Right now most of the time if someone breaks the law, it was probably for attacking another player, which for the most part is always going to get an execution if caught. I think it would be neat if the only auto-execute sentence was for outlaws. This would give the individual Tribbies a chance to change punishment based on crime, surrender, etc. What do you think?
Tribunal Punishments.
I may be wrong, but when I played a tribunal, I could simply not pass judgment upon a captured individual. This meant that they would serve X#of hours in jail but not be executed. If I remember correctly (again this information is over a year old) I could not remove the wanted flag, but my superiors could and would given I sent them a note. In this way I could punish those who refused to sheathe, or were guilty of petty theft, or panhandling.
If a current Tribunal or Immortal wants to chime in and correct me, then forget I posted this.
A Tribunal should not care more about their alignment than his ethos.
Justice must be blind, and in this case the Tribunal is an inherently evil organization.
An attempted murder was just someone trying to kill another person and missed. The last thing we should see, is a good bias in the form of a Tribune not executing another goodie but executing evils.
That is why the Law makes it mandatory execution.
So to make your idea easy. Don't change the system. Change the Law.
Just LAW and change murder from atrocity to a lesser penalty. You can even change it based on town. Mirhuvor once had execution for sheathing offenses.
I may be wrong' date=' but when I played a tribunal, I could simply not pass judgment upon a captured individual. This meant that they would serve X#of hours in jail but not be executed. ... In this way I could punish those who refused to sheathe, or were guilty of petty theft, or panhandling.[/quote']
This in my view is wrong. If the law says to execute, the Tribunal processes the order, not sits on it. This kind of stuff should be no no.
Change the law, not the system.
Tribunal is not about justice. Nor it is about "right" or "fair". It's about power.
If you break their law, they do whatever the fuuaark they wanna do with you.
I think those statements are sort of over-simplifying; a character could have joined the Tribunal faction for any number of reasons. Yes, perhaps they believe in law and order as the way of building a functioning society, or yes, perhaps they seek to gain power, influence, and prestige, but there really is so many other ways to justify being in the Tribunal.
I was once considering playing a character that was the daughter of one of the city guards. Which is a dangerous, dangerous job by the way -- if you think cops have a bad time bringing their work home at the end of the day, you haven't really stopped to consider what a Maelbrimian guard has to go through after seeing all his friends being burnt to a cinder by some psychotic invoker. Following in your parents' footsteps is not always the most amusing prospect.
Anyway, the cabal as a whole is really the only semblance of a functioning goverment in Forsaken Lands. And like most governments, people will have different opinions about the interpretation on the intent and execution of laws, traditions, and rules. This really is not a problem. It would get boring pretty quick if everyone always had the same sort of RP, particularly in one of the cabals that allow people from all alignments to join. Particularly the comment about the Tribunal being an inherently evil organization seems out of place because if it was, then it would not be accepting good-aligned characters.
Sometimes I think people forget Healers can be in the Tribunal. At the point guild career clashes with cabal career I see an issue. A healer, likely seeking to be a council member (law maker) and not an adjudicator (law enforcer) should not be expected to put some level five character to death just because he "walked away instead of sheathing". While I understand what Mya intended to say, I believe she forgets not every one is an evil cleric. An evil may decide to push for the death penalty under such an infraction for no other reason than to watch someone die, or take their shiny stuff. A properly Role Played good would in most cases be more lenient.
If you are a Healer Council, why are you chasing L5's ?
Councils defend the cities, they are not obligated to go around chasing criminals outside.
Neither can you execute anyone for not sheathing ATM.
Or is that old Law, of citizens having to show that they sheathed, in effect.
I just think that being able to have diverse methods of punishment would be good. Murder is auto-execute in 2 of the 3. Tribunal is supposed to be about law enforcement yes, but its ALSO supposed to be about politics ie, the old Royals turning into the Council. Goodies not executing goodies aside, there's a lot that could come from being allowed to have more say in punishments. You could say, for a murder crime, have them a mandatory long sentence, or option to execute. In that sense politics can be played, rp can be maintained on goodies with law still being enforced.
I personally think it would give a lot more possibilities with having very few negatives. The politics and the punishment shouldn't be arbitray because there are good and evils in the cabal. As it stands right now it forces them to be blended to neutral, but I think they should be allowed to represent extreme angles while still acting within the bounds of Maxim law.
Examples:
-Obvious: Goodie caps goodie and can be merciful
- Same goodie caps a neutral, but is merciful and allows jail
-Goodie needs support from someone and to buy it they are merciful with jail
-Goodie wants to punish evil or aggitative neutral and executes
- Neutral/evil caps someone and gives jail in order to buy favor or act as a friend
-Neutral/evil has other personal reason to be merciful and give jail
-Neutral/evil wants to make criminal suffer and executes.
It makes being good or evil in the cabal matter, after all that is supposed to be higher than cabal affiliation. I mean you're talking about hugely different idealogies at times, and they are expected to act alike? Somethings wrong there It allows for more potential outcomes, and gives new avenues. I think the goods outweigh potential bads.
Even though there is a blanket maxim that covers the Tribunal Empire, I do not think you should see a Paladin acting the same as an Undead. There should be room for them to distinguish their person beliefs/personal goals underneath the blanket of an Empire.
Yes, I expect them to act almost alike.
Tribunal isn't Knight.
Tribunal is about Order. Which means treating different people, in the same situation, the same.
The system already allows a lot of Tribunal discretion by allowing us to change the penalty for each crime by changing the Law.
The problem would be that if a player HAS more leeway in his decisions, there will always be claims of favoritism (be it ooc or ic) that will cause a ton of work for the staff. Moreover, a good should not not get executed if the law demands it just bc a goody capped him. Would be rather unfair.
The problem would be that if a player HAS more leeway in his decisions' date=' there will always be claims of favoritism (be it ooc or ic) that will cause a ton of work for the staff. Moreover, a good should not not get executed if the law demands it just bc a goody capped him. Would be rather unfair.[/quote']
Wait wait wait....Anume, are you saying Mya is....
RIGHT?!! :eek:
Wait wait wait....Anume, are you saying Mya is....
RIGHT?!! :eek:
my soul just died a little. ..
only kidding 
Quick, change the subject to bards! It's a sure fire way to set the world back into balance. At least, on this whole mya being right front...