Good Trib vs Wanted Good

[Mudder]

Not that I have played a good in a LONG time, but I was just thinking about this little RP conflict and even reading an older thread.

Remember back in the day when it was Good vs. Good that goods were not allowed to autoassist? Their mobs were allowed to attack only. That is why Trib mobs are always neutral, so goods can kill them.

I think it should also apply to Healers. Since well, Healers aren't allowed to PK any non-undead anyway.

This would almost entirely get rid of the Good vs Good RP problem and also get rid of people making Healers for Tribunal so they can use them for PK.

As it stands, a Good can essentially kill another good who breaks the law. However if a good even mercies another good in any other circumstance they are able to be outcasted because it weakens the good who could be killed by a passerby.

If a good even loots the corpse of another good they are likely to be subject to an Outcast. So why can Good Tribs full loot Outlaw Goods?

What does everyone think?

[Ali_gmud]

I think Kongol is hot, but I'll surely edit this post once I put more thought into a more productive, smarter reply.

[Grim_Reefer]

They don't kill them, they lock them up and the executioner kills them. If you are outlawed, then your items go back to the empire. Shouldn't be causing problems.

[Ali_gmud]

What about goodie outlaws, are they meant to avoid goodie tribunals in general because if they attack them, then it's against being good, or is it a game of cat and mouse that never ends?

[Guest emp_newb]

If you break the law, tribunal will be after you. It is not a goodie cabal. So it's rules are not bent around being good. If you are a goodie trib, be prepared for what you must do. If your a goodie outlaw, you should have thought of this before you did it.

[f0xx]

What I am more interested is how do you RP undeads and healers which are in the same cabal.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

As stated to me specifically from an Imm before outcasting me very recenly: "Align comes before cabal. Period."

Now I find it humerous that when it is in the context of Tribunal it's okay, or when in Savant it's okay for a Healer to aid an undead.

I don't understand it, so I will never play a goodie tribby nor a Savant healer.

The executioner is only able to kill them because of the actions the goodie made via attacking, chasing, and all but finishing them off. Therefore, whether directly or indirectly, the goodie tribbie caused the death.

[Ali_gmud]

so whats the story with Good warmasters fighting Good Savants? Alignment before cabal, do they still cap each others standards, but don't actually fight?

[J.Twendrist]

You get outcasted if you're a good and you stun another good? That sucks... I can think of plenty of scenarios where that would be perfecty acceptble rp...

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Yes, warmasters will be outcasted for striking goodie savants, I was when I played Rethanor fighting Valerion.

That goes even if they attack your cabal when you don't hold their standard. HOWEVER, there was a note from the imms stating that a goodie could only retrieve their standard if another goodie from the other cabal is on, not take a standard.

The only problem arises when a goodie AND an evil is on simply because you are unable to halt the advancement of armies in anyway from the other cabal which was a verry annoying problem with Knight vs Savant cuz there was nothing I could do.

Evil hides and simply leads armies and I can't even strike the altar to draw him/her anywhere remotely close to fighting due to the goodie being logged in.

Believe me, if you do not want to be found, you won't be. Aabahran is a huge place and if you move every once in awhile you can hide forever, which completely nullifies any cabal warfare between cabals which both allow goodies in.

[Pali]

The executioner is only able to kill them because of the actions the goodie made via attacking' date=' chasing, and all but finishing them off. Therefore, whether directly or indirectly, the goodie tribbie caused the death.[/quote']

It's just as direct as one good mercying another and some random guy comes along and kills them... except a little moreso, because the Trib knows the crime, knows the punishment, and knows full well that capturing this person will result in their death, whereas a guy who mercies another good at least doesn't know for sure that his actions will actually kill the person.

EDIT: This problem is one I've always hated, and I've always felt that what should be done is to simply give all goods the ability to mercy good Tribs who come after them (hell, just make it so it automatically happens rather than something you might accidentally leave off like the mercy ability now), and take away a couple pieces of eq. Basically the exact reverse of what would happen were they captured, only the Trib at least will still live through it unless someone else comes along for the kill. Yes, the outlawed good knew what he was getting into by breaking the law and has to accept the consequences... but if you ask me, the Trib good also knew exactly what he was getting into by joining Tribunal and going after outlaws and has to accept the risks that go with that too. The non-Trib good still has the scales tipped a bit against him in that if he wins, the Trib will still live (unless he wants revenge enough for the outcasting) whereas a loss would've killed him... but at least he can fight back and have it actually cost the Trib something if they lose.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Wow, Pali you just agreed with me and yet said you disagree with me in the same post. I'm confused as to where you stand with that...

