Raargant Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 The analogy supports my idea more' date=' 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.[/quote'] If he 'has to'. Batman can mercy most cops in a few blows. Chasing them around and spamming bashes or charges when they are trying to run away is not quite the same, and invariably, that is what happens in good vs good PK. No one said you can't fight back. Fighting back to WIN is totally different. 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. It is the wanted good who deliberately and knowingly puts himself in a position which he knows that will force other good people to come after him. Therefore, the onus is on him, as is the tough life. 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 There are many ways to RP a good person in government, with King Arthur being the most prominent example. History is filled with legendary 'good and noble kings'. Alternately, for a more modern perspective, there is always the 'good cop who tries to work within a corrupt system to reform it', as well as many other plausible possibilities. Let all goods fight goods...get rid of the align shield... Will never happen. There are solid mechanics based reasons for the align shield; for one, goods are still a good choice for newbies, and it is an important part of the game structure that goods have an understanding that they they are immune from attacks from other goods. For another, if goods are allowed to attack other goods, the definition of good becomes arbitrary and totally up to the definition of each individual player, which in turn makes the definition meaningless from a wide-scale, gameplay perspective. In conclusion, if you are playing a good who willingly breaks the law, despite knowing that good people will be forced to come after him, then be prepared for a 'martyr' RP and to do lots of running and be prepared for a martyr RP. You can defend yourself to make the other person run away, but if you ever chase them down when they are trying to run away or try to 'win', then you are no longer acting in self-defense and you will definitely have some heavenly frowning upon you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 If he 'has to'. Batman can mercy most cops in a few blows. Chasing them around and spamming bashes or charges when they are trying to run away is not quite the same, and invariably, that is what happens in good vs good PK. No one said you can't fight back. Fighting back to WIN is totally different. How about we implement the Healer vs living people who attack them rule here? Can chase them within the same area, no punishment for mercying (I still say the Trib should be at risk of losing a couple pieces of EQ to make it actually mean something to the players), but chasing over extended distances isn't considered to be part of the "necessary to evade capture and therefore justified force" exception. It is the wanted good who deliberately and knowingly puts himself in a position which he knows that will force other good people to come after him. Therefore, the onus is on him, as is the tough life. And it is the good who joins Tribunal who deliberately and knowingly puts himself in a position where he must hunt down criminals in a world where not all criminals are bad guys, where good people break the law with regularity in pursuit of higher causes. It is the good Tribunal who deliberately and knowingly places his duty to his cabal above his alignment. To extend the Batman analogy: Jim Gordon doesn't chase Batman because he knows Batman's a good guy... he places his duty to furthering good in Gotham over his lawful duty to capture a vigilante. This is a conscious choice. Every Trib who chases a criminal is making a conscious choice to hunt them down - joining Trib does not make someone into an automaton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 And it is the good who joins Tribunal who deliberately and knowingly puts himself in a position where he must hunt down criminals in a world where not all criminals are bad guys' date=' where good people break the law with regularity in pursuit of higher causes. It is the good Tribunal who deliberately and knowingly places his duty to his cabal above his alignment. To extend the Batman analogy: Jim Gordon doesn't chase Batman because he knows Batman's a good guy... he places his duty to furthering good in Gotham over his lawful duty to capture a vigilante. This is a conscious choice. Every Trib who chases a criminal is making a conscious choice to hunt them down - joining Trib does not make someone into an automaton.[/quote'] The difference being, the good joining Tribunal does not cause the wanted good to commit crimes, whereas the wanted good, by his actions, causes the Tribunals to hunt him down. Causation is the primary key. Again, the onus is on the criminal. There are several dozen areas in the game. If your character makes an active, conscious choice to refuse to avoid battle in 3 of them while witnesses are around, even if only for the sake of avoiding conflict with the 'good cops', then your life will be more difficult than it otherwise might have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigPapa Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Healers normally go one way in Trib, same thing with Knight. You can read about Healers and Cabal warfare in the divine mandates, what they can, cant do. Meh, I think what Raar said is true, Most newbies end up being goods, and specifically Healers, give them a chance to at least survive this world, and start to understand a bit about the items and places. **You pull Healers out of Trib, again, less folks for the Outlaws, Watchers etc... to play with.** This cycle plays out with, do I want to roll an EVIL SOB, no because they arent enough Tribunals to play with... continuing the cycle of declining playerbase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 The difference being' date=' the good joining Tribunal does not [u']cause the wanted good to commit crimes, whereas the wanted good, by his actions, causes the Tribunals to hunt him down. Causation is the primary key. Again, the onus is on the criminal. There are several dozen areas in the game. If your character makes an active, conscious choice to refuse to avoid battle in 3 of them while witnesses are around, even if only for the sake of avoiding conflict with the 'good cops', then your life will be more difficult than it otherwise might have been. A fair distinction... I'll concede this point. I'm still in favor of my idea of using the basic healer rule here though... so long as they don't chase out of an area, a good should be able to mercy a Trib chasing him without punishment (if this is already the case, then I've got no dispute). