So basically what you're telling me is that if a good kills another good directly he gets damnation but if a good kills another good indirectly (justice situation) he doesn't get a damnation as long as they don't follow the same purity/compassion/tranquility religion. Therefore, the only exception for a good to kill a good is in the case of tribunals...am I mistaken in this regard?
cabals and goods
Not to be a dick Chayesh, but you're supporting your point by the past actions of others. "Virigoth said this, so it must be like this, and it has to be done." That's not a very good support...something very concrete, to the point, rational, and logical will probably shut most people up.
I wouldn't want you on my debate team
Oh please...I posted logical explanations at least 3 times of why this RP is completely viable and everyone muddled on without even a comment. I'd probably would have had more success with "Shut the hell up."
And the fact that Viri made it this way is excellent support. In fact, the playerbase often loves to quote, or misquote, Viri when telling the IMM staff how we aren't doing things correctly. Good for the goose, good for the gander. My point, however, was how futile it seemed all the debate was after Behrens stated things were as he wanted them. But hey, continue to debate a moot topic...knock yourselves out. But I'm reminded of Shakespeare: "...Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I'm confused, there are people who play goods other than healers around here? :confused: Where? 
Oh I didn't read that explanation.
And people quoting or misquoting Virigoth is also not really a substantial proof. I have as much respect for Virigoth as anyone and I think he did an ASTOUNDING job with the mud. However, there is a new management, and one of their responsibilities is to discuss gameplay with the players (that's why there is a forum). Saying Virigoth said this or that doesn't really explain anything.
And shame for all you non imms who bring up what Virigoth would do or said.
Finally, there would be less argument and discussion about this particular topic if a deep, concise explanation that tries to touch all point was written by one of the imms to shut people up. I'm trying to find what the intention of the imms were by leaving this alone (I'm ruling out laziness because you guys are all busy, but I'm not ruling out that you have better things to do then change something in the code that doesn't affect alot of people). If such explanation was already provided, than I'll apologize for taking up your time. I'll go search for it right now.
And moot point? You're speaking as if what we're discussing won't ever be considered. If that's so, state it outright, and people will shut up. In any event, I'll shut up about this topic now. If your mind is made up, it's made up. I have better things to do.
I dont think the Imms werent willing to listen or these multiple threads would have all been locked up tight by now, but it is getting very repetitive. And it doesnt seem to me that they are wrong, seems only a handful of you still dont get what they are saying. And i believe it was said somewhere, recently, that this topic had exhausted itself and that they were not going to allow goods to kill goods with no repercussions, pointe finale.
"The second statement is a presumption. It's hard to tell that if there's an alterior motive for the good to kill the other justice. For instance' date=' what if the good justice is protecting the ultimate evil creature?"[/i']
This would only make sense under the condition that 1) Killing the good Justice is necessary in order to kill that ultimate evil creature (highly unlikely, as you can always wait for the creature to come out of town/kill him when the good Justice isn't around), or 2) That there IS an ultimate evil creature that would destroy the world if you didn't. Random DK's, demons, undead, whatever, don't count. If you want to go destroying undead/demons, there's lots more around, including serious baddies like Lord Talex, who's building an army and biding his time to invade, vampire mobs like Vladimere, and more.*
If Malchaeius was going to destroy the world, but was doing it in town, and a goodie had to get through the good Justice in order to stop Malchaeius, I don't think he'd be outcasted.*
Neither scenario, as I see it, is very likely at all, and I'm highly dubious that they occur in any of the very, very few good vs good PK scenarios. There are very, very few scenarios I can think of that would DEMAND that the good criminal kill the good Justice.*
*"In any case, I'm still wondering why the supreme god of good would allow one of his followers to kill another follower without repercussions. If there was another god of good and the intentions of both gods conflicted, I'd buy it. At the current state...that, I believe, is one of the primary reason behind this conflict (rp wise anyways)."
Simply, because Iru is only the God of Purity. He's not the God of 'every good' (think about the One God for crusaders, for example, or the host of elven Gods such as Yaegar, etc.), he's just the only one that is 'visible', so to speak, and perhaps/probably the most powerful.
Good, isn't under Irumeru's 'direction', and isn't monolithic. There are many different forms of good philosophy, some of them clashing, yes. There may be situations where, for the greater good (back to this idea again), it's necessary for a Justice good to apprehend a wanted good. There are almost never any situations where it is for the 'greater good', for a wanted good to murder the Justice good, instead of just running.
So, to summarize:
Good Justice RP: I must apprehend the good criminal, for the greater good.
Good Knight/Avatar RP: I must break the laws to kill evils, for the greater good.
No situation: I must kill the good Justice instead of fleeing from him, for the greater good.
Of course, by 'no' I mean 'very, very few/rare'. But the point stands, IMHO.
You know, when you explain it that way, it makes damned good sense. Maybe it's the lack of sobriety that's helping. I'm officially switching to your side with the idea of refining the system by allowing a wanted to at least put a Trib out of business for a few minutes and get a breather, like that cripple idea in the other thread. Some of those Trib skills make them very hard to stay away from.
