Posted by Oft-Arbiter on May 5, 2000 at 14:50:51:
In Reply to: I don't know how far or long I want to go thinking about this: posted by Khiravn on May 5, 2000 at 14:23:01:
1. HH. Yes, he's a guy that you want to pound down in real life. But we don't. And cops don't *in front of witnesses*. Why? Because we don't want the legal reprecussions.
This isn't real life. This is a medieval fantasy game. If the aim was to be as close to real life as possible then yes (wanted Enforcer y), BUT, if the aim was to be as close to real life as possible heroes could kill rank 1 people. See a rationalization for the Enforcer's layeth of the smack down below.
How is it that the Enforcer is free from any legal reprecussions?
Again, because he is the Enforcer. Think of it like this. The mayor of Galadon, tired of seeing his city taken over by vagrants hires three sets of people to take care of the problem. The Enforcer, who is a bounty hunter, there to take care of the Slayer and to protect the integrity of the city in general. The Captain of the guards and his cityguards who are there for defense again invasion for the most part. Finally, the Arbiters who are hired to take care of those individuals who are far better trained than the cityguards who would otherwise rape and pillage without fear.
He can just act however he wants to *in town*? *MURDER* anyone he wants to in the open, on the city streets? Wow. I'd love to be the Enforcer, then.
So would I or anybody else who would like to be above the Law. Seriously though, from a game mechanics standpoint, can the Arbiters REALLY start flagging mobs? No. The Enforcer, for all intents and purposes is ABOVE Arbiter law. Imagine that the mayor wants it that way.
What kind of city has laws like that??? Is Galadon meant to be that kind of city? Because it sure doesn't seem like it is, from what we saw of Galadon before the Enforcer acted that way. Why is it that murder can legitimately take place on the city streets in front of witnesses, and the murderer is free of reprecussions.
Again because it's the Enforcer and therefore above Arbiter Law. OOCly it's because he's a mob.
Again, is Galadon that kind of city? Is the Enforcer that kind of brutal murderer?
Brutal murderer? no. Somebody who will see their duty done at any cost? yes.
Furthermore, what the HELL is the difference between the Lawful Enforcer's actions, and a chaotic's actions?
The Enforcer does so as a part of her duty, which is sanctioned by the mayor. She's there because the mayor wants her to be and her duty is to A)stop the slayer and B)otherwise maintain the integrity of the city and its laws.
2. Where do Arbiters fit into this equation of what the Immortals believe "city laws" (ie. murder anyone you want if they bug you too much and it's all legal) are?
City Law isn't "murder anyone you want if they bug you too much". City Laws are those Laws that the Arbiters can't enforce. It's to protect the integrity of the city and its laws, defend it against all invasions, protect ALL citizens including cityguards, drunks, and shopkeepers. Would it have made you feel better if the Enforcer had made HH wanted? No, you wouldn't because killing cityguards and mouthing off isn't against Arbiter Law. Rationalization for Enforcer's Behavior Follows Acting in a manner of disrespect, feigning(sp) a punch, and so on is grounds for dismissal. Walk up to a police officer and real life and throw a fake punch. See how fast your face is in the dirt and your wrists are bruised from how hard they slammed the cuffs on.
Why in the world is Galadon under Arbiter protection?
Because the mayor wants it that way.
Why is Udgaard under Arbiter protection?
Because Loke wants it that way.
Do the Arbiters just conveniently ignore the "lawful" city guards breaking the law every day?
I assume you're talking about the tendencies of city guards to attack chaotics who attack or are attacked in town. Consider that a function of City Law which has a jurisdiction beyond that of Arbiter Law. Perhaps the leaders of the cities have decided that any problem in which a chaotic individual is involved MUST be due to the actions of the chaotic individual. This is like Bart Simpson. Let's say Milhouse flushed a cherry bomb, but Bart was in the bathroom at the time as well, maybe taking a wiz. Principle Skinner is automatically going to suspect Bart, not Milhouse.
Why in the world is Udgaard under Arbiter "protection"?
Because Loke wants it that way.
Why do the Arbiter laws not apply to acts of open murder and agression?
They do, but "wanted 345.cityguard y" would be silly. AND cityguards are acting in a manner which defends the integrity of the city so Arbiters aren't likely to care much.
Are we supposed to somehow view the Enforcer and guards as "sentient" or "non sentient"?
View all mobs as sentient.
It seems like it is inconsistent, and goes both ways, depending on what the Immortal wants at that moment. Why *aren't* these people restricted under Arbiter Law?
Because they work under City Law which is a separate entity from Arbiter Law. Cityguards work towards their own goals, and as a part of the agreement with the Arbiters to protect the Arbiter Law as well.
What IC reason is there for that??
That's been explained.