Sat Jul 6 11:28:41 2013

At 8 o'clock PM, Day of the Moon, 7th of the Month of the Dragon
on the Theran calendar Hrilifaxi perished, never to return.

Thanks to all who took time to interact with me as Hrilifaxi, first time I've hero'ed a character since 1997. I learned quite a bit about the game and saw some explore areas. As I mentioned to Kraldinor at 140 hours... I got frustrated with the lack of virtues on this character. I realize they aren't guaranteed, but I was really struggling to figure out what I was doing wrong. I had a full empowerment, met with Baer, kept trucking and being I thought a good paladin, ran into a stretch of not seeing her visibile around when Oshui died, and got really frustrated with it. Playing a paladin and having to face a shaman with the emperor's powers and no virtues is not something I think anyone would enjoy. The straw that broke my playing this character further was getting a role in Amaranthe's contest, but that got old quick. So I'll take another break from CF and spend more time with my family.

That was definitely an oversight on my part. I think I was waiting for something, though now I can't quite remember what. You did deserve one though and I am sorry that you didn't have one. Please give the game a try again!

>That was definitely an oversight on my part. I think I was
>waiting for something, though now I can't quite remember what.
> You did deserve one though and I am sorry that you didn't
>have one. Please give the game a try again!

Thanks, good to know I wasn't crazy. I should have sought you out, but I wasnt sure how to approach it IC. Then I just figured I had done something wrong, then you growled at me for breaking the law when I hadnt seen you visible in days. I thought you were aware but not answering prayers/not vis, now letting me know you disapproved. Just kind of gave up on virtues at that point.

Curious if you still think I was breaking the law when you growled at me?

The scenario in case it is forgotten was:

A hero range necro was fighting a lower level member of fortress in the warrior guild in galadon. I couldn't group with the fortress member, so I couldn't auto assist him. I didn't attack the necro, I healed the fortress member. The necro fled and left his zombies behind. I asked a member of Tribunal if I could attack the zombies without the Necro present, without breaking the law. Tribunal said I could. The necro returned while I was fighting the zombies, and attacked the lower level fortress member again. The Necro forced the zombies to rescue him, so he could focus on the fortress member. I cast wrath on the necro. Resulting in the necro yelling I was attacking him.

I spoke with Tribunal again and explained the scenario, magistrate did not feel I had broken the law.

I probably was waiting for you to come back and talk to me then. Probably not to ask for a virtue but to talk about exploring the religion some more, show me you were making progress.

We imms have a few channels that tell us when a crime is committed and sometimes it'll show someone attacking when they didn't just because of the way the combat system is coded. It's why I'll usually go with a warning like the growls instead of a punishment unless I see a pattern.

Your situation that you explain was technically breaking the law. If the Trib was giving you permission, they should have also deputized you. If they weren't in jurisdiction they didn't have the authority to make that call.

I can't think of very many roles that aren't tribunal that would permit my character to have such a nuanced understanding of tribunal hoop-jumping. So even if I knew that fact OOC, most of my characters probably wouldn't.

Splntrd

I'm not sure if I'm reading this right, are you saying that you don't think it's common IC knowledge that Tribunals deputize? And that a character required to follow the laws (a Baer paladin) wouldn't be aware of this fact?

I think it's pretty easy to think that if a tribunal asked you for help and said it was okay to attack someone in town, that it isn't a stretch to say that my character would know that even with that verbal permission it's still a crime until deputized.

I'm saying most characters wouldn't know the details of the law. If a tribunal said "this is okay you're not breaking a law", even if it actually isn't okay, I would usually have to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's the expert, not my orc, or my imperial, or my felar.

If I'm a Baer Paladin - how detailed is my knowledge of Spire policies going to be? Typically I think I'm going to know the posted laws, and I'm going to probably have some anecdotal 'common knowledge' type stuff. But being required to follow the laws isn't the same as 'has in-depth knoledge'. He probably has a good working knowledge - but why would it be perfect?

So I can be Baer Paladin, presume to be following the law (as in, I trust this magistrate not to lie to me about it), and accidentally break it, because I didn't know any better and the magistrate lied or himself didn't know any better.

The exceptions would be maybe my role is I'm super serial guy and I invest heavily into knowledge. I'm super smart and I've done the in-depth research and interviewed some magistrates. Or I might be an elf and have just lived long enough to know the details of exactly how deputizations and investigations work. Or maybe I used to be a magistrate.

