""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."*
This, as answered by Virigoth (which generally means its settled law), is answered by the fact that goodies ARE allowed to fight against each other (challenges, for example); they just aren't allowed to kill each other (even a challenge that accidentally results in death=outcasting, generally). He specifically recoded outlawship to make it so that even outlaws are captured, not killed on spot as they used to be, so there's never a case where goods kill other goods.
"So the good Tribbie didn't know that he would be defending mass murderers?"
The good Tribbie's focus is on the greater good of the cities, and on an ideal; if he only protects goods, and not evils, then there is no faith/trust in the law, and it becomes meaningless and bunk.
It is the good-aligned lawbreaker who makes the conscious choice to perform an action that he knows will result in battle between him and another choice. It's not about 'who knows what knows what', it's about who did what. He performed the ACTION of trying to kill an evil, KNOWING that this will bring him into conflict with goods.
I'll make an easy example for you. A man sees 'bad' people come to his town, people he knows to be drug dealers and murderers, terrorists, whatever. So, he takes it on himself to gun them down and kill them.
The cops are obviously going to come after him, and try to apprehend. He has some choices. Is he going to run? Or is he going to stand and fight. If he stands and fights, and kills the cops who are trying to do their duty, then yes, in society's eyes, he's a 'murderer of honest police officers'.
When you become a vigilant, you FORCE cops to go after you. And if you decide to kill the cops in order to save your life, then you are considered evil, yes. When you reject the laws of society for the laws of 'goodness', then expect other good people to come after you. And if you kill those good people, then yes, expect to be considered an outcast from civilization.
Remember. You are outcasted from a GUILD (I've very, very rarely seen an actual align-change due to killing good Justices as another good).
Where are guilds located? Exactly, in towns and cities.
Yeah, but this isnt real life, its gameplay.
The same logic applies in the game. You can RP a good who doesn't give a damn about any laws at all, and who doesn't feel compunction about fighting/killing other goods. BUT.
You can expect that if you aren't bound by laws of civilization, that civilization, including your own guildhall (which is part of the cities), will turn their backs on you.
Remember, outcasting, despite being done by IMM's, is generally NOT a 'divine' punishment. RP-wise, it's a guild punishment.
I've never liked the fact that Justice goods can attack other goods with impunity, but retaliation is punished, and I've said that in another thread. BUT, I can understand the reasoning behind it.
I don't see how, because if you want to speak logic.
Back in the "time" the towns were run by VIGILANTES (sp?) not so much by "cops"
If you killed someone who was evil, it was considered couragous and the "law" woould thank you, or ask you to be some sheriff off somewhere.
Your talking about modern cops, when FL is far from modern times.
He's... Talking about FL. The law has been made in the game, read it if you want. There are goody Tribunals, and evil Tribunals. By breaking the law, you are telling the world "Yes, I have broken a law, offending all Tribunals, and will fight them". If you are caught, you have to be punished. Part of the punishment is losing your items. Goodie Tribunals don't care if your good or bad - it doesn't matter.
But the FL Justice system IS run by cops and law, NOT vigilantes.
FL is not a 'medieval' MUD, it's a fantasy MUD that borrows from several different aspects, types of stories, etc. And FL DOES have a 'cop' system, not a vigilante system.
Also, keep in mind, there is the surrender command. Any goody who fights a goody Tribunal/Justice, does so only because they CHOOSE to.
He's right. No matter where you go, there are going to be things based on human morality. Murder is bad. Theft is bad. Some things make you feel guilty, why? I don't know if you could call it natural, or spiritual. That's a whole topic for discussion right there. @.@'
""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."*
This, as answered by Virigoth (which generally means its settled law), is answered by the fact that goodies ARE allowed to fight against each other (challenges, for example); they just aren't allowed to kill each other (even a challenge that accidentally results in death=outcasting, generally). He specifically recoded outlawship to make it so that even outlaws are captured, not killed on spot as they used to be, so there's never a case where goods kill other goods.
"So the good Tribbie didn't know that he would be defending mass murderers?"
The good Tribbie's focus is on the greater good of the cities, and on an ideal; if he only protects goods, and not evils, then there is no faith/trust in the law, and it becomes meaningless and bunk.
It is the good-aligned lawbreaker who makes the conscious choice to perform an action that he knows will result in battle between him and another choice. It's not about 'who knows what knows what', it's about who did what. He performed the ACTION of trying to kill an evil, KNOWING that this will bring him into conflict with goods.
But isn't a good character doing something that they consciously know will lead to another goods life just as bad. If we are using real life situations, I dig a big hole outside your door and place large spikes at the bottom of it. You fall into the hole and die, im sure general society would see me as a murderer, they wouldn't be going, oh no, he didn't know he'd fall into it and die.
Once again you go back to the whole greater good thing as well, which I've outlined the flaws of earlier.
I jsut think the system needs to be looked at, because its full of flaws. Its there to protect newbies, but how often do you see a none 50 wanted?
You aren't a cop.
If a cop captured a man who had murdered others, even if they were drug dealers, and they were sentenced to, say, death by lethal injection...
How many people would say the cop is a bad guy?
Cause and effect.
Wow this is a very long discussion, one of the largest I've seen yet. My short opinion would be, to give the majority of the player base what they want. Not exactly sure what that is, but if so many people are complaining about tribunals and associated conflicts so soon after tahey were implemented just imagine how bad its gonna get later. And I believe, we've already lost alot of good players due to these issues. Again this isn't real life its just a game and the opinion of only a few people even if they are imms should not effect what the rest of the player base wants, the ones who will actually be playing and enjoying the game. It must be fair to all these people. Anyway just my opinion.
You aren't a cop.
If a cop captured a man who had murdered others, even if they were drug dealers, and they were sentenced to, say, death by lethal injection...
How many people would say the cop is a bad guy?
Cause and effect.
That's going pretty extreme dude. There's a limit between situations in real life and situations in the game. This example just crossed the line.
And please, try to explain the reasoning without using examples that completely overexaggerate certain points. I'll post my thoughts on this subject when I formulate them, but this one just takes the cake.
Well here in Australia we (being our government) don't believe in capital punishment, and the majority of Australian's don't believe in death penalties, as such many of them would think what the cop did in that scenario of yours Raargant was evil and callous.
Eh? How is this overexagerration?
Drug dealers/terrorists are the 'evil' figures of the modern day.
I actually thought it was a very good one myself. Good cop has to apprehend good vigilante, who ends up dying. No one's gonna blame the cop.
And RE Tater: In that case, they would think the person who killed the drug dealer in the first place was evil as well. Heh.
With response to tassinvegeta, the Justice system about good vs good has ALWAYS been this way.
You aren't a cop.
If a cop captured a man who had murdered others, even if they were drug dealers, and they were sentenced to, say, death by lethal injection...
How many people would say the cop is a bad guy?
Cause and effect.
The question is, how many people would say the system is wrong? Alot.
Why does everyone call me Tater, im not a freakin potato!:eek:
Tradition.
Frankly, most of the queries raised recently, save a few (some of which have been addressed), are not about 'new' things, they are about old things related to Justice.
People just need to get used to the idea that you can't do whatever you want in town anymore, from that point of view. There's dozens of areas to PK. There's only three that gets you in trouble with Justice/Tribunal.