Tribunal Issues

[Chayesh]

If the cabal powers (which we aren't going to discuss in detail) really worked like all the rumors and fairy tales out there say they do, yeah, I'd say they were overpowered too.

But the majority of the complaints we've gotten have been flat out, pure fantasy. It really is a case of what you think you are seeing, is not what's happening to you. I've said it before, no one has yet figured out what exactly they can and can't do, so no one is using anything correctly to their benefit against them, for the most part. Learn how to beat them. Or better yet, play one. I've statted them and they've all died multiple times since becoming a Tribunal so someone's figured it out.

So final verdict, not overpowered since they are beatable and not in any way dominating other than two HIGHLY PK-power classes. As Behrens said, they are working just as they were expected to.

[-Totenkopf-]

I must agree, I don't really see (although I haven't fought them) how Tribunal is so overpowered. I have knowledge of all the skills (well, I think) and although they were made slightly more powerful then old justice they are nothing that cant be beaten. The new guard seems very similar to the 1.0 justice guards from what i've been told (not actually had a run in with one, nor do I want to with my current character, he is a weak arse) which I agree with Raargant, isn't as viscious as the hounds, they seemed to have rather huge hitroll and a good chance of hitting you.

Put the top dogs of Tribunal in any other cabal, and I'd assume they'd be doing almost, if not just as good as they are now. I still do have issues with the whole good vs good thing though

[Ghrialton]

Maybe that's what he implied, but it wasn't clear to me. It looked more like a blanket "don't break the law".

Perhaps I'm misunderstood. I don't have a personal problem with Tribunal. I'm a small fish in this pond, both PK and RP-wise. I've only had minimal interaction with any Tribunal up to this point, and have no experience fighting them. I'm thinking about this from a couple of different perspectives than my own, though.

Firstly, the definition of chaotic.

Chaotic Good: ... They are not afraid to attack the law...

Chaotic Neutral: ... Existing systems which tell them what they can and cannot do are their natural enemies, and they are often branded troublemakers by authorities...

Chaotic Evil: ... Their only law is the belief that might makes right...

It doesn't say explicitly that you have to go after Tribunals in the helpfiles for each of the chaotic aligns, but it sure does imply that any sort of law structure is their enemy.

What, exactly, does it mean to be chaotic? Unpredictable? Crazy? I use Occam's Razor. By reading the helpfiles, I get the idea that default RP for any chaotic character is an active disregard for the laws. I'm not saying that it's not open to interpretation, but it is the default RP, both from my own perspective, and many others' within the game.

What does that mean?

It means that people can have their characters punished because of RP suggested by the helpfiles. A newbie player might be RPing his character correctly according to what he read in the helpfiles, but find that he's dead, full-looted, jailed and/or outcasted. He might decide to leave, he might decide to not roll up a chaotic character every again, he might decide not to RP the chaotic part of his alignment. It's a lose-lose-lose situation for the MUD, and doesn't seem to be very newbie friendly.

Another perspective I'm considering is one that has been discussed several times already and that is that Good Tribunals are expected to place their Lawfulness over their Goodness, and this situation is unique among class/race/cabal/qrace combinations on FL. A Chaotic Knight should be able to take down a Good Tribunal without being outcasted, because a Good Tribunal can take down a Chaotic Knight without being outcast. All else being equal Tribunal > Knight. This situation is much more likely than it appears to be, but I already did the math in a different thread. I've never played a character in a cabal, however, so I'm unsure as to the validity of my concerns in this regard.

Anyway...

...nor that you must only be chaotic in the cities. We are talking about a total of 4 places (3 cities and the Tribunal Quarter) where your chaotic tendencies will get you the facepalm.

My main argument here is that is if they don't take place in these locations, then they AREN'T CHAOTIC TENDANCIES. If the playerbase were asked what it meant to be chaotic on FL, I'd wager that more than 90% of the respondants would suggest that one of the meanings was lawlessness and that among the different meanings of a chaotic character, that a healthy disregard for the law would be by far the most common answer.

My complaints are small, but they are well thought out, and certainly more meaningful with the glib answer that I responded to originally.

[Ghrialton]

Again, I want to mention that I personally have no problem with Tribunals being overpowered or not.

I don't think they help promote a newbie-friendly MUD.

I'm confused about the Lawfulness over Goodness.

[Chayesh]

I understand that you have no problem with Tribunal.

My point is that what you refer to as "punished" I define as "correct RP response from Tribunal to your RP" in the scenario you described.

Are you being "punished" if you decide to apply and join WM and Savants kill you? Join Nexus and have Knights kill you? Are you being punished if you apply and get to be undead and healers kill you? It's the same with Tribunal and wanted criminals. What I think is at the heart most of the complaints I've seen is not some deeper principle as many state, but rather, one of two things. Either they personally have a problem with any sort of "authority" real or otherwise or they can no longer play a hack and slash PK superiority game without consequences. No longer do you have a rag tag pack of Royals and Justices that simply lay down and take the beating you give them, but a full force cabal that is eager, skilled, and ready to meet the challenge. I'm sorry but I don't see anyone being punished.

Additionally, I was discussing this with another IMM earlier. I don't think the players understand fully yet the incredible RP vehicle we've created with Tribunal. At what point did the Royal Houses truly rule the cities they claimed? When did players actually control so much of the city's destiny? Never. Sure, they used to be able to create votes and monkey with the types of punishment in their cities, but that was small potatoes. Kudos to all the current Tribunals for taking advantage of the opportunity to actually create a form of government and play it out. Consider this. Tribunal is writing true in game policy. They are making REAL laws that they have been empowered to back up with force. I hope the players all see the awesome chance for creativity that Tribunal presents. I think if you look at it in its true context, you'll see that it breathes incredible life in the MUD and creates a chance for some great RP scenarios.