Splntrd

>Your situation that you explain was technically breaking the
>law. If the Trib was giving you permission, they should have
>also deputized you. If they weren't in jurisdiction they
>didn't have the authority to make that call.

The trib in question was not in the jurisdiction. After the combat ended and you had growled at me, I contacted the provincial magistrate and I truthfully explained the full detail of the situation. He found no crime had been committed.

Could you clarify please:

Killing unattended zombies in a protected area is a crime?

Casting a spell on another player after he is rescued out of combat with you is a crime?

If someone is not in combat and you cast wrath on them (attacking them) to pull them in combat, it's a crime, no? Yes, the laws do say you're responsible for your pets, and that necro clearly should have also been warranted, but even still.

>If someone is not in combat and you cast wrath on them
> attacking them) to pull them in combat, it's a crime, no?
>Yes, the laws do say you're responsible for your pets, and
>that necro clearly should have also been warranted, but even
>still.

This interpretation would make it impossible for a law abiding character to use a targeted spell in a protected area.

I'm bashed by an anti-paladin grouped with a warrior. The anti-paladin has autoassist turned off. I cast wrath targeting the antipaladin by name, but I'm lagged by the bash. During my lag the warrior rescues the anti-paladin, who has autoassist turned off. Under your criteria, because I cast a spell using the persons name rather than targeting the foe I was fighting, I've broken the law? This would fall under the continuation of an event in my mind, it is an unavoidable scenario. It gives a massive advantage to any pet using class versus orderly characters when in protected areas.

crime is a crime, you don't get the luxury of reengaging

you can always use 'hit target';'com wrath'

>crime is a crime, you don't get the luxury of reengaging
>
>you can always use 'hit target';'com wrath'
I meant continuation in the sense that the laws state "Murder, Theft and Looting in a protected city are against the law."...Yet it isnt unlawful to kill another character if you are struck first, zealously defending yourself with malice and forethought so that you kill another character is legal. "Murder" is not specifically defined in the help files of the game. However it is understood in the game to mean any initiating attack, but you are arguing semantics here about my use of 'continuation' so we'll debate what "murder" means. Murder is actually defined in other sources as "unlawfully killing another person". Currently the game mechanics would cause the player who is the aggressor in the situation I described to yell as a result of being struck by a spell in a combat he initiated. My point was that I'd argue when the spell was cast, it was a lawful act - delayed by lag, a continuation of self defense. Generally speaking in the real world the law falls on the side of the defendant, not the aggressor. I'd argue the same case should apply here.

TLDR
My argument is the use of rescue by a third party in a combat initiated by an aggressor doesnt make killing that aggressor now a form of murder, it is a continuation of the same event. Game mechanics currently in place put lawful characters at a disadvantage due to the ambiguous definition of murder.

Wrath hurts

Not shocking based on the frustration we had talked about, though I was hoping you'd keep going (not that I would have let up much). You came to fort during a downswing, but I thought you might be one of the ones to turn it around. Feel free to post logs of the Hamsah incident if you still want to.

>Not shocking based on the frustration we had talked about,
>though I was hoping you'd keep going (not that I would have
>let up much). You came to fort during a downswing, but I
>thought you might be one of the ones to turn it around. Feel
>free to post logs of the Hamsah incident if you still want
>to.

I had a lot of respect for you and the way you played your character. Which developed for the most part after you attacked me in Hamsah, unprovoked. As I said then, I don't think being evil clears you of the need to follow order, in particular as you very much receive your power as a tool of Order.

In my mind an orderly person in Thera:
Follows the law
Does not lie, lying suborns chaos
Accepts that actions have consequences and accepts them
Supports the law as it is a tool of order

I truly believe(now) you made a mistake and didnt realize you were breaking the law when you attacked me. However not being willing to accept the consequences, in this case a wanted flag, does not fit the mold of a lawful character. By breaking IMPERIAL law and leading 3? 4? other imperials in doing so, then not admitting your mistake to the Tribunal, you greatly undermine the respect of those others in the law.

This all happened around when I had killed you (with Oshui & Ekearok) in the Aryth, and you were taunting me constantly. So I at the time definitely felt you were after me personally, and had broken role by attacking me in Hamsah to do it. I'm sorry I lost my cool about it. I'll look and see what I have log wise.


(Edited to clarify, Kraldinor broke not only Tribunal law but imperial law.)