Anyways, yes, I agree that a goodie mercying another is similar, but it is not a guarantee that the mercied foe will die whereas with a Tribbie vs an outlaw it is.

As it was stated to me directly in game by Zhokril was that align MUST come before cabal, therefore any goodie tribbie attacking any other goodie should be flagged as outcast just as any other goodie who attacks another goodie. This doesn't mean they get align change or skills stripped, but merely the outcast that they deserve for violating the RP they chose at life. Very similar to the Akomak thread.

This has been a loophole for goodies to pk other goodies with no repercussions whatsoever. I don't believe that there has ever been a grey area as it concerns goodie vs goodie pk. It's either you do and your outcast or you don't, according to divine mandate of course.

[Mudder]

That is why I proposed the simple fix of not allowing goods to attack other goods. They can, however, lead their Blood Guard to attack the wanted goodie.

I feel like that would be mostly fair and balanced, without any changes to the code. Maybe even disallow clerics/healers from healing their blood guard when they are fighting goodies... But maybe that is a little too much.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Or I thought of this:

/begin law

A Member of Tribunal, in the course of his/her duties is required to apprehend any and all criminals to protect the order within the cities.

However, due to the moral dilemma posed by a Good Tribunal apprehending a Good criminal, the Tribunal has decided to negate the penalty of death to any criminal who is good of heart whom is captured by a Tribunal who is also good of heart.

Criminals, however, must pay restitution for the disorderly conduct they have exhibited, and Good criminals are no exception, no matter whom captures them.

If the criminal apprehended is not an Outlaw, but would have been sentenced to death, their bail will be revoked and their confinement time doubled. Also, said criminal will lose 3(?) pieces of their equipment in penance for their criminal behavior along with any other punishments already declared in the Maxim and/or declared by the city.

If the criminal is an outlaw, their punishment will be the same as if they were not an outlaw, save for the fact that the criminal will be stripped of all posessions since they have received many previous chances to correct their criminal behavior and still choose to conduct themselves in such a manner.

By conducting themselves continuously in a criminal manner, these criminals have left the Tribunal no choice to institute such regulations. However, this legislation will help calm the moral dilemma faced when an execution would have been faced to another whom is also good of heart.

This law would only take effect if execution were the sentence. Any other sentence will be carried out as normal.

/end law

So, since there is no other way to actually replicate apprehending a criminal other than a pk battle, this would allow very similar punishments without actually causing the death of the criminal.

So, what do you think?

This should be a part of the Maxim if instituted since councilor laws run out after they leave office.

Edit: There would still need to be something to put in to protect the goodie criminal from killing the goodie Tribbie. That will come later with more deliberation.

[Reccum]

I don't think any universal rule or quick change can solve this. I say leave it be. Seems to me that if an Imm tells you alignment before cabal they mean it, but alignment probably also includes ethos right? So chaotic and lawful are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and can lead to conflict.

A chaotic good could see breaking the law as a necessity sometimes, where as a lawful good sort of see's the law and goodness intertwined. That means that if he sees another good break the law he has to try and stop him. Does one good want to see another good dead? No. Does the wanted good desire a fight to the death with the good tribunal? No. But sometimes conflict arises.

The cabals could be altered so that no good vs good ever arises but that would be unrealistic since ethos plays a major role. I think this is a function of the game that needs to be taken case by case, and not be avoided with some global set of rules.

[Mudder]

Well the only problem with a case by case basis is that the wanted good always loses.

If the wanted good (even accidentally) kills the Trib Good. Wanted good gets outcasted. If wanted good gets captured, he dies. If wanted good gets away, trib goodie hunts him down forever(sometimes even when wanted evils are around). If wanted good mercies tribunal good, tribunal good heals and comes after wanted good often interfering in combat with others.

In any other situation aside from Tribunal, goods are explicitly forbidden to ever engage in any form of combat aside from peaceful challenges. Why should Tribunals be any different?

[Raargant]

Life as a wanted good is supposed to be 'tougher'; Irumeru once described it as a form of 'dramatic tragedy', and I agree. Think Batman in the Dark Knight; good Tribunals/Justice can chase after him after he is 'proven' to commit crimes while still being considered good because it is their duty, but if Batman EVER kills a single good cop, he is can no longer be considered good.

