The cityguard yells 'The criminal PALADIN is here at Sumner's Crossroads! PROTECT THE INNOCENT!!'
The cityguard's kicked dirt misses PALADIN.
PALADIN's wrath MANGLES the cityguard!

civilized <240hp 316m 449mv 4079tnl (71.73%) 1
The rain ceases.

civilized <257hp 324m 488mv 4079tnl (71.73%) 11 AM
You yell 'Die, PALADIN, you sorcerous dog!'
PALADIN narrows her eyes and glares in your direction.
PALADIN's heavenly wrath MASSACRES you!
PALADIN is in perfect health.

civilized <185hp 324m 488mv 4079tnl (71.73%) 11 fle
PALADIN's wrath DISMEMBERS the cityguard!
PALADIN's wrath MASSACRES the cityguard!
The cityguard is DEAD!!
The cityguard's head is shattered, and her brains splash all over you.
PALADIN gets 2 silver coins from the burnt corpse of the cityguard.
PALADIN gets 12 copper coins from the burnt corpse of the cityguard.
PALADIN sacrifices the burnt corpse of the cityguard to the gods.
Your blast injures PALADIN.
Your blast mauls PALADIN.
PALADIN has a few scratches.


----

Something needs to be done. If immortals are going to demote/actively punish characters who break things like: Imperial Law... then there needs to be a bigger active approach and punishment for KILLING goodies. Note the classy loot of coins.

Poor guy.

This should equate to empowerment removal. Why? Because the paladin made a choice to become wanted and not actively suffer the consequences of character choice.

This has been on my list of ####ty play for a long time. Yes, I played a Fort recently and never was able to not hunt and do such display of incorrect action.

Thoughts from the playerbase?

n/t

First of all, this isn't Dungeons & Dragons and Paladins are not required to be "Lawful Good." Furthermore, "Orderly" is not really the same as "Lawful."

Secondly, if the character in question is actually a Maran, or on that path, their primary focus is to destroy Darkness. In attempting to achieve that goal, a given character may take the tack that almost anything goes in pursuit of that end-result. If this means that a cityguard must die, so be it.

Obviously this isn't how a Baer Pally would approach things, but who's to say that this was one of hers?

The good news is that there's something in the game to balance out the single-mindedness of the Maran. They're called Acolytes.

If you think a given Maran is too bloodthirsty or, worse, in danger of becoming like those he seeks to destroy, take it up with an Acolyte and hopefully they'll steer the (possibly) straying Knight back to the "right" path.

Also, it was my take (with my Maran, who was N/G) that there was really nothing wrong with being warranted, but I'd generally turn myself into the next Lightwalking Magistrate I saw.

And, dude, deal with this stuff in game.

I know Lian has taken a direct approach in his helpfile. But the rest is lacking.

A paladin does not kill cityguards in pursuit of killing evil. The code even mentions it.

My thoughts are you prayed about this and you didn't like the answer you got so now you're fishing for a different one.

nt

I wouldn't unempower someone for managing to kill two good mobs (that we can see he didn't intentionally attack) in his whole life, given that almost every good character kills more of them.

Did he chose to become wanted?

That is the question you have to ask yourself. At what point is a character responsible for his actions?

There is an edge now that helps. he does not have it. He is not qualified to take such risks. Oh wait, it isnt a risk now?

He is an empowerment character. The restriction on empowerment class exists. Since when was a Paladin Chaotic in tendancies?

Just saying.

You don't know if the Paladin is also a Maran. Certain non-Maran paladins can have a philosophy of 'acceptable sacrifice' and still remain empowered.

I also wouldn't expect Squires to be penalized for that behavior rather than chastised.

Finally if it worked the way you wanted no one in Fortress would have fun. As much as that idea appeals to me, making their hands mechanically tied by their RP isn't the way I want to go about doing that.

It's a ####ing cityguard. Why aren't you rolling up a paladin with the intent to siphon off his power and rewards from his God for yourself? He's not exactly waltzing around Evermoon slaughtering wood-elves. A goodie healer had to be unempowered for exactly that but THAT is the amount of RP infraction you need to lose empowerment, a clear pattern of egregious behavior over the long term.

10 low level random goodie mobs as collateral damage in Galadon is not going to get anyone penalized for poor RP ever. Hell, the (not wanted) Bandit King of Hamsah Mu'Tazz knocked me out, then attacked my freaking Tribunal Conjurer's ice devil at the southern crossroads with the intent to knock it out and kill me. It tracked him into the city's southern gate and killed him in melee. I was neither punished for nor lectured on this turn of events because it was a one off deal and not an egregious violation of the spirit of the laws.

P.S. I am ignoring him being WANTED because it's not relevant to the point Daevryn wants to make but has no way of doing so without banning you from the forum.

The immortals want them that way. Not my fault, bro.

The paladin code says to have temperance basically. Thought before bloodshed.

It is as it is. You either play the role you suffer a penalty.

But appears it is not that way. And you did not properly counter any of my points.

I'll remember this for my next Maran though. Don't gotta care about the scene(cityguards) like I always have in the past with characters who should care about it.

Not sure how your Evil conjurer thing fits in at all.

My evil conjurer fits because it's the theme of overall enforcement of roleplay, not your twisted draconian "oops i ####ed up time to lose all my skill percentages for a week and regain them" Village methodology. (And even this only occurs when idiots toe the line Jerrokrar-style but are otherwise decent Ragers, not because they are levelling on non-mage mobs)

And I think they should be equivelent. You abuse the laws of the spire/roleplay.. you suffer. Same should be true for Maran/paladin.

And believe me, the Imms have ways of knowing every time a crime is committed in a protected city of any kind ever even if a player never notices. Twist has pulled that exact stunt using those alerts on my High Priestess in Empire regarding a Scion attack in Seantryn. Actually acting on that information is a different story entirely.

Point being a single, or even a small handful of skeevy incidents does not an RP enforcement hammer make, IC or OOC.

The player chose to become wanted. It ends right there. Either you have the mechanism to ensure you do not slaughter goodies and loot their coins or you do not. You make the decision to get wanted.

You look to your code and you asked yourself: Is this a time I use patience before bloodshed or bloodshed for the greater good without demeaning my entire purpose?

He chose to become wanted and failed to live a continued life waranted with no punishment for slaughtering goods and looting their coins.

So too the cityguard decided to attack the paladin. Cityguard's choice. He could have recognized that his service to the Spire was, on the balance, serving the ends of the wicked and stayed his hand. He didn't, and ended up paying the price. Or, failing that, he could have realized, "There is absolutely no point in me attacking this paladin because it will only result in my death." But, zealous servant of the Spire that he is, he attacked anyway.

You seem to want to lay 100% of the "blame" for the encounter on the paladin. To me, that represents a somewhat OOC awareness that the mob is a "mob" and can't make decisions on its own. In the context of CF the mob is a sentient being who can choose to attack or not to attack.

btw, would you fault a fortress-minded young adventurer for choosing to study conjuration because it might bring him into conflict with a good-aligned battlerager or outlander who might, in the course of that conflict, die? I mean, it was the young adventurer's choice to study conjuration, right? He could have become a healer instead and avoided the conflict altogether. It's not like he didn't know battleragers and outlanders existed before choosing to study conjuration.

See, here again you asked a question and got an answer, you just don't like the answer you're getting.