Village had the head and you and Greyjan were helping Arratok defend. You had pulled back at some point. I worded from Arratok and you and Greyjan were sitting at the Hamsah pit and I was struck. I don't have the log but I assumed both of you had attacked. It was a bit of a bang bang moment, so I was just focused on teleporting out before the elf got enough stsf charges to stop me from getting away, so wasn't perhaps catching all the details.

I beleived I had been struck by both, and told everyone I was struck by both. in Kraldinor's mind he thought he had been struck by both, so if the Emperor believes all of this, to the Empire it is true (the Emperor is the final mortal interpratio of Imperial law, if he gets it wrong too often, he likely isn't Emperor very long).

As far as consquences go, the Emperor beleives HE is the supreme law in the land and does not answer to the Tribunals(as evidenced by two Empire/Tribunal Wars during Kraldinor's time, even if the first one did fizzle), so he has no need to turn himself in.

Anyway that is my take on the situation and you may not agree with it, but I wanted to give you my perspective (which I of course think is very reasonable). I could tell you were pretty upset about it at the time (as evidenced by the DIO's post). I doubt you will agree with me, but don't want to leave a festering wound that would prevent you form coming back at some point in the future. I will saw you were pretty unlucky in catching Fort in a downswing.

GLWYN

Thanks for providing your take, I disagree that the Emperor can disregard the tribunal law, violate imperial law as it written, and then lie to avoid the consequences for those actions. I can completely understand that you are the embodiment of the law, but you acted rashly and in error. That act violated an orderly concept you are REQUIRED to support as a LAWFUL character. You can either say, I am lawful and I act within imperial law or tribunal law, but you cannot disregard both.

My opinion is that you're applying an exemption which doesnt exist, your character is lawful. That isnt open for interpretation, the laws of Thera as defined by tribunal are a facet of order in the game. Knowingly breaking the law is a chaotic act, the chaotic nature of this act for members of empire is mitigated by the overriding rule of imperial law. In my opinion breaking the law as an imperial would require a rock solid conviction of need/right to do so. As I saw it at the time, you were attacked by one member of fortress, so you attacked a different member (6 hours game time later) as retaliation. The attack at the temple altar in Hamsah was not a chaotic melee, it was a few rounds of combat between you and a single other enemy of a different class than I am, we have no skills in common, and had different attack types at the time. Zero chance you mistook his lash for my wrath or templar strike, etc... Your explanation is that you thought I had attacked you, I'd like to think that is truthful, but I don't understand how you could make that mistake. I believe you mistakenly attacked me in a protected area, then decided since you'd made the mistake you'd claim it fell under your "imperial law exception".

When I spoke with you and told you that you did not have standing to attack me, your response of 'oops' wasnt adequate. At this point you know you've both broken imperial law and tribunal law. You know you did so without reason and have admitted this mistake. When called to account for a crime, an ORDERLY person accepts that actions have consequences, even for people of great power. I believe it is a defining fact of orderly behavior that action has consequence.

I would hope that you did not lie to the Tribunal when they questioned you on it, but from what I recall they stated you denied it. Again regardless of who you are, lying to avoid the consequences to your actions is chaotic. I cannot say for certain you did this, or simply ignored the magistrate. It isnt being "evil" or that your station allows you to lie to others to avoid the consequences to your actions. You can believe you are the embodiment of imperial law, but if as you said you had made a mistake and that mistake made you subject to tribunal law, then you accept the consequences of that mistake.

To me the severity of the situation was further exacerbated by the fact that you led three other imperials to also violate imperial and tribunal law. Whether you intended it or not, you directly encouraged chaotic acts by orderly characters. When you did this, you suborned chaos. As you later found that you did not have standing under imperial law, their actions were, intentional or not, chaotic and they should have consequence. You should have told them to submit for justice under the tribunal law. The empire is evil, but it is an organization that promotes Order. Promoting order and having four of your members breaking the law(a tenant of order in the game) doesnt seem to jive to me.

I respect your play in a lot of ways but on this I think you are wrong.

was posted but dios mods have deleted it.

"That isnt open for interpretation, the laws of Thera as defined by tribunal are a facet of order in the game. Knowingly breaking the law is a chaotic act..."

I don't think breaking the law is inherently a chaotic act, which is why a number of years ago that ethos was changed from lawful to orderly. Someone could probably pull of a character whose "set structure of beliefs and methods" revolved around destroying the existing law and replacing it with a new one, and if they did a great job sticking to their role, not get changed to neutral.

