Posted by Oft-Arbiter on May 5, 2000 at 08:08:07:
In Reply to: Regarding glaring inconsistincies in the laws that Scarab has just pointed out... posted by Graham on May 5, 2000 at 06:55:45:
udgaardian guards still attack criminals on sight...
> now, why do udgaardian guards attack people who have been made criminals for attacking paladins?
This I can't answer, other than for mechanics reasons. I don't know that you can differentiate between flags, a flag is a flag is a flag. With that said I don't think Udgaard should be a protected city really since they are so aggressive towards a part of the population.
another point scarabeus made which many other people have said over time is this...
> Lawful ethos is not neccesarily arbiter law..
>
> Now, why are those of lawful ethos given credence in Arbiter investigations when it has just been stated that there is no correlation between lawful ethos and Arbiter law
I equate being lawful to being orderly(perhaps instead of having a "lawful" ethos the imms should change it to "orderly". Having a lawful ethos DOES NOT mean you have to follow Arbiter Law, but you should subscribe to some type of orderly belief in general. If you're lawful you shouldn't attack in the city, not because you care what the Arbiters think, but because it detracts from the orderliness of Thera. As an arbiter I don't automatically believe everything a lawful person says until I have a firm grasp on what set of orderly beliefs they believe in. However, I NEVER believe anything a chaotic person says because they don't(or at least shouldn't) buy into ANY set of orderly beliefs.