Shattered Kingdoms

Where Roleplay and Tactics Collide
VOTE NOW!
It is currently Thu Dec 26, 2024 7:15 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Amnesty for Allies?
Poll ended at Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:41 am
Yes. 47%  47%  [ 21 ]
No, because.. 49%  49%  [ 22 ]
No opinion. 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 45
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:35 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 54
Bourgeoisique wrote:
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.


Auto immunity, and the above, would promote citizens taking the law into their own hands.

I personally voted no, because I feel the law should be enforced by the Tribunal and not by others. Out of the two options though, I like the above better.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:29 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 2:12 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Heorot
Most instances of banished people being killed with the consent of a tribunal is more a case of international war than domestic law, in which case political allies are more than welcome to intervene.

But that said, said concern is why I made the later emendation to add a separate flag to remove legal rights from people who are already banished. That way, people could choose how much they wanted people taking the law (or war) into their own hands. The salty, grizzled, scrupulous old Justicar could decide that the saltier, grizzlier Warlord of the North, who he had been at war with for 40 + years, can be killed on sight, while the patient, understanding, principled elven regeant could banish someone without wanting them to be killed.

As for the puerile argument that this would reduce incentive to join a tribunal:

Tribunals still get a plethora of buffs and very powerful NPCs to assist them. The law is supposed to work the way the tribunals want them to. If the scrupulous wants to remove legal rights, he can, while the principled and keep them applied. Everyone gets to do what they, by rights, should be able to do. Everyone is happy.

And I promise you, I will have no incentive to join a tribunal if the law system I supposedly represent is so deeply flawed that it prevents cabals who take oaths to protect my country from doing just that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:28 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 2323
SK Character: Airkli
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.


and allows Black Hand member such as yourself to PK in the Empire, in places like Tlaxcala, without penalty

It just doesnt make sense to me that NPCs will attack and assault PCs that are in alliance with the kingdom. Naturally the suggestion needs tweaking because of the potential for abuse.

but what I see now are Cabal members PKing in any city they want DESPITE the fact that they become criminals because the tribunal leader will instantly pardon them upon request anyway. It wouldnt make sense diplomatically to tell an ally that just defended your city "No.. no I really think you should serve your sentence for helping us out."

for the sake of your credibility, dont say [REDACTED] , it's inarticulate and childish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:35 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 11:54 pm
Posts: 2765
Location: Pyrgos, Greece
Auto alliance amnesty means there should be auto enemy banishment also?

I vote no. If you want phat skills and spells, join a cabal. If you want law immunity, go for a tribunal.

You can't have everything.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:10 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 2:12 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Heorot
D-A, this is not a balance issue, this is a code malfunction issue. If the legal system is not doing what its leaders want it to do and what their leader's npc leaders want it to do, then the legal system needs to be fixed. It's stunningly irrational to say that we should keep the game balance between cabal members and tribunal members by forcing cabal members, and even members of tribunals that don't have jurisdiction, to be attacked by the code that manages the legal system if they are the allies of the players and ideals that manage the legal system.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:23 am 
Offline
Immortal

Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 8:16 am
Posts: 4124
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
SK Character: Achernar
I vote no to immunity. I vote no to auto parole. No to all of these ideas. I suggest that we instead have tiered cabal membership which allows non-leaders to parole a non-enemy who has been jailed. This system addresses more than just this issue, but I don't like the idea of someone getting free immunity. I'd rather see dual membership or tiered leader commands, such as the 0-9 ranking system Jardek mentioned from another mud.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 2:55 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 315
Dark-Avenger wrote:
Auto alliance amnesty means there should be auto enemy banishment also?

I vote no. If you want phat skills and spells, join a cabal. If you want law immunity, go for a tribunal.

You can't have everything.


Unless you are Midnight :D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:25 am 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:48 pm
Posts: 1608
Location: My heart's in <strike>Iraq</strike> Texas with my newly re-enlisted 'som' 'soq' daughter
SK Character: Galida Apelila Shaloush Mayumi
evilpiggies666 wrote:
Dark-Avenger wrote:
Auto alliance amnesty means there should be auto enemy banishment also?

I vote no. If you want phat skills and spells, join a cabal. If you want law immunity, go for a tribunal.

You can't have everything.


Unless you are Midnight :D


Last I heard, MC was missing a skill/spell or two for the very reason they're THE cabunal. They still don't get it all. A Hammer-keeper would have more benefits than MC has currently.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:52 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:40 am
Posts: 246
Yeah, I voted "No" as well.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:13 pm 
Offline
Mortal

Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 8:29 pm
Posts: 616
Location: 25^N, 18^W
I vote the temporary amnesty. One ic day could be just fine. It makes sense. If the keepers (since this was the example) want to be the Hammer's bitches and let them do whatever they want in the kingdom they have to police, then let them be. What it doesn't make sense is being a tribunal leader and keeping the enter button down for "tribunal pardon XXX" when your own soldiers have already started to hit you in order to reach the outlaw ally who is behind you.

edit: If the battle is done the leader should be able to remove the privilege before the end of the day.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 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