FWIW, Kraldinor did break Imperial law against me once in a very similar situation -- group mate attacked in town and he attacked me. That was once in almost half a year IRL that we were fighting, and he passed up plenty of juicy opportunities. I believe him when he says he thought he was attacked by both of you. I don't think any Emperor is going to submit himself to Tribunal law -- he's in charge of Thera, they're not -- so if the Empire Immortals give him a pass, he gets a pass.

Wish we would have had more time to talk about Baerinika, by the way.

>"That isnt open for interpretation, the laws of Thera
>as defined by tribunal are a facet of order in the game.
>Knowingly breaking the law is a chaotic act..."
>
>I don't think breaking the law is inherently a chaotic act,
>which is why a number of years ago that ethos was changed from
>lawful to orderly. Someone could probably pull of a character
>whose "set structure of beliefs and methods" revolved around
>destroying the existing law and replacing it with a new one,
>and if they did a great job sticking to their role, not get
>changed to neutral.
>

Thanks for pointing out this change. I can see your example being correct if those beliefs are rigid and codified. As the law is documented in the help files of the game as being a product of Order.(help forces) Being Orderly and violating the law is a conflict.

>FWIW, Kraldinor did break Imperial law against me once in a
>very similar situation -- group mate attacked in town and he
>attacked me. That was once in almost half a year IRL that we
>were fighting, and he passed up plenty of juicy opportunities.
> I believe him when he says he thought he was attacked by both
>of you. I don't think any Emperor is going to submit himself
>to Tribunal law -- he's in charge of Thera, they're not -- so
>if the Empire Immortals give him a pass, he gets a pass.
>

I disagree. The Emperor himself is charged under imperial law with enforcing the law so if he isnt submitting himself to Tribunal law then he needs to have a consequence equal to the act he has committed, under imperial law. He also not set them aside or change them. Per the imperial laws only an Immortal may do this. The laws state all who live in Thera are subject to them, not all who live in Thera except the Emperor. If he knows/acknowledges he has broken imperial law, as Kraldinor did in this case, he is bound to enforce imperial law and punish himself. Only an immortal can mitigate that circumstance.

>Wish we would have had more time to talk about Baerinika, by
>the way.

As do I the debate here has certainly piqued my interest to see if anything comes of the discussion. Though I won't hold my breath.

At least none of the ones I've played, and few of the ones I've played with

>At least none of the ones I've played, and few of the ones
>I've played with

They should care about imperial law though:

4. Order must be maintained within the civilized portions of
the realm so no one will steal or attack anyone within the
Protected Cities of Thera unless the victim is breaking one
of the above laws. If a Citizen is attacked in such an
area, they may retaliate for the time that it takes for
their guildguards to allow them or their prey the protection
of their guild. Also, another Citizen may aid an attacked
Citizen under the same time restraint. A Citizen may not
pursue his victim into a Protected City unless the original
attack occurred within that Protected City.

There's no reason for Tribunal to be involved in that process at all, Tribunal law isn't relevant to Imperials. Not saying there shouldn't have been consequences, but the Tribunal has nothing to do with it.

>There's no reason for Tribunal to be involved in that process
>at all, Tribunal law isn't relevant to Imperials. Not saying
>there shouldn't have been consequences, but the Tribunal has
>nothing to do with it.

Meaning you do not think the imperials should have been asked to submit to Tribunal justice? It is certainly open to interpretation and ultimately it lies with the emperor/council to enforce and determine the outcome of breaking imperial law. I'm arguing this from the basis of order versus chaos. If the empire is a force for order, then the chaotic actions of those involved which violate the empires stated tenants must be punished consummate to that action. In this case those members broke tribunal law without imperial exception and should be punished as such. That is an orderly response.

Imperial law says that the emperor and the council enforce imperial law, so saying "let the gods sort it out" is not a sufficient response, further doing so violates imperial law in that only an immortal may make changes to those laws. The Emperor and council are bound by the law to punish them. In Kraldinor's case, he is bound by imperial law to punish himself. Further Kraldinor making the mistake and declaring that the others could break imperial law doesnt mitigate the guilt of the other members of the cabal, as again only an immortal can set aside imperial law.

The Empire doesn't require citizens to follow tribunal law

>The Empire doesn't require citizens to follow tribunal law

It does require imperial citizens to refrain from murder or theft in protected areas. Murder without the imperial exception of 'you were attacked by this character in town in the last 12 hours.' is illegal under imperial law.

