Posted by Klaak on July 8, 2000 at 15:25:20:
In Reply to: I can clear it up for you posted by Imbrogno on July 8, 2000 at 13:51:09:
> From one of the books in the Hall > "On occasion, a criminal will try and hide in their cabal. Arbiters may chase the criminal inside, forcing their way in if necessary, but members of that cabal are allowed to defend their territory. This means that if the Arbiter or his guards come under attack while inside the foreign Cabal, the Arbiter may not brand the attacker as a criminal. It is always a crime to provide direct assistance to a criminal, however, no matter the location. Thus, if the criminal's cabal-mates provide direct assistance to him or her(such as healing, rescuing, re-equipping while still flagged, etc.) they are also to be branded as criminals. Note that standing at a cabals outter guardian, whether in combat or not, constitutes being inside and falls under the above exceptions." > As you can plainly see, a cabalmate can not be flagged for protecting his territory unless he provides direct assistance. In the case of the ragers this might include a defender using field dressings on the criminal and so on. A person can NOT be flagged simply for attacking an arbiter that is attacking their outer guardian. > Kopentol's policy used the fact that the above clause makes it clear that those provisions are only in effect when there is a criminal hiding in the cabal. Therefore, he made it so that an Arbiter could flag, say a rager for example, for defending the massive giant if the Arbiter was trying to retrieve the book.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about being a problem with the arbs. An evil or neutral arb could do this justifiably because they have no moral limitations on their interpretations of the laws. The laws reguarding raids were not intended to say it's wrong to flag when raiding for a criminal, but ok to flag when raiding for the book. This is looking SOLEY at the word of the law, and not the spirit of the law. It doesn't "make it clear that they are only in effect when a criminal is inside" it says that they are in effect when a criminal is inside, but it does NOT say that they are NOT in effect at other times. It simply doesn't say antying about other times. Now, that may have been left like that intentionally to leave room for interpretation, but such interpretations should be made based on the moral convictions of the arb in the situation, not on the moral convictions of the arb who comes up with the most sly interpretation. An evil or neutral arb can interpret a law in the most uncarring and subvertive way they can think of, whereas a good arb would be more limited in their decision, based on their want for benevolence. Kopentol (if I recall correctly) was not a good aligned arb, and thus should not make this idea a manditory policy for all arbs, good neutral and evil, but more as one possibly interpretation to be viewed differently by those involved. Now he could say, this is the way it should be done (that being his opinion), but I see nothing that says someone of a differing moral opinion can't disagree with that. This is the biggest problem I have with the arbs. Hell, they are split up into the varying alignments for a reason. An good arb is DEFFINATELY supposed to view the laws differently than an evil one. The good arb is supposed to uphold the laws because they believe it's the best for all those involved, and tollerance is sometimes needed to be just and fair. An evil arb only cares about the laws to advance themselves, and have no further use but to bend and twist and interpret them however they need to accomplish their goals. A neutral arb is free to determine for themselves which is the best way, but being lawful, they should choose one, and then stick with it. Not bouncing from one to the other as they see fit. That would be chaotic, and not structured in the least. Good arbs should not be sharing the same view as Kopentol in the flagging when raiding for the book. That view is the view of a neutral arb, and not morally agreeable with a good arb. Good arbs who see the laws and act upon them like a neutral or evil arb should begin to shift alignment according to their actions. Evil arbs who see and act upon the laws in the way of a good or neutral arb should likewise begin to shift alignment according to their actions.