Posted by Graham on May 5, 2000 at 09:02:34:
In Reply to: Re: Regarding glaring inconsistincies in the laws that Scarab has just pointed out... posted by Oft-Arbiter on May 5, 2000 at 08:08:07:
> > 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.
Scarabaeus has explicitly stated below re: enforcer, he is lawful , but who's/what laws does he follow?
lawful does not mean arbiter law
basically this appears to be a sea change in admittal by the imms, perhaps it's just the arbiter imms that feel differently but it is a horrible situation that castrates people sometimes...
if it's freely admitted that lawful ethos is irrelevant of Arbiter laws
or
stated that they are linked unextricably
then shit will be cool