It is meant to be a tough, tough life being a goodie who willingly breaks the laws of an organization that has good people within who are dedicated to protecting those laws. It is a martyr type of RP; in short, when you break the law while knowing that there are good Tribunals, what you are essentially doing is knowingly putting yourself in a position where good people are forced to come after you, and yet you cannot fight them and can only run, because to do anything else would be wrong.

I will write more on this sometime later if needed, but I have a very important assessment in three days that will literally determine my future.

[Telufial]

I agree. I have long long been against allowing healers to become tribunals for this very reason. It's an excuse for a healer to PK any criminal, and not just undeads. It's an excuse for them to aggressively pursue people, and it shouldn't even be a viable class/cabal combo. That point aside, good tribs vs wanted goods has always been a longstanding problem. And I am of the feeling that Good tribunals should ONLY be able to hunt wanted goods with their bloodguards (as the guard is neutral), as align dictates no good should ever be aggressively pursuing and attempting to kill another good. Sure, the bloodguard would do it, and the good tribbie would probably escort him to the criminal, but the goodie trib shouldn't ever be in combat with the wanted good. It has too much room for abuse, and would require constant monitoring of good tribbie RP/pk to ensure that it is handled with the appropriate amount of responsibility.

[Nekky]

I think that Tribunals are already restricted enough in who they can make (WANTED) and who they can use their cabal powers on, and any further restriction will only serve to gimp them to an undesirable degree.

As it stands right now, Tribunals can only use their cabal powers against criminals. Limiting your powers to only one class of person is already a restriction that is not present in any other cabal. Nexus, Knight, Syndicate, Watcher, Warmaster and Savant can use their powers against anyone (I know one or two Syndicate powers only work against bountied people, but most work against anyone).

So if you're a Tribunal, and some cabal enemy decides to attack you outside of town, you cannot use your Tribunal abilities against them, even though they're free to use their cabal's abilities against you. This enemy also has the added safety-net of being able to flee if they're losing the fight and sit in a lawful area, essentially making them immune to further assault from the Tribunal. And let's be honest, we've all done this once or twice in our lives. This doesn't only apply to cabal enemies, but ANYONE who decides they'd like to have a go at killing you. People know the law, and they're very good at getting their attacks on Tribunals without getting (WANTED).

The enemies of a Tribunal are also not restricted to whichever cabals they might happen to be at war with. The enemy of a Tribunal is anyone who is (WANTED), and this is in addition to any vendetta cabal members who may be around at any given time. This is another burden that is not shared by any other cabal. As a Knight, Nexus, Savant, Warmaster, Watcher or Syndicate you are only obliged to fight members of cabals you are at war with.

(I know Syndicates must also contend with people who carry bounties, and some Watchers must contend with undead/demons. But undead/demons are relatively rare, and Syndicates have more leeway with which bounty they collect than Tribunals do with which criminal they apprehend. Bounties can be bought out, and there is usually a choice of bounties on so particularly tough ones can be 'shelved' for later.)

Many of the posts here make it sound like it is the secret goal of many people to perpetrate good vs. good PK, and the Tribunal is a vehicle for them to do this.

If you want to make it so good-aligned Tribunals can't attack good-aligned criminals, why give them the power to even make them (WANTED)? It is argued by many here that capturing a good-aligned criminal is directly or indirectly causing their death. Could it not also be argued, then, that making them a criminal at all could directly or indirectly bring about their death? What if there's a powerhouse evil/neutral in Tribunal at the time? What if they're battling other people and succumb to city guards? Is that also the fault of the good-aligned Tribunal?

Mudder has asked the question earlier:

"In any other situation aside from Tribunal, goods are explicitly forbidden to ever engage in any form of combat aside from peaceful challenges. Why should Tribunals be any different?"

I believe the question is it's own answer. Goods already know that they are totally immune to attack from any other good-aligned character. Why should they also be able to break the law with impunity? What if the only active members of Tribunal are good-aligned? Does this mean that good-aligned characters can break the law at will and be immune, where any evil/neutral character who does the same will be hounded to the ends of the earth? And let's not pretend that a blood guard alone is any serious threat to a pinnacled character.

I agree with what Raargant has said above - being a wanted good is meant to be a tough life. You knew what you were doing when you became a criminal, and yet your principles won't allow you to kill the good-aligned Tribunals because you made the decision to become a criminal. Those are just the breaks.

