacked person was the criminal, but not IC sense since if a cop attacks someone they're actually the ones acting the criminal.

It's not like any cop can just walk up to someone on the street and start beating the hell out of them and arrest them for assault. They have to lie to do that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:57 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 4:00 pm
Posts: 2637
Location: Floating in Previous Player Ether
Or have the person being beaten be black. Guarantee you they'll get away with it then -- but that's neither here, nor there.

oocly, this would be great - because I've already seen lighties unjustly pardon each other, and then land a banishment the first time a darkie does anything whatsoever.

Icly, I just don't think it fits.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:11 am 
Since many of you are so enraptured in your little microcosms and can't possibly fathom ooc game balance, let me explain:

Characters here can live for 2 years, in the real world. If they are banished, they are banished FOR LIFE. The opposing tribunal does not want to ever issue a pardon because that means they are vulnerable, if the person serves their time still they are banished.

They can break NO law, and be attacked by a tribunal person at any time and get outlawed.

Banishment needs to be removed. Or it needs to have a fixed number of years. City raiding and such needs to be more accessible, or you may as well disband tribunals, because they have no purpose. They need to be actively defending their lands and the advent of bounty hunter NPCs and banishment makes all that they do is sit around on their thumbs.

While it might not make 'sense' ICly, a lot doesn't for game balance sake.

Make it so that a banishment only holds for 1 ic year if someone surrenders for all their crimes and serves their sentence, renewed should they cause any crimes in that year where they hold none.

Either that, or please remove banishment and instate the deathmark again.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:18 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:48 am
Posts: 1306
Dulrik wrote:
People continuously bring up the problem that a tribunal member will attack an opponent with the intent of getting them outlawed. If this is really so abused, I can make it so that attacking a tribunal member will no longer be against the law. Given that they are immune to breaking the laws themself, it would seem to be fair. Opinions?

I respect the viewpoint that trib members shouldn't be able to force crimes, even if I don't support it. The proposed solution I disagree with entirely; it means that killing a tribunal member would not be a crime (!).

How about making banishments require murder/attempted murder? Then mode stun would circumvent this tactic while allowing self defense.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:23 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:36 pm
Posts: 521
Grakus wrote:
Since many of you are so enraptured in your little microcosms and can't possibly fathom ooc game balance, let me explain:

Characters here can live for 2 years, in the real world. If they are banished, they are banished FOR LIFE. The opposing tribunal does not want to ever issue a pardon because that means they are vulnerable, if the person serves their time still they are banished.

They can break NO law, and be attacked by a tribunal person at any time and get outlawed.

Banishment needs to be removed. Or it needs to have a fixed number of years. City raiding and such needs to be more accessible, or you may as well disband tribunals, because they have no purpose. They need to be actively defending their lands and the advent of bounty hunter NPCs and banishment makes all that they do is sit around on their thumbs.

While it might not make 'sense' ICly, a lot doesn't for game balance sake.

Make it so that a banishment only holds for 1 ic year if someone surrenders for all their crimes and serves their sentence, renewed should they cause any crimes in that year where they hold none.

Either that, or please remove banishment and instate the deathmark again.


Banishment is fine. The rest of that is what RP is for. If a tribunal refuses to RP with you, that is an issue. If their RP enforces the idea that, hey, they DON'T want you in their city, then guess what?

That's RP. Good RP. People get exiled from kingdoms, especially for serial murders and plotting the end of the world. Don't like it? Don't do it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:26 am 
Offline
Mortal Philanthropist

Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:58 pm
Posts: 3632
Location: Spokane, WA
I agree with Benzo. Banishment should require a crime higher then mugging or theft. And I agree that if a person is attacked by a trib member, that they cannot be arrested for defending themselves! This tactic is used all of the fricken time by certain people which I won't name.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group