Problem with that.

Problem with that.:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Graatch(VIP) on May 5, 2000 at 13:55:51:

In Reply to: Re: City Law and the actions of the Enforcer posted by The First Citizen(IMM) on May 5, 2000 at 13:09:54:

> As far as the Enforcer being made WANTED I'd be against that since Arbiters have no jurisdiction over the Enforcer.
>
> As far as Udgaard being protected... Arbiters again have no jurisdiction over the guards, men-at-arms, etc. They do however have jurisdiction over PC's so that they will flag you for attacking Paladins though Udgaard's law supports it

This is where I have trouble with your theory. A basic tenet of the game as propounded by the imms is that players should treat mobs as equal beings, as though they were players too, just as real, just as much "theran" as anyone else. *IN THE GAME* there is/should be no distinction between a mob and a pc.
Therefore, arbiters should and do have jurisdiction over the guards of the city. It's not a question of "power", but of consitency. It's not that one set of people are exempt or beyond the reach of the law. Rather, it is that the law has not been traditionally applied to a certain group of people, i.e. guard mobs. That's wrong, though. The Law doesn't apply to people, it applies to actions. It's not the type/class/race of do'er, it's the type/time/place of action, that is the question.
Now, yes, the arbiter laws are written in a semi ooc manner. ("Attacking/Stealing/killing a pc in town is illegal...") But we must treat them as entirely ic. Everyone in a protected area is under the law of the arbiters, mob or pc. Otherwise there is a mob/pc distinction which would fundamentally oppose the rp concept of treating all beings as "real" and fully alive.

Now, it is entirely possible that the Arbiters, when they "contract" to partol and protect a city, do so by dealing with the city leadership, be it sultan or mayor or Tyrant (Loke). They are bound by the city laws as well as the arbiter laws. That is perhaps one reason why some cities are protected and some are not -- because the leadership of, say, hillcrest, doesn't want to make a deal with the arbiters. So, with the example of udgaard, the city government wanted the arbiters to keep law there along with their own forces, but the arbiters were forced to accept that paladins are forfeit. To be really consistent, arbiters should not flag people for attacking paladins in udgaard.

Follow Ups:

Re: ideal vs the real SphereMaker(IMM) 14:36:23 5/5/2000 (3)
- Re: consistency of action vs. jurisdiction. Khiravn 17:45:52 5/5/2000 (1)
  - Actually: Ignore what I said. I come across as though I support HH, and I don't, and I regret getting involved. n/t Khiravn 18:11:00 5/5/2000 (0)
- I like the Court Marshall take better than my more cynical approach. nt Oft-Arbiter 14:53:47 5/5/2000 (0)
Problem with that that Oft-Arbiter 14:16:15 5/5/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> > As far as the Enforcer being made WANTED I'd be against that since Arbiters have no jurisdiction over the Enforcer. > > > > As far as Udgaard being protected... Arbiters again have no jurisdiction over the guards, men-at-arms, etc. They do however have jurisdiction over PC's so that they will flag you for attacking Paladins though Udgaard's law supports it > > This is where I have trouble with your theory. A basic tenet of the game as propounded by the imms is that players should treat mobs as equal beings, as though they were players too, just as real, just as much "theran" as anyone else. IN THE GAME there is/should be no distinction between a mob and a pc. > Therefore, arbiters should and do have jurisdiction over the guards of the city. It's not a question of "power", but of consitency. It's not that one set of people are exempt or beyond the reach of the law. Rather, it is that the law has not been traditionally applied to a certain group of people, i.e. guard mobs. That's wrong, though. The Law doesn't apply to people, it applies to actions. It's not the type/class/race of do'er, it's the type/time/place of action, that is the question. > Now, yes, the arbiter laws are written in a semi ooc manner. ("Attacking/Stealing/killing a pc in town is illegal...") But we must treat them as entirely ic. Everyone in a protected area is under the law of the arbiters, mob or pc. Otherwise there is a mob/pc distinction which would fundamentally oppose the rp concept of treating all beings as "real" and fully alive. > > Now, it is entirely possible that the Arbiters, when they "contract" to partol and protect a city, do so by dealing with the city leadership, be it sultan or mayor or Tyrant (Loke). They are bound by the city laws as well as the arbiter laws. That is perhaps one reason why some cities are protected and some are not -- because the leadership of, say, hillcrest, doesn't want to make a deal with the arbiters. So, with the example of udgaard, the city government wanted the arbiters to keep law there along with their own forces, but the arbiters were forced to accept that paladins are forfeit. To be really consistent, arbiters should not flag people for attacking paladins in udgaard.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]