We all know the scenario, good criminal and good tribunal, the advantage is to the trib 'cause he can "kill" the criminal w/o penalty. Something that can bring this more into alignment could be allowing looting on mercy. The criminal doesn't have to risk the wrath of the Gods for killing a good, but can render the trib unable to capture him for at least a while. Thoughts?
Trouble with Tribunes
I think if you are punished for breaking the law, you deserve to lose items, regardless of your alignment. Getting items for a capture is just a bonus that cabal has, as cabals tend to grant players just that: bonuses.
I think you're misunderstanding me. The issue some have is that good criminals cannot kill good tribunes, yet good tribunes can effectively kill good criminals. This would simply allow a good criminal to mercy the tribune and slow the tribune from making another attempt at capture, it has nothing to do with not giving the tribunal the equipment of the criminal should the trib make the capture.
I agree that something has to be instated.
On my avatar good Justice's would attack me CONTINUALLY, I'd leave them stunned, 5 min later they'd be up and attacking me.
So what did I do, I kept one such Justice stunned until another walked by and killed them. And I copped the outcasting. So why aren't they outcasted? Because they see law as a 'greater good'. Well, I was an Avatar and they were interupting my hunting of demons and undead. To me, these 'lightwalkers' were commiting treason against all that I considered good and right. Thus, I was serving a greater good. How come these Justice that are serving a 'greater good' are not punished, yet my character who was serving a 'greater good' was?
Something needs to be done, to give them at least something to be scared and wary of. The fact they can keep going and going and going and not have to risk a thing, is quite unusual.
As much as I hate to say it not out of discontent for Tatertot or anything like that, just never really thought of it the way he put it, but I agree with him...it makes sense...though the justice could be looking at you, the criminal, and think you are no better than the scum you hunt if you cant keep it out of the sandbox
/edit
Heh sorry...I babble
As much as I hate to say it not out of discontent for Tatertot or anything like that' date=' just never really thought of it the way he put it, but I agree with him...it makes sense...though the justice could be looking at you, the criminal, and think you are no better than the scum you hunt if you cant keep it out of the sandbox[/quote']
Anyone besides me have trouble following what he's saying?
Oh, and I completely agree Top.
As much as I hate to say it not out of discontent for Tatertot or anything like that' date=' just never really thought of it the way he put it, but I agree with him...it makes sense...though the justice could be looking at you, the criminal, and think you are no better than the scum you hunt if you cant keep it out of the sandbox[/quote']
I don't quite understand, but if your getting at what I think your getting at then put it this way, they see me as a criminal, but to me, all of darkness are criminal. They are allowed to attack there 'criminals' in town, why cant I?
Just talking theoretically here.
Would be interesting that if a good attacked a good, there were a 24hr timer or something within which if that good was killed by they which he attacked, no 'penalty' was copped.
Would sure make them think twice wouldn't it?
Tot got what I was getting at.
To the Justice you are no better than the evil youre trying to smite, as you didnt have the civility to take it outside of town, not that it still changes the fact that its good on good
And all im saying is that the theory you are going off there works both ways, but the Tribune have the advantage of being able to do something about it, whereas the culprit good cannot do a single thing. They should both be able to disable the other character in some way shape and form.
Its like me having someone tie you down, and then beating the **** out of you. No doubt you'd be ropeable, at your inability to fight back.
And all im saying is that the theory you are going off there works both ways, but the Tribune have the advantage of being able to do something about it, whereas the culprit good cannot do a single thing. They should both be able to disable the other character in some way shape and form.
Its like me having someone tie you down, and then beating the **** out of you. No doubt you'd be ropeable, at your inability to fight back.
No no, I agree with you chap just trying to play out the devils advocate
No no' date=' I agree with you chap just trying to play out the devils advocate[/quote']
No problem. A debate isn't a debate without other standpoints
Just.. don't.. break the law. How easy is it to type "where", and notice there is or isn't a Tribunal in town? And even then, wouldn't it be obvious when you see two or more people just sitting in town (pinned, usually) or sitting in the Watchtower to know they're.. lawful, militiamen?
But even then, you can still smite evil without breaking the law. :-\
RP Should not be restricted that way.
Knights, don't belive in "LAW"
Here's how I see it.
You know that if you break a law, you will have to fight other members who follow the path of Light.
You choose to do so.
In that, you are saying, "I don't care if I have to fight goodies, so long as I get to kill evils."