I'm reminded of a great scene in the movie, "The Rock", where Ed Harris has reluctantly ordered his troops to fire on some U.S marines.

"You have made a terrible mistake, and more of our brothers have died in vain. Damn you for forcing me into this position."

Maybe that's how good-aligned Tribs feel when good-aligned characters break the law.

[Twinblades713]

That's pretty legit. I'm not summoning a bandwagon victory, but I'm totally game for ousting trib healers. That's kinda counterintuitive to what the class is/restrictions/etc.

[Pali]

Life as a wanted good is supposed to be 'tougher'; Irumeru once described it as a form of 'dramatic tragedy'' date=' and I agree. Think Batman in the Dark Knight; good Tribunals/Justice can chase after him after he is 'proven' to commit crimes while still being considered good because it is their duty, but if Batman EVER kills a single good cop, he is can no longer be considered good.[/quote']

The analogy supports my idea more, actually, as Batman is perfectly willing to beat up and leave a cop unconscious if he has to to avoid capture. He won't KILL them, but he will "mercy" them.

EDIT: I'm all in favor of life being tough - I just want it to be tough for the good Trib as well. By all means, let them fight it out... but let both sides actually fight, let both sides actually have something to lose.

Hell, I say this should extend to Warmaster/Savant as well... let them fight. Let good Warmasters and good Savants fight each other... just let it end at mercy with maybe a couple pieces of eq automatically changing hands so that the fight costs something. How many times in stories have we seen one good guy beat up another because he was forced into it, or to teach the other a lesson, or because of honest differences of opinion? Why not let that in FL? Think of the RP that could happen when two people who don't want to really harm the other are forced to by circumstance, or because one believes the other is about to commit an act that he sees as evil (i.e. a Knight sees a Trib locking up a good to be sentenced to death so he mercies the Trib to buy time to free the prisoner from the empire that has corrupted the mind of a good man).

EDIT 2: If nothing else, at least let a good who already can mercy people mercy good Tribs without being punished for it.

[Celerity]

I have a feeling that would deteroiate into goods getting wanted so they have a way to get rares from other goods....I think many people would stop taking the good criminal vs good tribunal in the 'intended' fashion and would just use it as a loophole to damage that other char...

let's face it...goods hate goods!

I think the two real options are this:

Remove goods from Tribunal. No government is actually good and certainly not an imperialistic medieval one...being a high ranking official in any government is ALWAYS dirty business

or

Let all goods fight goods...get rid of the align shield...if you really want an align shield, make it revolve around similar religions/cabals...this is where true loyalty lies anyways (I imagine both IC and OOC). Goods and evils are friendly if they are in the same cabal...not always...but they often are. Certainly more friendly than half of those sigil elf bmgs were to the GOOD justices

--

alternatively...you could always just mercy/force the tribunal into a situation where you indirectly kill him (seriously hurt him and let another 'evil' finish him)...you might actually get away with this for months before you are outcasted! :P

[mya]

Celerity has a point, the Line of thought that prevent a Good from stunning another good, is not enforced to Healers in Tribunal.

A good cannot stun/mercy another good and leave because some other person might come and kill him.

But a Healer can weaken another good and put him in prison, fully knowing that he will have no chance to defend himself, and that he will be killed by the executioner.

Non outcasted Healers in Tribunal goes against the Healers mandate's in my opinion.

Healers should not attack another person save for Saving their own life.

Healers aid other with Healing, not violence. Leading and assisting a Guard is a violent act.

A character that abides by violence would never had become a healer, he would have remained at Cleric of his god.

PS: Another thing for you batman quoter's.

Batman was a friend of the Police chief. The chief of the Police would call the batman when things where to dangerous or the police could not act (because of the Law).

If Batman was ever to be executed by law, the Chief of Police would prevent it from happening even that i mean his expulsion from the force and a "criminal" act.

Being good is no not doing evil. Is being considerate of other people "lives".

If you do not care about harm being done to others you would not be good but neutral.

Aligment > Ethos.

[Greyanhk]

I just want a small bit of clarification. A healer doe not have to be a tribunal to become a noble or royal?

I was under the assumption that to become a noble or royal, one had to be a tribunal council.

[Nightmare_from_hell]

Completely different topic.

No, Nobles are still nobles, see Dillory(sp?) for an example.

The royals in all instances were turned into Councilors of Tribunal.