Shattered Kingdoms

We hear you Gilgon. We're just not sure why we would make it possible to banish someone off of the who list without any reason.

Cuz he liked the deathmark system. I remember when i had my first character who was an elf and i went into krychire and got attacked and i escaped so I complained it was unfair to the person who was rseponsible and i got deathmarked when he found out my name.

fun times.

Deathmark I would be fine with. On top of the current banish system. Changing banish to be what deathmark was isn't really even on the table. That's just too abuseable.

I do wish that NPCs led into a kingdom that is at war should be attacked on sight by law NPCs of the kingdom they are attacking. I would also like to see those grouped with tribunal NPCs and attacking cities unable to remember crimes and report allies of the tribunal. Maybe all members of opposing factions should be able to be attacked in a warring country without creating a criminal record. Going into a city and reporting crimes to a judge who you've declared war on makes no sense. It might be seen as a way to discover who is in what faction. True enough. However, if you're in a political faction, war is part of the deal. Countries that you are at war with should not recognize you for reporting crimes against yourself. This would make it more challenging to get around in kingdoms you are at war with, but it would remove the need for a targetted deathmark or banish.

Then make it illegal to banish someone off of the who list without any reason, just like it's illegal to summon kill someone off the who list without any reason. I still don't understand why this suddenly equals BANISH IS UNFAIR.

All that needs to change is for players to be able to banish/deathmark enemies who have committed no "crimes" in their nation. If you think this is too easily abused, then let leaders of tribunals submit to immortals their reasons for banishing a player ICly.

Of course, you have already heard all of these arguments. I sent a lengthy email to Dulrik in regards to this and I was ignored, I wrote a post in the leader forums about this and I was told no change would be made. Fine.

I guess I will just have to continue my legacy of cabal relic grabbing and playing CRS the way it was intended to infuriate the playerbase in the meantime .

Banishment without any requirements isn't really comparable to summon, it is much, much easier for one. Secondly, some people might not want to kill someone, just keep them out of their lands - which is a greater annoyance for the target, frankly.

Many things are defendable "ICly" which would just cause too much OOC grievance and be border-line lame. For example, the NW could realistically banish everyone not from their own country to support the shut-in mentality. Horribly lame, but doable.

I imagine too many would be too light on the trigger regarding no-limit banishments. Less crimes to be eligible for banishment would be fine by me.

ADDENDUM: I'd rather see more PK than less, no matter whether it makes sense. If bounty NPCs were removed, I'd have no problem with a more strict law system. But as it is, banishment is a huge hindrance and it should only be for some cases, not the norm.

The main comparison he's trying to make is that this is a power that stands within logical reason of the game. However like any power, such as summon, or typing in "kill ___", there is an appropriate and an inappropriate way to use it. It doesn't matter how "hard" it was to do if you kill somebody for completely insufficient IC/RP reasons. You get cursed. And in the same way, people should be cursed for abusing stuff like deathmark. What he's saying is that removing something as fundamental as this is similarly absurd as removing something like summon (or even "kill"), which is of course also absurd if you use it wrongly. But no reason to remove it/change it.

This is the game where you aren't told, "You can't do that!! Except when it deals with one of the most important aspect of playerkilling.

Change the motto?

You will never regain the option to deathmark or banish someone for no reason. It's been tried. It was abused. Repeatedly. Even after many people were warned and then punished.

Having the option to banish or deathmark without law violations doesn't make sense. Tribunal members are law enforcement for their kingdom. The tribunal leaders have a bit of judiciary power. They are not the rulers of their kingdom, nor do they make the laws. People seem to always forget these simple facts. Please try to remember them.

If I ignored email on this subject, it was because it's been discussed many times already on this forum and I have made my opinion clear each time.

When a player has repeatedly violated the law for decades and still remains unbanished because they cleverly evade the legal system it isn't IC to banish them? Ohhhkay, Dulzie.

I challenge you to find that quote somewhere (so I can fix it). There hasn't been any such quote in a LONG time - specifically because it was always taken out of context the way you are doing so now.