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 A fair distinction... I'll concede this point. I'm still in favor of my idea of using the basic healer rule here though... so long as they don't chase out of an area, a good should be able to mercy a Trib chasing him without punishment (if this is already the case, then I've got no dispute). I think there's some room for leeway here w/regards to using the healer rule. Again, I'm a bit busy these few days...bump it on Sunday and I think maybe we can hash something out (Saturday, I'll be heavily drinking, either out of joy or sorrow). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I think there's some room for leeway here w/regards to using the healer rule. Again' date=' I'm a bit busy these few days...bump it on Sunday and I think maybe we can hash something out (Saturday, I'll be heavily drinking, either out of joy or sorrow).[/quote'] Will try, though it may not be the easiest as I work Sundays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 I was watching when Pamiyn got avatar. He was fighting 2 or 3 tribs at the time, at I am positive he mercied them all (one of them was a goodie) and he would toss rp out, then run off. I had thought that mercying a goodie was acceptable if it was not an aggressive action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 It was to the players, until the last Goods in Tribunal thread (i think, that was the thread, or was it the one about people not RP out of their outcasts ?). Anume (i think) said it was an Outcast reason to fight and Mercy another good. The players argued, but her vision prevailed. Since then it's been "Set in Stone". Remember Outcast is not always "Aligment Outcast", just the flag that is used in RP. This Justice/Tribunal problem is probably older than FL.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 You will not get outcasted as a good for killing neutral mobs. (<-This was not why Aithon was outcasted.) You will not get outcasted for having character flaws as a good. (I want to see a drunkard goody ). You will get outcasted for attacking (not emote slab but really attacking, even if you do not mean to kill) other goods (exception: challenge). RP reason: Goods should not attack other goods to "teach them a lesson" or similar as that weakens the other good, now imagine an evil comes allong and kills the stunned / weakened good. The other goods fault entirely. You will get outcasted for killing other goods, even if it is an accident. (You can rp out of that pretty easily, but recently no such outcast ever bothered.) http://forum.theforsakenlands.org/showthread.php?p=138688#post138688 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I agree with Eshaine and I think it perfectly reinforces my point of why Goods vs Wanted Goods should be looked at and reformed. It's currently not working well. EDIT: More later, i'm in NZ and don't want to waste time at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 You know...when you resurrect old, tired arguments like this one, bad things seem to come with it. Boo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 hoody hooooooo! Here is an idea. Lets make trib a neutral only cabal. It has fitting RP basis, as well as eliminating the Goodies killing goodies part. As well as the recent problems brought up in Akomak's deletion thread. RP reason: Neutrality is the only alignment with a view balanced enough to see that the law has no affiliation with good nor evil. It is it's own seperate entity. While it may be in place for the good of the people, there are many acts that some would view as evil that go with the law. Also the fact that most perm vendetta cabals are opposite: Warmaster Savant, Nexus Knight, Herald and Virigoth (Heralds hate those that can't spell) Watcher is neut only, because they see the Woods as their path, why wouldn't tribs see the law as theirs? Uninfluenced by the Loving nature of good, and the self servitude of evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reccum Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 I'd rather see watcher open it's doors to certain good and evil classes before seeing Tribunal go neut only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English lad Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 You know...when you resurrect old, tired arguments like this one, bad things seem to come with it. Boo. Holy...its alive... (or is it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Whoa, Chayesh... Where the heck did you disappear off to!? EDIT: And you STILL have double my posts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Whoa, Chayesh... Where the heck did you disappear off to!? EDIT: And you STILL have double my posts! Keeping ahead of you was easy. I was posting telepathically with my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Keeping ahead of you was easy. I was posting telepathically with my mind. Damn! I can't beat that! ...Stop derailing my threads! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 I think there's some room for leeway here w/regards to using the healer rule. Again' date=' I'm a bit busy these few days...bump it on Sunday and I think maybe we can hash something out (Saturday, I'll be heavily drinking, either out of joy or sorrow).[/quote'] *poke* It's Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 The famous Pali poke and no response? ...Blasphemy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim_Reefer Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Mudder, I personally can't stand you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Jealousy? Envy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted March 11, 2009 Report Share Posted March 11, 2009 Disgust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted March 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 Probably a combination of all 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted March 12, 2009 Report Share Posted March 12, 2009 I apologize, I've been caught up dealing with the security clearance process as well as the medical clearances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.