The difference between players and characters.

The difference between players and characters.:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on July 8, 2000 at 13:29:41:

In Reply to: It has every thing to do with your point.... posted by Eric Prothero on July 8, 2000 at 12:59:38:

Actually, the intention -is- to punish the characters. The player is doing nothing wrong by breaking the laws of the Arbiter cabal. It may well be within his/her role to do so. This is an IC issue, not a cheating issue. There is no need to punish the player.

Now, you may have noticed that [FINED] is only for very minor offenses, committed by people without an extensive record.

If you've ever played an Arbiter, you've encountered situations where a person should be flagged, even though they were not intending to commit a crime. Let's say a [WANTED] person attacks a Dawnie bard in town. The bard panics, and uses an offensive song just as the Arbiter arrives. The Dawnie is out of the Arbie's range, and no mobs were around to be harmed by the song, only the [WANTED] person who initiated the fight. The criminal is now chased away.

Does the Dawnie deserve a death sentence? According to current Theran law, he does. Under the system proposed, the Arbiter could judge the Dawnie, see that their record is clean, and 'fine dawnie y' as a warning of sorts. If the Arbie judged, and saw that the Dawnie had a number of fines already, it might be bumped up to a [MONITORED] or [BANISHED].

While being [FINED] isn't a very harsh penalty (although it should be quite a bit of money), you'd only be able to get it a few times.

The system, like any legal system dependent of judges, allows for some flexibility in sentencing. This is both useful in terms of game balance, and allowing Arbiters to roleplay a character with leanings towards mercy or justice, if they wanted to. Right now, I don't think it is truly possible to roleplay a LG Arbiter without compromising. The system, as written, is LN as best, perhaps even LE, especially if intent no longer matters.

As to the complaint about judge only works locally: If an Arbiter asks an accused to present himself for judging, and he refuses to cooperate, then a [WANTED] flag is in order. This system is intended to make life easier for Arbiters and (mostly) law-abiding citizens, not people who want to break the law and get away with it. (That is easy enough.)

Follow Ups:

Your sorta makig my point here... Eric Prothero 14:31:01 7/8/2000 (1)
- I don't know what I just read but the reply above has nothing to do with your post above it. I can see your point with the Bard Analogy. N/T Eric Prothero 15:04:23 7/8/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> Actually, the intention -is- to punish the characters. The player is doing nothing wrong by breaking the laws of the Arbiter cabal. It may well be within his/her role to do so. This is an IC issue, not a cheating issue. There is no need to punish the player. > Now, you may have noticed that [FINED] is only for very minor offenses, committed by people without an extensive record. > If you've ever played an Arbiter, you've encountered situations where a person should be flagged, even though they were not intending to commit a crime. Let's say a [WANTED] person attacks a Dawnie bard in town. The bard panics, and uses an offensive song just as the Arbiter arrives. The Dawnie is out of the Arbie's range, and no mobs were around to be harmed by the song, only the [WANTED] person who initiated the fight. The criminal is now chased away. > Does the Dawnie deserve a death sentence? According to current Theran law, he does. Under the system proposed, the Arbiter could judge the Dawnie, see that their record is clean, and 'fine dawnie y' as a warning of sorts. If the Arbie judged, and saw that the Dawnie had a number of fines already, it might be bumped up to a [MONITORED] or [BANISHED]. > While being [FINED] isn't a very harsh penalty (although it should be quite a bit of money), you'd only be able to get it a few times. > The system, like any legal system dependent of judges, allows for some flexibility in sentencing. This is both useful in terms of game balance, and allowing Arbiters to roleplay a character with leanings towards mercy or justice, if they wanted to. Right now, I don't think it is truly possible to roleplay a LG Arbiter without compromising. The system, as written, is LN as best, perhaps even LE, especially if intent no longer matters. > As to the complaint about judge only works locally: If an Arbiter asks an accused to present himself for judging, and he refuses to cooperate, then a [WANTED] flag is in order. This system is intended to make life easier for Arbiters and (mostly) law-abiding citizens, not people who want to break the law and get away with it. (That is easy enough.)

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