Is Iru only the god of purity? I was under the impression he was the deity of compassion and Tranquility as well.
What about a good trib assaulting a good wanted over and over while he is getting his *** handed to him because he knows he can't kill him? Is that a violation of valuing one's own life, or an abuse of the system? Or when tribunal sends a lightwalker to find another lightwalker because they KNOW they can't do anything?
And I have, from very early in the argument(not since the beginning, but the beginning of THIS thread) been in support of a way that chaotics can put lawfuls at bay without killing them, which is why I suggested the idea of mercy crippling opponents for a time.
As long as imms are willing to listen in the very, very rare times when chaotic goods end up killing a lawful good...there won't be a problem. But, like...on my faerie invoker(long *** time ago) I killed a goodie Justice...but there was nothing I could do. I hellsteamed him to get him to run...got him to awful...he kept coming, I fled, threw up firestorm...he didn't back away, walked in...died...then starts yelling at me because I was so terrible for killing him, while he was assaulting me and leaving me with no other option...I wasn't going to let him catch me and be executed...I didn't have mercy...it was just like...I guess I could deal with being outcast...but I don't see why the invoker guild would give a **** if I killed some Lawful when drow members of the same guild did so everyday. It was mentioned somewhere in this quagmire that outcast was a guild punishment, but its so not...I mean...why would the invoker, warrior, zerk or like ranger guild outcast someone for killing a good who was attacking them when they accept evils into the guild?
If you give chaotic goods a way to at least keep the good tribs at bay for longer than the two or three ticks they can now, if they choose to spend their perk that way, it would really really make life less of a pain in the *** for them.
I go back to my suggestion of making mercy harm/cripple your opponent, maybe even make the affects stack if you mercy them more than once. And maybe there is a timer...and if they are mercy'd...then attack that same good BEFORE say 10 ticks, they are being reckless about their own life to abuse the system...and should be allowed to die.
Warpnow kinda touches on a good point in what happened to him. Good trib/justice should not expect immunity from the goods they persue. They should go in knowing that it is possible that the goods will kill them to protect themselves. If the good trib/just feels that the law is more important than the life of a good man or possibly thier life, then so be it. Depending on thier deity and rp they should risk outcast as well. Each side takes a risk, which is as it should be. CG's should avoid being wanted if possible, but will break the law if neccesary. LG's should avoid hunting CG's if possibe, but if no one else is around then they should go into it knowing that one or both of them could wind up dead/outcasted.
Affect; Brush With Death -
A tribunal who, failing to apprehend a criminal in two consequtive attempts (perhaps within one in game) is so overcome with fear from their near fatal encounters that their shaking nerves make it impossible to initiate combat with that individual. Duration - 24 hours.
Another thing that could help is to not pursue outlaws who are not wanted. Many of the Knights in 1.0 (including Tyroa, IIRC) ended up outlawed, but Justice left them alone so long as they weren't wanted. I could see it being a real barrier to playability if outlaws can be expected to be pursued by good Tribunals every time they log on.
In terms of a long, logical explanation to everything, what we need is not Virigoth, but Sirant. You know, one of those posts where you don't agree with anything he says but by the end of it you can't think of any other arguments to make.
It just seems to me that law implies equality before the law, so it shouldn't matter if you're of good or evil align in terms of whether you're apprehended and what your punishment is. It should be based on your crimes only. If the game is to have lawful cities--which again I would say is a postulate that isn't really subject to proof in terms of "greater good" or the internal logic of aligns, but rather is there for basically OOC playability/enjoyment reasons--then it's going to have to apply to goods and evils the same, whether the PCs playing the Justices/Tribunals whatever are good, neutral, or evil. Trying to settle this in terms of what's really good or for the greater good--i.e. resistance to a corrupt empire versus rule by law--is like trying to settle a real-world religious argument. Can't be done. I'm sure there are many good books that have been written to support both persectives.
Moreover, in terms of game fairness, it might be unfair to treat lawbreakers differently depending on align. In principle you could just have good Tribunals refuse to apprehend good wanteds, but evil Tribunals have been relatively rare. The present situation is the exception.
What's driving people nuts is the distinction between killing someone outright and having them executed. I agree there is a distinction--that of due process versus summary, and ultimately individual and capricious, judgment--but it's a fine one and some are just not going to acknowledge it logically. Look at the popularity of vigilante movies, set in all different times and places. Even Kingdom of Heaven in the critical opening scene premised the plot on the murder of a corrupt official member of the church, and the bloody defense of the murderer against the corrupt police by, yes, Knights (this movie was one of the best recent depictions of the meaning of Knighthood I have seen, btw). I don't think most people would support a vigilante who was killing cops in their own community, even if they thought his original murder was justified, however.
BTW, outlaws with no wanted flag are not pursued by Tribunal I don't believe.
That's the point of having Tribunal remove the wanted flag until their next crime.