Thu Jan 23 07:10:36 2014

At 11 o'clock AM, Day of Thunder, 31st of the Month of the Dark Shades
on the Theran calendar Evelinn perished, never to return.

Man I hated fighting you. You were one of the ones when I was younger there was pretty much nothing I could do to you. Between your monk skills and that damnable essence of faith I could land maybe one out of twelve communes and it usually was nothing that would tip the scales toward my end. You were a powerful and troublesome foe. Well done from the fighting prospective.

GLWYN

I was a champion, but I get the point. Faith as a virtue really shines against Shaman. You can't outlast an elven paladin who is fasting(300+ mana per tick regen while fighting) and the essence makes landing any maledictions a real PITA. The only real question came in if one of us would dispel the other, I often felt if I managed to dispel a shamans sanc, and a got pincer proc it was a done deal.

That last interaction was probably the hardest I've had with any character I've played. I really wanted it to go down a different road, I guess it just wasn't meant to be. I liked Eve, I liked your stance on your religion, and your stance on the code, for the most part.... Honestly it all fell apart, when you, a scribe told me that you would let one of my squires die if they had a wanted flag.... No scribe should ever say that IMHO.

As for my Vendeta, I said it for ONE mouthy ranger, whom I have not seen since, and as I'm sure many of us do, I honestly let it go later as the character matured. But feel free to keep slandering my active character on Dios if it makes you feel better.

I had decided if Fortress was going to go full in fortlander, I was not going to be a part of it. I think I made that pretty clear in my note.

Slander requires that I make a false or defamatory statement. I said you had declared a vendetta against an outlander, then forgotten about it. I've not said any other word to or about you. Your new stance was a bit of a contradiction to this prior statement though, surely you see that?

I didnt change my stance on aiding criminals one iota from my first interview till you got promoted and decided to apparently take issue with it. The law says, aiding criminals is a crime, the code says respect the law. Current spire mortals can interpret the law as they like, Eve choose to follow the letter of the law. Got her into trouble in other ways as well.

>I didnt change my stance on aiding criminals one iota from my
>first interview till you got promoted and decided to
>apparently take issue with it. The law says, aiding criminals
>is a crime, the code says respect the law. Current spire
>mortals can interpret the law as they like, Eve choose to
>follow the letter of the law. Got her into trouble in other
>ways as well.
>

I'm afraid to ask, but what part of that law do you think has room for interpretation?

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.

This has been interpreted to mean that having autoassist on while in a city, and having your group mate struck, makes you responsible for a crime by aiding them. Essentially, you are responsible not for your groupmates actions, but for actions criminals take against them.


3. Aiding known criminals in any way by directly giving them equipment,
helping them to elude punishment, killing tribunal guards, etc. will result in a wanted flag.

This has been interpreted to be a crime only in the protected cities or in the Spire itself.

>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.
>
>This has been interpreted to mean that having autoassist on
>while in a city, and having your group mate struck, makes you
>responsible for a crime by aiding them. Essentially, you are
>responsible not for your groupmates actions, but for actions
>criminals take against them.
>

That's a new one by me.

>3. Aiding known criminals in any way by directly giving them
>equipment,
>helping them to elude punishment, killing tribunal guards,
>etc. will result in a wanted flag.
>
>This has been interpreted to be a crime only in the protected
>cities or in the Spire itself.

This is less of an interpretation and more what is unambigously correct because of how jurisdiction works.

Part of which makes trib fun. At least to me.

>>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.
>>
>>This has been interpreted to mean that having autoassist on
>>while in a city, and having your group mate struck, makes
>you
>>responsible for a crime by aiding them. Essentially, you are
>>responsible not for your groupmates actions, but for actions
>>criminals take against them.
>>
>
>That's a new one by me.
>

Meaning you would not think that having autoassist turned on in a city is a crime if your group mate is struck? This has not always been the case, so my emphasis that this is a mortal interpretation.

>>3. Aiding known criminals in any way by directly giving them
>>equipment,
>>helping them to elude punishment, killing tribunal guards,
>>etc. will result in a wanted flag.
>>
>>This has been interpreted to be a crime only in the
>protected
>>cities or in the Spire itself.
>
>This is less of an interpretation and more what is
>unambigously correct because of how jurisdiction works.

The previous justiciar posted in a note to tribunal that it was his determination that this was not a crime. Thus my statement that this is a mortal interpretation. This has not always been the case in CF.


Here is a contradiction for you from help vindicator which supports the view that aiding criminals to elude justice is the INTENT of the law, but reinterpreted to mean only in cities:

Because it is often unclear whether a Vindicator is on or off-duty, it is NEVER illegal to attack a Vindicator outside of a protected city or the Spire, whether they have guards with them or not. (no emphasis added)

Why is it necessary to say it is NEVER illegal to strike a vindicator/guards outside of a city, if the law does not apply in those places to begin with? This is the kind of language that gives foundation for a legal argument ie, So your testimony is that you didnt induce Mr. Bruiser to beat Mr Shopkeeper? Then why did you feel it necessary to send a text message specifically saying not to KILL him?

Not when your group is attacked. If your groupmate commits a crime by attacking someone in town, then you can be flagged too if you assist them. Think about the spirit of the law.

