Brawl

[Sephiroto]

Why should brawling be restricted to taverns only?  I understand that the code would have to be changed, but couldn't something more general be  written up so that people could fight in the streets or the wild without getting tossed into jail?  We have a hit and a kill command?  Why not just make "kill" the only one of the two that initiates combat?

I can just see the Bynners brawling in the barracks or the training yard after a match.

[RunningMountain]

Re-do the crim-code. I don't care about brawling.

[Maybe42or54]

I would like it like this.

Any time both combatants are unarmed, it would trigger the brawl code, wherever.

That'd be awesome.

[Hexxaex]

Yep, I'd love to see city brawls.  If one combatant was killed or seriously hurt, then the other would get a crim-flag, just as they should if they're wielding weapons and make attacks.

[I]

Yep, I'd love to see city brawls.  If one combatant was killed or seriously hurt, then the other would get a crim-flag, just as they should if they're wielding weapons and make attacks.

I don't think you can kill or really injure somebody if you're unarmed unless you keep hitting "kill man" over and over again. But yea, I'd love for this to be put into the game.

[Anonymous]

Totalitarian regimes aren't normally big on civil disorder.

[Agent_137]

but it should be expanded to alleyways and such.

[Rindan]

but it should be expanded to alleyways and such.

It isn't.  Gutting or beating someone up in an alleyway will get roughly the reaction you would expect.  If I have any complaint against Allanak as it is set up currently, it is that it has far too few alleyways.

[Armaddict]

Totalitarian regimes aren't normally big on civil disorder.

I agree, but I think there are side effects that come into play.  I'm very tired and heading to bed, but we'll just see if you guys have the same opinion as me on these two points.

1.  They hate civil disorder, but they aren't so completely and brutally efficient with keeping it quelled, either.  The soldiers are quick to put it down, so in the presence of a soldier, peace is pretty close to insured.  This is pretty well reflected as is.

2.  This is the big one.  As a result of the totalitarian rule, the general populace, outside of the controlling powers army, is not concerned with actively preventing crime unless it affects them personally.  They are also encouraged not to become vigilante, or actively try to help with justice, since that is the job of the soldiers.  As a result, you see people becoming less involved in things they see, unless they have a reason to get involved.  For this reason, I'm of the opinion that the chance of getting crimflagged outside of the view of soldiers should at least give you a significantly better chance of getting away.  As was discussed in the masks thread...most bystanders simply aren't that good at getting a good description of an offender, and when you have a less involved populace, that's magnified.

[Cale K'night]

I just wish I could choose to brawl anywhere. It doesn't make sense that if I type "hit joe" in the Gaj I'm just punching him in the face, but if I type "hit joe" just outside the Gaj, I'm trying to murder him.

[jmordetsky]

I posted something on brawl everywhere a long time ago. I'm still in full favor. (and in favour of removing room based echo's).

Two chars out in the sands should be able to get into a fist fight and not completely kill one another, same for the streets of allanak.

Also, in regards to alleys and crimcode. Yes and Yes. Allanak is a big, sprawling, filthy city where the poor is generally disregarded and trodden upon by the rich. There should be more alley ways and sections in the main of Allanak that have a more "Rinth" quality to them. We need more lawless ghettos in allanak.

[Ghost]

Yep, it would be cool if we had "hit" always starting brawl and "kill" always starting fight to death.  And by saying that, I mean "hit" would start brawl no matter where you are, so yes, "Brawl everywhere" (and be happier).

Or if not brawl, hit at least could start a one round combat and then leave.

[Manhattan]

it's a code thing.

[marko]

In both Citystates it is against the law to brawl or fight in the street and / or in public places.

Each of the Citystates maintains a constant state of martial law.

Patrols of soldiers and templars sweep the populated areas at all times.

The populace in each Citystate, for one reason or another, is afraid of the lawmakers but will also squeal on anyone that breaks the law (mainly because if they don't - then they are considered accomplices to the law breaking and are therefore punished as well).

Therefore, the brawl code should not be expanded to all parts of a city.  If you want to get into a fight and kill someone - kill them.  If you want to get into a fight and beat them into submission - kill them with mercy on.  Either way, you are breaking the law and are going to jail unless you resist arrest.

Allanak's oppression is in plain sight - it is brutally delivered and fast.

Tuluk's oppression is more low key - it is kept out of sight as people just 'vanish' after breaking the law.  

