Can we have some clarification on the laws applied to ignite? It is common practice that outlanders get their warrant for igniting the cities. The law #3 is applied, with ignite counted as offensive (or harmful) power even though unlike fireball the skill itself is not harmful.

Considering the harm done is indirect and does not match the given examples, could help laws be adjusted to address this ambiguation?

The second law applies and I'm perfectly happy with the language (specifically, "... or harmful powers ..."). Thanks, though.

gr

Gr

My suggestion is about making it clear in a helpfile that damaging the city itself is a crime. By the way, through this vandalize may also become a felony.

Nt

A lot of undesirable recessive traits would be eliminated

The fires can do damage to anyone who stands in them.

As it is now, ignite is definitely a grey area. My suggestion is about fixing a help file so it is not, not about decriminalizing ignite.

I thought trolls were afraid of fire.

>As it is now, ignite is definitely a grey area. My suggestion
>is about fixing a help file so it is not, not about
>decriminalizing ignite.

2. No offensive area spells or harmful powers will be used in any protected
area. This includes area spells from charmed, summoned or attacked
creatures.

I really have no idea how you came to that determination.

>I really have no idea how you came to that determination.

Well ignite is definitely not an offensive area spell. And the damage is indirect and postponed and may even be beneficial if firetap is utilized, so the definition of "harmful power" seems to be somewhat stretched here. Following this logic to the extremes, I might warrant people for slowing their trusting groupmembers, because slow can definitely be considered a harmful power.

Once again, I'm not advocating that outlanders should not be marked for arson. I'm suggesting making the helpfile more clear, for example with:

No offensive area spells or harmful powers will be used in any protected area. This includes creating various harmful conditions and also area spells from charmed, summoned or attacked creatures.

.

Because it's not life. Judgment and RP should be done based on game rules, not common sense.

Invented by Valg for game economy purposes, fine tuned by crazies every year ever since.

Between game rules and common sense, game rules have priority.

If game rules match common sense - Lord be praised, if they don't - see the earlier.

There is an obvious reason why the laws are vague. Offensive area spells or harmful powers covers pretty much anything that someone MIGHT try to get away with. Which is why we do not have a list of every harmful power in the game listed or a crazy amount of explanations. Otherwise you would run into situations like "Hey, fireball was not on the list of offensive area spells. Why did you warrant me?"

You could totally try to follow that logic to the extremes, but I think you'd get kicked out of Tribunal because the cabal would expect you to exercise common sense of a magistrate IC. If you don't understand what that means, I suggest you play one and learn from other people.

I just thought that ignite was kind of unique.

1. Murder, Theft and Looting in a protected city are against the law. This
includes looting the pit of equipment that is not your own. You will be held
responsible for your groupmate's actions.

2. No offensive area spells or harmful powers will be used in any protected
area. This includes area spells from charmed, summoned or attacked
creatures.


murder implies killing, otherwise it is attempted murder. if you get away, i didn't murder you. pincer is not a spell or harmful power. i've always said that the laws need updating to include 'Attacking' or 'Trying To Hurt'. 'Harming' is not sufficient enough because i could try to cranial you, miss, and one of us flee and you still be perfect health.

anyway. food for thought. and yes i have argued the above just for the fun of it.

I also find that amusing coming from the Outlander perspective. Arguing a point like that in game is fine as an Outlander. To argue it as a Magistrate, I'd be concerned that the direction of the character is not going to go in the direction you want it to.

It is the same for you missing a blackjack. If they flee before any attacks are made, is it really attempted murder? It does initiate combat. There are also a couple different things to keep in mind as well. What is the Tribunal's definition of Murder? Does attempted murder fall under its definition? I'd assume yes. Still an interesting thought.

Regardless, it is fun to make the arguments and keep things playful IC.

There are some roles, however, that do not allow for that kind of communication. I couldn't mock trib decisions as Gromm, for example, because the laws were non-existent for the character, cities were just hunting grounds made of stone. The character did not comprehend reason behind manacles.

It's totally fun to play that angle as a character with more social intelligence though.