>Not when your group is attacked. If your groupmate commits a
>crime by attacking someone in town, then you can be flagged
>too if you assist them. Think about the spirit of the law.

This is coming from discussions which took place in my characters life time, I spoke with 3 magistrates, 2 provincials, the provost and Umiron as Eve to confirm and clarify this issue. It is the current interpretation that if you have autoassist turned on and you stand in a city with your group, a criminal walks up to you and attacks them. You are not permitted to assist that group mate via autoassist.

I did this as Eve to aid Faenral versus a wanted criminal in Galadon and was called to account for it by Umiron.

It was against Kwoalewei either shorty after leaving the Spire. I'm a little surprised I didn't actually hear anything about it though. At least... Nobody talked to me about it.

To be fair, I did warn you that it was a crime to strike anyone within the city. You can defend yourself, but you can't strike in the defense of another unless you're a Magistrate or get deputized yourself.

I was just expecting you to keep me healed enough to avoid getting waxed on the battlements to walk Kwoalewei into a bunch of guards.

Edit to add:
And it's only defending yourself when you yourself get struck. If you flee and retaliate, then all bets are off and both parties are criminals.

>Edit to add:
>And it's only defending yourself when you yourself get struck.
>If you flee and retaliate, then all bets are off and both
>parties are criminals.

Agree with all you have said so far as your warning me and the circumstances, as well as retaliation.

In as far as autoassist goes this has not always been the case in cf. Realizing the cabal has changed greatly, I was mortal leader of arbiter at one time (90's) and the autoassist tactic was oft used at that time.

I didnt think about it until reading through this just now, so I havent asked this in game.... However it stands to reason that since I am responsible for my group mates actions. If I am traveling with someone else in a city and a criminal walks up to us and strikes me, if my group mate autoassists and hits that criminal, I am responsible for that violation of the law as well.

Kind of sucks all around. Get attacked and technically you should be wanted, for your group mate being in the default state the game puts him - autoassist ON.

Hmm, well...

" Because this was apparently provoked by Risgran's vendetta against these two outlanders. Which he has forgotten it seems."

I had no vendetta against two outlanders, it was one mouthy ranger(NOT MOG), and it wasn't a vendeta, it was me complaining about his ooc taunts to full me when he killed me the "next time" and honestly it was me venting about him attempting to kill me when I was trying to heal others outside. I had no Vendetta, and honestly, I made no change in my stance of the tree, or anyone who wasn't evil for that matter, that I can remember. If you have a log, feel free to post it, maybe it will jog my memory, but I don't see it the way you did, and thus I call it Slander.

My impression was that they sprung the same trap on you they did on me, hit the maran, sit in the wilderness near the fort. This took place within minutes of your telling me you thought you'd need to kill the ranger till he was dead and/or destroy all his things, then you logged off. To my mind, you had gotten into it with these two, so much so that you were threatening full loot/sac/con deaths to him.

I had no interaction with either of them until this point, they looted nine+ wearables from me, including things they could not use. So I felt it was retribution for whatever you stirred up or your words with them. Worst loot job/gank I've caught in recent times. I dont generally tend to strip people, and i've not loot/sacced anyone since the 90's. So when your sitting there telling me how your orders are to turn the other cheek, you can see I hope how that does not sit well.

You were told your priorities (or rather mine for you) during our talks, and knew that your commitment to the code and your cabal were of the utmost importance.

Your empowerment being dropped was specifically in response to you grouping with an evil person to raid a cabal, though you had a grumpy deity waiting to talk to you about what happened with Fortress too.

I didn't have time to lecture you in person so you got what I thought was a very self-explanatory personal echo that should have clued you in as to what had happened and why, if it wasn't already obvious to you. Besides, I thought you deserved to sweat a little. You deleted a few hours later.

Umiron doesn't ask a whole lot from priests, but if it wasn't clear IC, he does expect them to keep the promises and commitments they make. Evelinn slipped pretty hard on this toward then end. Otherwise, I thought she was a satisfactory supplicant.

EDIT: grammar.

It is reassuring to find that there was some interaction around the loss of empowerment. Thank you for posting this. I specifically reviewed my scroll back at the time but I did not see anything, which was what led me to praying in the shrine and saying as much.

Heroimms cannot really get involved in that kind of stuff that you asked me about last night.

I wanted to give you an answer, but I couldn't because I didn't have the pertinent tools, or capability to do so. Any information I had given you would probably not have been accurate and I did not want to further misinform you. In all honesty I should not have even responded to those questions you asked but you seemed distressed.

I'm not sure if you think there was some wrongdoing toward your character but Paladins have a pretty tough and restrictive set of RP requirements and the part of the paladin code that you broke has absolutely no wiggle-room.

Edit: Not to mention getting involved (even as an Imm, rather than a heroimm) would be treading heavily on the toes of the other Imms which handled the incident.

I know this was not your place, thanks for the reply which you offered.

I do not think there was wrongdoing, quite the opposite. I made an error in judgement, that is clear to me now. The only thing that upset me was not getting any kind of clarification of what I had done. It appears that Umiron provided this, but I did look for this at the time and could not find it.