In that sense, the lawbreaker is the aggressor, not the Justice/Tribunal. The lawbreaker is the one who knows that his actions will cause conflict, but does it anyhow. He's the one responsible/at fault, and it's only fair, in that sense, that he's the one who has a rough time of it.
Just.. don't.. break the law. How easy is it to type "where", and notice there is or isn't a Tribunal in town? And even then, wouldn't it be obvious when you see two or more people just sitting in town (pinned, usually) or sitting in the Watchtower to know they're.. lawful, militiamen?
But even then, you can still smite evil without breaking the law. :-\
I'm seriously SERIOUSLY tired of people saying 'Just don't break the law.' The problem arises WHEN the law is broken and what to do about it. Think of solutions within the bubble, not in some distant far away galaxy full of loony ideas that have nothing to do with the topic.
RP and PK should NOT be restricted like this. Gahzooks!
Acerbity, what you said makes total sense from an OOC standpoint, but if my Avatar Knight arse, walks into a town, sees a Demon nexus sitting there plotting his evil plans, would he just sit back and watch, hell knows, he could be conjuring up a spell to bring blight to the entire world.
My avatar arse wouldn't care if there was a justice sitting there. That demon there IS the ultimate evil, and must be vanquished at all costs.
Your standpoint makes total sense from an out of character standpoint, but what you have to realise is that isn't a viable option for alot of characters. You have to have respect for both roleplay standpoints. The fact that these lawmen commit there life to upholding the laws, and that certain other characters commit their live to destroying all that is evil. You'll find that both these standpoints will always exist in this mud, and they will quite often clash. When they clash, there needs to be some equality in what these factions can do to eachother.
Here's how I see it.
You know that if you break a law, you will have to fight other members who follow the path of Light.
You choose to do so.
In that, you are saying, "I don't care if I have to fight goodies, so long as I get to kill evils."
In that sense, the lawbreaker is the aggressor, not the Justice/Tribunal. The lawbreaker is the one who knows that his actions will cause conflict, but does it anyhow. He's the one responsible/at fault, and it's only fair, in that sense, that he's the one who has a rough time of it.
Some very valid points Raargant, and the most well thought out reply as of yet, but, in saying that you can also take it that a Good aligned Tribune wants you, full knowing that it'll bring them into conflict with you. In which regard they are both as bad as eachother.
In that sense' date=' the lawbreaker is the aggressor, not the Justice/Tribunal. The lawbreaker is the one who knows that his actions will cause conflict, but does it anyhow. He's the one responsible/at fault, and it's only fair, in that sense, that he's the one who has a rough time of it.[/quote']
So the good Tribbie didn't know that he would be defending mass murderers? If he hadn't joined Trib, he wouldn't be protecting evils. So it's his fault. Or is it his grade school teacher's fault for teaching like that? Or his mom's for giving birth? How far back to do you want to track the I know that you know that I know bs?
No matter who is to blame, the RP is sideways.
"Goods who are overly bloodthirsty against neutrals will be reprimanded, and raising one's hand against a fellow Lightwalker is a sure way to incite the anger of the gods." from help good
Why would "the anger of the gods" be ignored because of the law of MAN. Eash cabal has its own LAW OF MAN. If the Warmasters and Savants were at war, why can't two goods fight? It would be the law of the cabal.
Why not? Because it's reeeeeediculous. The law of man would never be more important that the law of the gods. Period. Trib (and formerly Justice) is the only exception for some reason that no one can explain the RP of too me. And to top it off, they don't even hold the cities! How can they enforce laws in an area they don't own!?!?!?
So the good Tribbie didn't know that he would be defending mass murderers? If he hadn't joined Trib, he wouldn't be protecting evils. So it's his fault. Or is it his grade school teacher's fault for teaching like that? Or his mom's for giving birth? How far back to do you want to track the I know that you know that I know bs?
No matter who is to blame, the RP is sideways.
"Goods who are overly bloodthirsty against neutrals will be reprimanded, and raising one's hand against a fellow Lightwalker is a sure way to incite the anger of the gods." from help good
Why would "the anger of the gods" be ignored because of the law of MAN. Eash cabal has its own LAW OF MAN. If the Warmasters and Savants were at war, why can't two goods fight? It would be the law of the cabal.
Why not? Because it's reeeeeediculous. The law of man would never be more important that the law of the gods. Period. Trib (and formerly Justice) is the only exception for some reason that no one can explain the RP of too me. And to top it off, they don't even hold the cities! How can they enforce laws in an area they don't own!?!?!?
You've put that very well Myrek, congratz. Don't think I can flaw your explanation.