Both of the Cities will not tolerate fighting in the street.  To me thinking that open fighting on the streets would be tolerated in small-scale fights is not grasping the situation in either city.  A small-scale brawl in the street could very easily lead to a large-scale riot.  Therefore, small-scale brawls are crushed immediately and any instigators will be thrown in jail (at minimum).

[Armaddict]

In both Citystates it is against the law to brawl or fight in the street and / or in public places.

Each of the Citystates maintains a constant state of martial law.

Patrols of soldiers and templars sweep the populated areas at all times.

The populace in each Citystate, for one reason or another, is afraid of the lawmakers but will also squeal on anyone that breaks the law (mainly because if they don't - then they are considered accomplices to the law breaking and are therefore punished as well).

Therefore, the brawl code should not be expanded to all parts of a city. If you want to get into a fight and kill someone - kill them. If you want to get into a fight and beat them into submission - kill them with mercy on. Either way, you are breaking the law and are going to jail unless you resist arrest.

Allanak's oppression is in plain sight - it is brutally delivered and fast.

Tuluk's oppression is more low key - it is kept out of sight as people just 'vanish' after breaking the law.

Both of the Cities will not tolerate fighting in the street. To me thinking that open fighting on the streets would be tolerated in small-scale fights is not grasping the situation in either city. A small-scale brawl in the street could very easily lead to a large-scale riot. Therefore, small-scale brawls are crushed immediately and any instigators will be thrown in jail (at minimum).

Quote:
Totalitarian regimes aren't normally big on civil disorder.


I agree, but I think there are side effects that come into play. I'm very tired and heading to bed, but we'll just see if you guys have the same opinion as me on these two points.

1. They hate civil disorder, but they aren't so completely and brutally efficient with keeping it quelled, either. The soldiers are quick to put it down, so in the presence of a soldier, peace is pretty close to insured. This is pretty well reflected as is.

2. This is the big one. As a result of the totalitarian rule, the general populace, outside of the controlling powers army, is not concerned with actively preventing crime unless it affects them personally. They are also encouraged not to become vigilante, or actively try to help with justice, since that is the job of the soldiers. As a result, you see people becoming less involved in things they see, unless they have a reason to get involved. For this reason, I'm of the opinion that the chance of getting crimflagged outside of the view of soldiers should at least give you a significantly better chance of getting away. As was discussed in the masks thread...most bystanders simply aren't that good at getting a good description of an offender, and when you have a less involved populace, that's magnified.

Even today, with instant radio communication (which is, I daresay, faster and more convenient than the way), guns, cameras, etc...martial law isn't -this- effective.  With an flawed criminal code that makes it so brutally efficient simply because it's programmed that way, with no variance, and pretty much requiring some form of code abuse or some such to get around, different coding should be put in place to reflect the ability to get around it.

As stated above...no system is -this- perfect.

[sarahjc]

Alleyways, the rooms directly outside taverns, fire pits, and anyplace communal except the nicer taverns, where it should be outside.

[moab]

The argument that the city-states suppress civil disorder so there should be no brawl code is invalid.

Better to say:
The city-states want to suppress civil disorder so they are inclined to treat public brawling harshly.

It is realistic to have brawling be an option - everywhere - and then have code in place that will treat the offenders realistically.

Brawling in a public area in broad daylight should have realistic consequences, resulting perhaps in a beheading or arrest if caught while brawling in a dark place with few guards should result in little of anything but a few bruises with potential to escalate into something more deadly should someone choose to go there.

You don't make things realistic by eliminated players options, you make them real by providing realistic and logical feedback for their choices.

[Anonymous]

Brawling in a public area in broad daylight should have realistic consequences, resulting perhaps in a beheading or arrest if caught while brawling in a dark place with few guards should result in little of anything but a few bruises with potential to escalate into something more deadly should someone choose to go there.

You don't make things realistic by eliminated players options, you make them real by providing realistic and logical feedback for their choices.

Isn't that the way it currently is, or is that your point?

If you brawl in the streets you'll probably get tossed in jail, maybe more depending on the chain of events.

I also think that in a police state citizens would be looking for a reason to rat on their fellow citizens if only to stay on good footing with all those armed and menacing looking guards around, so getting crim-flagged right away from brawling doesn't bother me.