Orderly characters are required to respect the law, read the helpfiles on the order sphere. Rigid rules, respect laws, have a code, these are orderly principles. It seems of late the empire has strayed from being Orderly to being neutral. Great, if that is the case then discard the illusion of promoting order and the restriction of taking Orderly characters.

Orderly characters are not required to respect the law. Try reading the "orderly" help file. An orderly character is not sphere order. Even a sphere order character doesn't necessarily have to follow or respect the law. Just because law is a product of sphere order doesn't mean a sphere order (and especially not an orderly) character has to respect the law.

As someone else said, maybe their ideal of order and/or law doesn't match Tribunal's. It's pretty obvious Empire even fits into that mold.

I think you're way out of line not only telling people how to play their characters, but trying to enforce your ideal of an alignment on everyone else. A set of nine alignments does not even begin the encompass the amount of variety that can be found in different characters. You're unnecessarily limiting both yourself and others by applying such rigid, incorrect assessments of alignment.

>Orderly characters are not required to respect the law. Try
>reading the "orderly" help file. An orderly character is not
>sphere order. Even a sphere order character doesn't
>necessarily have to follow or respect the law. Just because
>law is a product of sphere order doesn't mean a sphere order
> and especially not an orderly) character has to respect the
>law.
>
>As someone else said, maybe their ideal of order and/or law
>doesn't match Tribunal's. It's pretty obvious Empire even fits
>into that mold.
>

I get that, I'm not saying they have to follow the same laws that the tribunal does. However if they are not and they are orderly then they I believe they have to follow SOME law, some code. Imperials have a codified structure, which specifically says ONLY an immortal may change these, everyone must folow them and the emperor/council must enforce them. That is pretty crystal clear.

>I think you're way out of line not only telling people how to
>play their characters, but trying to enforce your ideal of an
>alignment on everyone else. A set of nine alignments does not
>even begin the encompass the amount of variety that can be
>found in different characters. You're unnecessarily limiting
>both yourself and others by applying such rigid, incorrect
>assessments of alignment.
>
>

I'm not trying to enforce my ideal, that implies I'm doing something other than debating the concept here, around a specific incident which involved my character, at the instigators request. This is my characters battlefield post, I think I'm in my rights to respond to those who choose to post on it.

Long thread and I lost the beginning. You're right to discuss it. I still think you're wrong, but your motivations are not what I thought. Apologies.

>As far as consquences go, the Emperor beleives HE is the
>supreme law in the land and does not answer to the
>Tribunals(as evidenced by two Empire/Tribunal Wars during
>Kraldinor's time, even if the first one did fizzle), so he has
>no need to turn himself in.


1. Imperial Law supercedes all other laws of Thera and all who
dwell within Thera are subject to Imperial Law. Only the
will of An Immortal can supercede Imperial Law.


Thinking this over and wanted to review imperial law, The emperor is not an immortal, so he is subject to imperial law, as written. You may think the emperor is the supreme law, but that is not what the text of the game says.

Anyway I won't post again after this, but I really thought you attacked me in town. Beleive it or not, sometimes I miss things during pk, and though it was not chaotic for you, I was wording from a villager that was kicking my ass to land on top of two maran, so it was chaotic for me. Once I realized it was risky to try to make it to the palace from there, my whole focus was flee teleport. I didn't just arbitrarily to decide to come at you in a protected city and didn't think anything otherwise till you started talking about it.

Actually where your log started seemed an odd place, but I can't remember for sure if I was struck at the pit or after moving away from it. At the pit would make sense to catch me in word lag and it would make sense the two of you were there to try to pick off wording imperials (or at least the elf). If that was the case, you would have assisted when the elf lashed me at the pit then turned assist off when he followed wher the log you posted picked up. If I parried everything though, there would not have been a yell.

Reading old PBF comments over the years, it seems typically when an Imperial attacks in town, it merits a PBF comment and watching for trends, but it rarely mentions an IC smackdown unless it becomes a habit. Tribunals are held to a higher standard because their actions (ie flags) have a greater impact on others than getting attacked in town by an Imperial. A Baer paladin might be held to a higher standard because of purity and to differentiate them from other Maran paladins.

