Posted by Oft-Arbiter on May 5, 2000 at 14:53:47:
In Reply to: Re: ideal vs the real posted by SphereMaker(IMM) on May 5, 2000 at 14:36:23:
> > Therefore, arbiters should and do have jurisdiction over the guards of the city. It's not a question of "power", but of consitency.
>
> The consistency is that the citizenship of a given city is what Arbiters are given authority over. They aren't given authority over the military force of the city, nor over the ruling body.
>
> In this case, if a cityguard or other military official were to break city law, they'd be tried by a military court, not by the Arbiter cabal; and the punishment would likely be more severe, depending on the ruling body.
>
> > It's not that one set of people are exempt or beyond the reach of the law.
>
> They're still subject to city law (see above).
>
> > 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.
>
> I disagree strongly. If it is legal for paladins to be killed in Udgaard, then class matters (for example). I think you're talking about an idealization of law and not about this FRP world we've created.
>
> > To be really consistent, arbiters should not flag people for attacking paladins in udgaard.
>
> Certainly they cannot flag the Udgaard military for attacking paladins in that city, because of the reasons above. As to whether they would choose to flag or not flag the citizenship itself, that's a matter of Arbiter policy. I doubt the Jaettes would care one way or the other.