Shattered Kingdoms

How can law immunity that can be removed at any time from a player be abused? It makes sense ICly, it is the exact same thing as pardon?

Newbie.

Why would a peacekeeper remove the law immunity of a hammerite? They would just say it was an accident, and move on, uncaring.

It's called ROLEPLAY. We already have Navelic pardoning every hammer member or Fist as soon as they log on, we already have Bain pardoning you whenever you commit crimes in the Empire.

What was proposed and added onto by Ezeant was simple:

Tribunal leaders have a new ability called 'Deputize' that allows someone to be immune to law in their land. This can be removed or added at any time.

Any crimes committed by a deputy are not automatically added to the outlaw list, and are instead compiled in a separate location for the tribunal leader to decide if they should apply or not. This way, your newbie cheating tactics of outlawing Fist members while they are alongside Peacekeepers pking you wouldn't work anymore.

I know, sucked to approve of things that wimp your own character, but maybe...just maybe, you might want to think before you speak.

I'd go for it, if after the dupitized char lost the flag when they logged off.

Yeah, I suppose that's fine, but I still don't see why that's a necessary addition assuming all of the deputized characters' crime's are listed someplace for the tribunal leader upon login.

Deputize as posted above by Gilgon is a good idea. Alliance law immunity is not.

In general, I like the deputize option as shown here and as has been suggested on numerous occasions. I would withhold complete approval until I saw the entire structure and limitations of such a command. But in general, I am in support of it.

All this temporary [REDACTED] makes absolutely no sense. The whole reason for a change like this is to make it so the game stays in character. Having temporary [REDACTED] simply doesn't address the problem, that being that when tribunal leaders are offline you can't get pardons.


DOES ANYONE HERE DISAGREE with the fact that having a person like Aiden getting attacked by templar is a complete joke and should never happen icly?

With that in mind does anyone actually think that the potential for abuse doesn't come close to outweighing the massive benefits? I personally think that outlawing someone in a kingdom they were defending is a MASSIVE ABUSE of the system, far greater than abuses having a system like this would bring about. I mean there are literally hundreds of ways to abuse sk at some point you just need to have faith in the people on the other side of the screen.

You only say this because of your current char is in the Hand and it would make it harder for the hand to walk about Exile doing as they please.

It's a question of balance. Fury's quite right--why the hell would I want to be a peacekeeper when I can have hammer skills AND law immunity?