[Aulian]

One thing I have to say, is the wanting system. I have been wanted for attacking a justice OUTSIDE A FLAMING CITY! I mean, what are they, invincible even in areas they dont control? Being wanted for 39 days in the standing fortress for obstruction just seems a little too intense for killing a trib.

[Raargant]

Depends on situation. If you attacked them when they were hunting a criminal, that's obstruction. If you attacked them when they weren't doing anything, then that's possibly 'abuse' of their powers.

[Sneak]

Hmm Ive experienced a lot of those wanted flags. But if you read the things on obstruction it actually falls under the category of just attacking a tribunal anywhere.

[Zavero]

If people are getting their asses kicked by Tribunals' date=' stop breaking the law. It's actually really simple.[/quote']

I think some people role play characters to be criminals, it just sucks when you cannot role play a character with that idea because you're affraid of dying constantly.

I don't think Tribunals are powerful at all. They have powerful skills, but so does every cabal. I can think of only one reason that all of you are complaining, and that's because everyone, with the acception of the players who throw out their lives like candy, are just plain scared of a certain vampire that whomps everyone's tail. Very few, if any alone have killed him(so I've heard) and how many people has he caught? Seeing as such an overpowered character played by a damn good player is around, I don't think(Yes, my personal opinion.) anyone can say the cabal in topic is overpowered. All the other Tribunals are not nearly as tough as the one, and they can/have been taken out before.

As much as I think it's ludicrous to be able to have a vampire in Tribunal, I can understand it from a role playing perspective. I just think he's doing a good job and everyone's getting pissed about it. Don't get me wrong though, I personally hate the vampire character, but he's good. Then again, maybe I am wrong. I haven't been around that long.

[Sneak]

The main problem is a necro and a vamp with a charmie like that - you dont see that in any other cabals.

The same complaints would come if an avatar had a charmie like that.

[Raargant]

And yet' date=' the necromancer is close to condeath. Within, I might add, less than three months of playing.[/quote']

*points upwards*

[Nympha]

The main problem is a necro and a vamp with a charmie like that - you dont see that in any other cabals.

The same complaints would come if an avatar had a charmie like that.

Fact being, an Avatar CANT get a charmy like that. Period. If you get Avatar and have a charmy like that you WILL lose it. I say this for multiple reasons.

One, an avatar with the current setup can not be in Tribunal. Cause they have to kill evils and since Tribs can be evil, they cant work in the Cabal like that.

If you do get Avatar in Knight and happen to be Elder with a Vanguard, you will quickly lose Elder because of that fact. I know because I experienced this. And because you cant have an Avatar in Knights, as an Elder without possibly having a conflict of interest with your Avartarness.

So trust me, no complaints will happen cause of that.

[Yuri]

Heh I have one that is bat**** insane AND doesn't like the law. He would murder a townsperson in plain sight or food if hungry, or say hi to them and give the beggar 10 gold if it suited him.

He's chaotic neutral NOT chaotic STUPID

[Sneak]

re nympha: that was my point, an avatar wont have a charmy like that cause it will take away its vulns to an extent where its too much, same deal with necroes n vamps in tribunal. Vamps does not have to bother about bashing warriors cause theres no way you can get outmeleed by one now (heck they cant even start aiming at you), necroes with a charmy like that does not have to fear neither warriors or zerks any more. At all.

[Raargant]

And yet' date=' the necro is close to condeath.[/quote']

*points upwards yet again*

[Psycho Child]

Your invisible Raar. Get over it.

[Zavero]

The necromancer I have seen is possible to take down. Don't even know why you're including him here. He is good, but still possible to take down.

[Ex-D&Der]

*points upwards yet again*

*Points upward to the points that many of his deaths are from mobs and gangs.*

[Sneak]

*Points upward to the points that many of his deaths are from mobs and gangs.*

Points up to the post where I explaned this to Raargant the first time, and that it apparantly did not seem to have any effect.

[Raargant]

As you said - he lost a lot of lives getting zombies. That has nothing to do with his pk'ing power. And I believe he has been ganged some times' date=' which should not happen. [/Quote']

The first part is part of being a necromancer.

The second part is part of being a Tribunal.

Again, those are all examples of 'intangibles' which all of you, in your theorizing, don't really take into account.

*points upwards to what he already posted in response*

Sure, they can be powerful. But they pay for it in in the attempt to gain that power, and they pay for it whenever they lose it.

As a necro, you WILL take multiple mobdeaths.

And as a Tribunal, you WILL take multiple gangdeaths.

Take what you want, then pay for it.

[Sneak]

Im just taking a class with balance or prot shield.

[Ex-D&Der]

Those responses don't address what people are raising in terms of PKability, however. They are more suggesting that on balance things work out, but that's not what people are addressing. They're saying it's too hard to PK a Tribunal. Mob deaths or gang deaths don't change a one-on-one situation.

[Psycho Child]

I want a cookie. How much are they?

[Wathok]

It is hard for me to imagine any necromancer's condeath being mostly the direct result of acquiring zombies. Although I haven't checked with Pominsu, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of his deaths were from player characters.

[Raargant]

Those responses don't address what people are raising in terms of PKability' date=' however. They are more suggesting that on balance things work out, but that's not what people are addressing. They're saying it's too hard to PK a Tribunal. Mob deaths or gang deaths don't change a one-on-one situation.[/quote']

You guys still don't get it.

Tribunals HAVE to deal with getting ganged on a constant basis.

That is PART of being a Tribunal.

If you weaken their powers, then it becomes almost impossible to survive against gangs, which they WILL have to.

And, quite frankly, I will tell you right now, I believe old school Justice powers to be more helpful in direct PK.