Command: Permission

[Yokunama]

I can only imagine that publicly disregarding the commands of a member of the nobility would get any militiaman in deep, deep weeds.

(emphasis added)

A militiaman in this situation, for all but the most trivial orders, would probably make a show of respecting the noble's wishes, but stall until a templar gets there.

I would agree with you Brytta. Soldiers are not servants of the nobility - They are there to protect them as they would the rest of the city and the citizens within it.  If a soldier was present, stepping in would depend on how this soldier felt about the noble, and what he/she would gain from the encounter.

[Tisiphone]

If I'm playing a templar, a noble had better not go around ordering about my soldiers. Their own guards taking out a 'rinther scumbag who has (or maybe even has not) been bothering them? Fine. But my soldiers are mine, damnit.

Every templar is different, though.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

This idea is about letting a noble have a non-noble act on his behalf. It's not about ordering around the state's soldiers or anything else. It is about allowing a noble to police the situation that has to do with him. It's about allowing a noble's right hand to actually be his right hand.

Any noble player knows perfectly well about the guy that comes into the room, acts foolish, and then leaves. It's no secret. This idea is to allow the noble's guards (PC/NPC) to act as the noble wishes, without them landing in jail.

If a templar has issues with the noble or the noble guard's behavior, that's something to deal with later, after the noble's guard has done their job.

[Yokunama]

If I'm playing a templar, a noble had better not go around ordering about my soldiers. Their own guards taking out a 'rinther scumbag who has (or maybe even has not) been bothering them? Fine. But my soldiers are mine, damnit.

Every templar is different, though.

Yea. People their own ways of handling things.

[Tisiphone]

This idea is about letting a noble have a non-noble act on his behalf. It's not about ordering around the state's soldiers or anything else. It is about allowing a noble to police the situation that has to do with him. It's about allowing a noble's right hand to actually be his right hand.

Any noble player knows perfectly well about the guy that comes into the room, acts foolish, and then leaves. It's no secret. This idea is to allow the noble's guards (PC/NPC) to act as the noble wishes, without them landing in jail.

If a templar has issues with the noble or the noble guard's behavior, that's something to deal with later, after the noble's guard has done their job.

Sorry for possibly contributing to the derail of your thread. In an effort to re-center, I'll re-iterate that I agree with the basic idea behind the proposal. There might be a more elegant method, such as allowing guards to subdue without moving and/or using brawl code, but the idea, again, is sound.

[Rahnevyn]

While not commenting on the code change yea or nay, I can say that nobles can always wish up in situations where the crime code limitations might prevent their guards from realistic action.

[UnderSeven]

This might be a ic issue too. 

Is this the code preventing noble guards from acting without fear of the law, or is this the law not wanting commoner servants to act as militia?  Considering some of the ic events of the past I've seen, I'm leaning toward thinking this is maybe more ic than ooc.