I think we disagree on what acceptable behavior for an orderly evil to be. If an orderly good does something wrong, I might expect them to be of the mindset of "I did something wrong, I must be punished." An orderly evil I expect to be looking around and wondering if anyone else saw what he did or trying to figure out what his cover story is to get out of being punished. He hasn't decided he suddenly wants to overthrow society, he just doesn't want to bear repercussions for his actions because he is rather self serving (think politician caught in some scandal). I think we obviously disagree here, and leave it at that.

I appreciate you talking about it here. Purely posting to debate the subject, not out of vitriol. A lot of my comments have been "at the time" versus my current belief. I hope that as you say, you thought I had attacked you and so you retaliated.

I posted the log as I did because the log fiend on Dios wouldn't allow me to post the full content. I'll break it up and post the full log. You have some of the details mixed up. Specifically you were fighting Arratok, Grejjyan and I jumped in. Arratok fled, came back and attacked us. You recalled while fighting only Grejjyan and I. We hunted you to Hamsah, that is when the first log picks up.

I think the behavior you describe is actually Neutral Evil. An orderly person has a code and sticks to it. In the case of imperials this is imperial law or if not then a documented codified version of it.


As Tolgrumm has pointed out, CF has changed the ethos from Lawful to Orderly. I've been under the impression that the Empire is an embodiment of Lawful Evil. Perhaps this is not the case in the current Carrion Fields. I think that may be something for the immortals of the cabal(should there ever be any again) to eventually determine. If we consider that you are not "lawful", but rather Orderly then it seems clear to me that imperials are required to support the tenants of order as documented in the games help files. The help file for Forces states that "Discipline, rigid beliefs, and laws are all products of Order." Are the imperial laws not rigid? Does a disciplined person not accept the consequences of their action? Is breaking the law not going against Order?

Some descriptions of ethos taken from D20srd.org.

"A lawful evil character will keep his word if he gives it and will never lie, although he may mislead or withhold information. "

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts."

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

"Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others."

If you ask me what you describe - a person who does what he wants, when he thinks he can get away with it, then lies about it to cover it up is at best neutral and even verges upon chaotic. Remember the game defines the LAW as a being product of Order. Being Evil doesnt exempt you from following the Law. Morality and Ethos are different concepts.

Kraldinor thought you struck him, and so him retaliating is perfectly within Imperial Law. It's written, until the time you are able to enter you guild again, you are able to retaliate within a town, against someone who strikes you, within the same town.

So yes, he was following Imperial Law as far as he knew.

But Kraldinor's mistake was not that he struck the Paladin in town, but that he entertained the Paladin's claim that the Paladin had not struck Kraldinor in town previously. Now I am done.

>Kraldinor thought you struck him, and so him retaliating is
>perfectly within Imperial Law. It's written, until the time
>you are able to enter you guild again, you are able to
>retaliate within a town, against someone who strikes you,
>within the same town.
>
>So yes, he was following Imperial Law as far as he knew.

He is required to enforce imperial law and punish people who violate it. He did think he was acting lawfully( within imperial law) , but when I spoke to him after the attack he admitted he had made the mistake. At this point he was required under imperial law to punish himself. As imperial law is written... Only an immortal may make changes to imperial law and ALL WHO LIVE IN THERA are subject to it. At that point he now realized he had violated it - and he was the person who under imperial law was charged with enforcing that law. He was charged with determining at that point what punishment is consummate to attempted murder? What punishment is consummate with leading FOUR other members of the empire to violate imperial law? Saying, well some god some time will punish me if they think it is appropriate, is also a violation of imperial law - HE is the enforcer.

Beyond this I'd propose that none of these actions is in keeping with an Orderly character. Kraldinors discussion here makes it clear, at least to me that we have very different views of how an orderly character behaves. I can provide legitimate sources for my definitions of orderly behavior. Kraldinor's response is that he is evil, so being orderly is apparently unimportant, acting 'right' isnt necessary.

Specifically Kraldinor said here he thinks it is acceptable for an orderly character to lie and to break the law when they don't think they'll be caught if it is to their benefit. Not out of an ethical different to those laws but for their own profit. (A lying politician in his example.)

I'd love to hear an argument that explains how either lying, knowingly breaking the law(imperial, tribunal, common law, you name it) for personal gain is in keeping with an Orderly ethos?


Edited for content

I feel like you are lawyering a small, insignificant event because you died. It's like when people come to rager after getting ganked and tell them "hey, bro you aren't being ragery enough."

