| Shattered Kingdoms https://shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/ |
|
| Alliance Amnesty https://shatteredkingdoms.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17570 |
Page 1 of 6 |
| Author: | archaicsmurf [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alliance Amnesty |
Should factions that are allied with eachother have protection from the laws? Hammers could defend Exile in the absence of Peacekeepers without being reported from npcs. Fists could defend Nerina without becomming outlaws for their crimes. It appears to me that if an ally of a nation was putting their neck out to uphold the alliance, the law should be aware of this and not punish them for doing the city a service. Some might argue for RP.. simply ask for a pardon from the tribunal leader.. yet some tribunal leaders arent conveniently around. Then, in a circumstance where your HQ is in a nation that you're an outlaw in, bouny NPCs appear and then you'll be doing your ally a disservice. |
|
| Author: | Gilgon [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Give tribunal leaders the ability to mark players as immune to law in their territory. I can't even imagine it being that difficult to code, it makes an incredible amount of IC sense, and it wouldn't be overpowering in the least. I voted no - forcing players to be in factions to be law immune is stupid. |
|
| Author: | archaicsmurf [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
an immune command actually makes a lot more sense. |
|
| Author: | sleeper [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I vote no. sleeper |
|
| Author: | Gilgon [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
What good reason is there to not allow a 'legal immunity' command for tribunal leaders to assign given players? One answer we can rule out is 'overpowering'. Another we can rule out is 'doesn't make sense ICly' What remains? |
|
| Author: | Bourgeoisique [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
If there was raw immunity, it would *definitely* be abused. There would always be one rotten apple in an allied group that would just do something ridiculous and abusive, and it would get swept under the rug because of this. Giving auto parole, not as an automatic status but as a flag that a leader can place on certain people, would make a lot more sense, because it would allow the leader to hand-pick the people that he or she trusts with this privilege, and it would allow the leader to examine and, if so desired, prosecute any crimes committed by the people with this flag. What if there was one member in the Hammer that was out of line, and the Peacekeepers had to cancel an alliance with the entire Hammer to avoid this? That said, a much more conservative, but still tremendously helpful option is to simply make it so that banished criminals do not have legal rights. I find that at least 75% of the people I am reported for attacking for the best interests of and with the implicit consent of the local tribunal are already banished. This would again make sure that leaders hand-picked the people who would receive such a legal status, as well as tying it into the requisite of 10 crimes or 1 high murder, which would prevent leaders from abusing this ability in the way that deathmark was abused. Furthermore, not everyone who fights with the permission of the local tribunal is part of an allied cabal or tribunal, and so this would allow informal allies to still attack known and very wanted criminals. As far as I see it, option 1 is far, far too abusable and insufficient in defending all allies from legal repercussions, option 2 creates moderate perchance for abuse, though it may be worth the effort, and option 3 would cleanly quarter the occurance of legal malfunction while only prone to abuse in the event that a leader banishes someone who they do not want to be able to be killed on sight by anyone. While this is rare, certain more 'law and order' leaders may not desire this, and so it may be better to add a flag to remove someone's legal rights that can only be placed on someone that has already been banished or met the criteria for banishment. This would be inconvenient, but thoroughly leak-proof. |
|
| Author: | Lakir [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wouldn't be opposed to tribunal leaders being able to grant immunity to players with two conditions. The immunity is only temporary, the leader must re-issue it every so often, also it can be removed at any time. |
|
| Author: | Minette [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bourgeoisique wrote: a much more conservative, but still tremendously helpful option is to simply make it so that banished criminals do not have legal rights
This is a very interesting idea. Can we look into this one? |
|
| Author: | furyofthen00b [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, Just no. It gives Hammer the ability to PK anywhere they please without serving their time for killing people. Why bother joining a tribunal when you get a get out of jail free card, cabal skills and pets to give you buffs. |
|
| Author: | Lakir [ Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
furyofthen00b wrote: No, Just no. It gives Hammer the ability to PK anywhere they please without serving their time for killing people. Why bother joining a tribunal when you get a get out of jail free card, cabal skills and pets to give you buffs.
The Hammer would never abuse their power. 
|
|
| Page 1 of 6 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|