Posted by Tracker of the Wicked on July 7, 2000 at 13:16:29:
In Reply to: Bah posted by Imbrogno on July 7, 2000 at 11:58:19:
Exactly. That is literally what I said: "That is to be expected." > I believe that the Arbiter cabal, or at least some way of keeping enforcement of the laws in mortal hands, is a necessary part of the Theran World. Policing the major cities IS necessary for roleplaying/balance. Right. *Some* way of enforcing "laws" is beneficial to roleplaying. This is why nearly every city has "city laws". Udgaard doesn't want paladins in town corrupting their young. Galadonian militia rise up and put down miscreants that attack their merchants and guards. These "city laws" are beneficial to both realism and roleplay, as opposed to "Arbiter laws," which I feel accomplish neither. Now, "Arbiter laws" might arguably contribute to game balance in that newbies have a (relatively) safe place to rest - the only balance contribution I can think of off hand, but that contribution does not, in my mind, make up for how they negatively affect the roleplaying of ethos. (An obvious example of this is people acting chaotic, but chose a neutral ethos based on Arbiter testimony and guards assisting). Not realistic at all. That is why we have existing "city laws" in nearly every town and city. Again, the Arbiters are not needed. > If you remove the Arbiters you either have to come up with suitable mortal involved replacement, or you have to beef up security and make flagging automatic. Why? Why does PKing in town need to be policed? As long as it does not spill out into the innocent citizenry (at which point it would involve city law), why must it be restricted? It is so far beyond the realm of reason for you to accept that Thera is an environment where duels are accepted but outright murder of innocent citizenry is policed by local city guards? To leave it to the players to band together and drive that anti paladin out of town that is harassing the mayor? Furthermore, realism is not completely valid to bring up in relation to CF. There are many things about CF that are not "realistic." This, however, is not one of them. If you've truly studied every community since the dawn of time, I'm sure you've come across more than a few that accepted duels between individuals as legal (defunct Arbiter law regulated) and separate from out and out slaughter of citizenry (valid city law regulated). > If you think you'd enjoy automatic flags, beefed up cityguards, and some sort of stalker-like mob that would be sent for you if you escaped the confines of the city in which you committed the crime, I say you're a stone fool. Wrong. That was your suggestion. As far as I am aware, you are, quite literally, the only person to suggest this as an option. I am not calling you a stone fool, of course, but perhaps you should let this idea go. Now, I am not whining, Imbrogno, so please desist in flaming me for it. What I am suggesting is: 1. Burn the Arbiter hall. I feel that this maintains and perhaps would even enhance the level of roleplaying, and that game balance would not suffer (except in the case of the level 13 newbie that needs a relatively safe place to camp). I also feel that the Immortals disagree with all of the above, so writing this is just an exercise, but - you never know.
> Yes, there are certain Arbiters that are generally corrupt. These are usually evil Arbiters, but that's to be expected.
> How realistic is it that there would be a city without some form of policing? How likely is it that numerous merchants, home-owners, and guilds would come together to form a community without some form of protection?
2. Have each city with its own laws and regulations (in the manner of Udgaard and Galadon at present) that are exclusive to mob interaction and do not regulate Playerkilling.
3. That not every guard assists against chaotics. That in some towns they assist against evils, some goods, etc.