Fiere Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 So, I attack this seagull in town like an idiot, forgetting a tribunal in town, and I get executed for it. Now, maybe I'm just being a little slow here, but don't that seem a little harsh? I mean, first offense, in Miruhvor, on a seagull. Help execution states that it is reserved for repeat offenders. Is the help file outdated, or is that just a little out of wack. I mean, it was a SEAGULL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 I am afraid you are mistaken, it was infact Steven Seagull. He's quite famous you know. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Actually, it's because this is dead seagull MUD. (semi-inside joke) More serious answer, assault is an atrocity in Miruvhor, which means auto-execute. Tribunals have no say in it. Type 'law' in each city, to see their views on laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Look at what you killed, I have half a mind to kick you myself... WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 lol wc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 If you'd like to kill birds, try the Arcade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted January 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Yeah, I know it's not his fault, I just think it's a tad excessive to die for that, especially when the help file states that death is for "repeat offenders". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 That generally refers to non-atrocities. Atrocities are auto-execute. The 'death for repeat offenders' thing has to do with Tribunals sentencing people. In this case, they don't get a chance to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiere Posted January 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Alright, that's what I was wondering. I just thought the seeming discrepancy was odd, but that makes sense, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 No prob, glad to have cleared it all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well Im sure we can all agree that he should not have been executed for killing a seagull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 If it's clearly posted for those who look that the law of the town means death if you kill a seagull, why shouldn't he be killed for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 cause its lack of thinking from the tribunals side (unles he wanna boost his roll call) when was it illegal to kill a seagull? Is he going to get executed if he kills a rat too? What about a spider? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 I think what sneak is talking about is that a seagull is pretty much a varmit type animal, noone owns it, it doesn't pay taxes, it just sits there eatting french fries. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 But the law is for any living thing in the city, not just intelligent residents. It's against the law for me to walk outside and bludgeon a puppy to death here, just like it's illegal for him to kill a seagull. The only difference is degree of punishment, and if you don't like that, become a member of the ruling class and change that particular law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Puppies are not varmits, go bludgeon a rat and see who cares. Infact, they sell poison for that kind of stuff. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Bludgeon a seagull, however, and you'll pay a fine. At least in New York you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 cause its lack of thinking from the tribunals side (unles he wanna boost his roll call) when was it illegal to kill a seagull? Is he going to get executed if he kills a rat too? What about a spider? Maybe you missed the part about how the Tribunal has nothing to do with it. He committed murder in a city where that's an atrocity. The code automatically sentences him to death. The Tribunal didn't sentence him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Perhaps he should not have been tagged at all - thus the tribunal actually DOES have something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 What are you talking about? Seagull is an NPC mob in a city. Attack on NPC mob's in a city is a crime. Committing crimes gets you wanted. Is there anything else to it? *boggle* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Alright, I'll remove my sarcastic overtone on this one... What differentiates a seagull from a shopkeeper? As far as rp goes, they are clearly very different beings. One is a 'human'(?) being, the other is just an animal. Why should the code protect all equally? Thats what sneak is getting at. Clearly there would be some mobs that noone would give two ****s about ever, a bug mob? But if it is attacked and killed, it's murder. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 And what differentiates a shopkeeper from a PC? As far as rp goes, they are clearly very similar things, yet punishment for attacking them is generally different. Besides. If the seagull can scream the name of the attacker, it seems sentient enough to me. Maybe a magical seagull? Heh. Considering that FL has plenty of sentient 'animals', from giant walking crabs/Tritons to humans that can shapeshift into beasts, etc. etc., it's reasonable enough IMO. NPC/PC RP is ALWAYS walking a fine line between realism and unrealism, from goodies 'mass-murdering neutral mobs for armor', to 'mass gangbangs', etc. etc. etc. If you want, think of it this way. Everything that's within Miruvhor belongs to Miruvhor. You kill Miruvhor's seagulls, that's damage to the city's property and possessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Maybe it's a weregull. With a family and a nest full of weregullettes. Seriously though, these laws haven't changed. The code is there, has been there, is posted for all to see who take the moment to type 'law'. I can understand a new player making that mistake, but the rest of you act like this is something new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Well, my issue with it is that why can all mobs scream like that? Now people will fight like hell over realism on any issue except this one, and I don't understand it. I understand the difference between enforcing pcs and shopkeepers differently, it needs to be more harsh for pc protection to keep the trash down. But it still doesn't make sense to me, if this is booked as an rp mud, to not develope the difference between a rabbit and a noble. No one is acting like it's new... I've been being sarcastic and stupid about it, as par my usual. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted January 25, 2006 Report Share Posted January 25, 2006 Then the issue isn't a Tribunal issue, the issue is an OLC issue having to do with what creatures scream or not, in what manner. Why not put it up in the ideas section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.