Accept that your rigid definitions of alignment are not shared by all and that not everyone plays their characters like you would. The game is a lot more fun when you don't try to force people to play like you want them to.

redacted.

>I feel like you are lawyering a small, insignificant event
>because you died. It's like when people come to rager after
>getting ganked and tell them "hey, bro you aren't being ragery
>enough."
>
>Accept that your rigid definitions of alignment are not shared
>by all and that not everyone plays their characters like you
>would. The game is a lot more fun when you don't try to force
>people to play like you want them to.

Actually I wasnt killed by Kraldinor during this incident. Kraldinor inconvenienced me with rot. As he did on probably 20 other occasions in the 2 weeks around this incident. The reason why this incident is being debated is that he has vast advantages over other players. Those advantages come with some specific restrictions specifically imperial law AND an orderly ethos.

If Kraldinor and I only fought on this occasion I wouldn't be here debating this. Of the time I spent at hero level, I'd guess better than 50% of my logins he and I fought 98% of those fights were instigated by Kraldinor. When he choose to raid the fortress, I came and fought him, one of my restrictions was that I would come when he attacked. So on one of the few times I had him at a disadvantage in which he did not die, he choose to violate the strictures of his character to attack me.

For him, I was just a minor character in Fortress. For me he was a constant plague who made playing the game truly without any resemblance of fun. That however is part of his role as Emperor. I don't find any issue with him seeking my death relentlessly, without end. I am here debating the one time that to kill a minor character who opposed him he would violate the documented tenants under which the immortals grant him his powers - and I'm doing that only because he choose to post on my battlefield thread and instigate it.

Also, I can tell you from years of experience, not once has a fort paladin told the truth about attacking me in the city.

Ragers often will, but not paladins I've fought.

If your orderly good with a paladin code isn't expected to, then I find it mind boggling that an orderly evil would be expected to.

Personally I believe krald because I see him observing the law all the time.

One other thing you might find interesting. I played an imperial shadow and the shadow lord (not current one) instructed me to break the law as long as I was never caught doing it.

>Also, I can tell you from years of experience, not once has a
>fort paladin told the truth about attacking me in the city.
>

Sorry to find this out, says something about the state of the game if this is true and happens to you frequently. Personally I have played four paladins past level 25 in the past 18 months, two joined Fortress. On two of those characters I have broken the law (See the discussion above for the most recent incident.) both of them self reported. On neither occasion did the Tribunals choose to warrant for those cases when given a truthful accounting of the events. Unfortunately telling the truth to the current incarnation of Tribunals has some issues, it doesnt always result in the correct result - a wanted flag. On one occasion I even point blank demanded to be flagged for a crime and wasn't.

I will say I'm likely an unusual case as I was a mortal leader of what was then Arbiter for something like 400 hours.


>Ragers often will, but not paladins I've fought.
>
>If your orderly good with a paladin code isn't expected to,
>then I find it mind boggling that an orderly evil would be
>expected to.
>

Here's the thing, a paladin who breaks the code faces his god or the wrath of other immortals. The Code doesnt say 'if you break the code then you are responsible for punishing yourself.' Imperial law DOES say this - The emperor and council are responsible for enforcing and interpreting the law. A paladin keeps to the code because he is orderly, imperials are required to keep to imperial law for the same reason. There is no difference in my mind between a paladin violating the tenants of the code dealing with respecting the law, and an imperial breaking imperial law. Good & Evil do not play into keeping to your ethos.

>Personally I believe krald because I see him observing the law
>all the time.
>

Good, we agree then, he broke imperial law by accident. As soon as I regained the ability to see and was safe I informed him of this. He's admitted his mistake, it isnt in debate. His response to breaking imperial law however is. His response was 'oops, if I do it too often then the gods will punish me.' However I contend that Imperial law says he is responsible for enforcing and interpreting the law...not immortals. It also states he is subject to those laws. He believes since he is the emperor he isnt. This is also directly in conflict with imperial law as it states 'all who live in thera are subject to imperial law' & only immortals may make exceptions to that.

>One other thing you might find interesting. I played an
>imperial shadow and the shadow lord (not current one)
>instructed me to break the law as long as I was never caught
>doing it.

This is exactly my point, Empire is not a force for Order if it's leaders dont understand their responsibilities as regards the rules of their existence. Ethos and Alignment are different concepts, being evil doesnt mean you should be able to disregard the rules and strictures placed on your character and keep the powers that come as a result.