Posted by Oft-Arbiter on May 5, 2000 at 14:16:15:
In Reply to: Problem with that. posted by Graatch(VIP) on May 5, 2000 at 13:55:51:
> 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.
If there is no distinction then maybe arbiters should flag people for killing cityguards and others mobs within the city eh? Sounds good, if that happens I'm rolling up an evil arbiter of greed 'cause the equipment will be pouring in like water from a fountain!
> Therefore, arbiters should and do have jurisdiction over the guards of the city.
So, arbiters are going to have to start flagging cityguards who attack chaotic people who attack in town. "wanted 268.cityguard y"
> 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.
"wanted slayer y"
> 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.
Udgaard would have to be removed from the protected city list, because arbiter law supercedes City Law and if the city doesn't want it that way than the city can't have protection.