I guess that I just don't understand people's desire for the brawl code to be more pervasive.  I've brawled in public areas when the situation called for it.

> nosave on
> hit jackass

[marko]

The argument that the city-states suppress civil disorder so there should be no brawl code is invalid.

Better to say:
The city-states want to suppress civil disorder so they are inclined to treat public brawling harshly.

It is realistic to have brawling be an option - everywhere - and then have code in place that will treat the offenders realistically.

Brawling in a public area in broad daylight should have realistic consequences, resulting perhaps in a beheading or arrest if caught while brawling in a dark place with few guards should result in little of anything but a few bruises with potential to escalate into something more deadly should someone choose to go there.

You don't make things realistic by eliminated players options, you make them real by providing realistic and logical feedback for their choices.

This works in practice right now.  Wait for a patrol of soldiers to pass by and then kill someone.  You get to fight it out - and if you are careful, you won't go to jail.  

I'm not sure I'm grasping why there needs to be brawl code to do this.  Either way, fighting in the streets is against the law and subject to penalty.

Therefore, what you are saying is just a matter of semantics - whether or not the code is 'brawl' or just normal combat the end result is the same.  You are breaking the law and thus subject to how the law treats lawbreakers.

The other issue that is being discussed is the criminal code system itself and that is a completely seperate beast.

[moab]

The brawl code is different than the kill code.

I thought we all understood that?

[marko]

The brawl code is different than the kill code.

I thought we all understood that?

The only technical difference with the brawl code is that it does not flag you as a criminal.  If you are going to make brawling have law consequences then it becomes like normal combat.  Just use the current combat system the end result is the same.

On way you pummel the guy to bits and pieces and leave them unconscious (mercy on).

The other way you kill them (mercy off).

The way I read this thread is that people wanted the brawl code to be more pervasive so they would be able to fight without law implications everywhere.  The problem with that is that it is against the law to fight in public.

[Anonymous]

I agree with marko completely, but I'll just add that I can at least see the reasoning behind brawl code being in place in a tavern because it's out of the way.  I can't come up with a reason why soldiers would overlook full-on brawling in the streets so I don't think the brawl code should be extended.

It's not about compassion or a desire for peace, it's about keeping the population under control because I think it's easy to see how open brawling can turn into a mob riot which would be a bad thing.  (Although incredibly awesome to be a part of as a player I bet.)

[moab]

Ah!  I thought brawling prevented deaths, so sorry.
:-(

[kelviksson]

The subject of brawling hits on other ones, it's nearly impossible to do much combatting in the city, or else you get...

<The massive half-gaint vicously slashes your neck> (repeat repeat)
and sometimes you can throw a mantis face in at the end.

It is not realistic that in a city like allanak, the populace could be monitored so close as to see that commoners have been brawling without weapons. Isn't that a day-to-day occurance in a remorseless city on a harsh planet where death is natural?

Now I understand that large brawling should be suppressed by the guards, however I thinks it's ridiculous when you see guards come in in 3/4 of the places in allanak and stop any fighting. If you look at the descriptions in most rooms, the roads are packed with people, and there's plenty of quarrelling.

I think brawling should be restricted on streets near the noble's quarters and meleth's circle. but perhaps the guards could be coded to ignore brawling of up to 4 people on commoner roads. And then if a 5th person is engaged in brawling in the same room, the guards would be set to come in and break it up between everyone.

Maybe that's difficult to program, but I do think an attempt should be made to work on the limits of brawling in the cities.

[Anonymous]

It is not realistic that in a city like allanak, the populace could be monitored so close as to see that commoners have been brawling without weapons. Isn't that a day-to-day occurance in a remorseless city on a harsh planet where death is natural?

I agree that it's not completely realistic, however I do think of Allanak as a police state.  When you factor in that, I believe, the majority of the populace are slaves who are probably less likely to start a brawl then it seems a little more likely.  

I don't think that death and brawling would be a regular occurance in Allanak.  You've got a sorceror king looking over everyone from his tower and his mystic templars out walking the streets.  If people were afraid to cause trouble Germany because of the SS how much moreso would they be afraid to do things in Allanak?

Lastly I think the brutal efficiency of the crimcode is a requirement for a PK RPI otherwise you have people ending other people's hard work on a whim by killing off a PC just because.  At least the crimcode forces some degree of planning and possible RP interaction for would-be killers.