The idea behind this command is to allow nobles to let their underlings operate for them without fearing the law. In fact, a noble could give 'permission' to anybody to do anything that the noble could do, without raising the ire of the law. Example?
A Busy Street [NS]
This street is narrow, with stones paving it for ease of passage. Buildings
line the street, giving one the impending feeling of being imprisoned,
particularly when one adds that to the swarming crowds that use this
street to go about their daily errands.
The scrawny street tough lerks in the shadows.
A black-clad soldier roves the area, looking for troublemakers.
The bald, hulking man looms here, protecting you.
The scrawny street tough leers at you.
The scrawny street tough tells you, in Sirihish:
"Hey, bitch. You should come to my side of town. We've got people just lookin' for richies like you.
The scrawny street tough throws a rotten egg at you, covering you in goo!
The bald, hulking man hesitates, knowing he'll be arrested for defending his Lord.
You tell the scrawny street tough, in Sirihish:
"You're a tad too confident."
>permission hulking
You give the bald, hulking man permission to act on your behalf.
The bald, hulking man draws a wicked grey sword.
The scrawny street tough flexes and throws a rotten egg at the hulking, bald man.
The bald, hulking man slashes the scrawny street tough on the head, wounding him.
Pointing at the black-clad soldier, the scrawny street tough exclaims, in Sirihish:
"Ain't you supposed to do somethin'? I got rights!"
The bald, hulking man slashes the scrawny street tough on the neck, wounding him.
The black-clad soldier says nothing, satisfied by the fact that you gave the bald, hulking man permission to act.
This permission would last maybe a minute. If you still required your guard to act for you after that, you would have to give them permission again. I think this limitation firmly entrenches the command outside of the grasps of most twinks.
I agree. But make it a minute and a half.
I'd go further and say that, if you do something that would legitimately prompt a noble to have his guard attack you, you probably ought to be crim-flagged as well.
I suppose that could be abused but...it would certainly make idiots think twice before doing stupid things to nobles, which is as it should be.
It's a decent suggestion.. There should be more violence that doesn't result in a bunch of murders. Of course. If you man cuts down five 'rinthers in the trader's, perhaps a suitable exchange of pouches and favours would also be in order later.
Letting noble guards subdue and brawl anywhere would probably go a long way, as well, without allowing outright executions.
My example included violence, I admit. And yes, you should seek other methods to do such things. I used it for simplicity.
The point is, a noble can do things and not get arrested for it. His guard can't. And yet, his guard should be doing those things most of the time instead of the noble.
I mean, should the dainty Fale chick be subduing people to drag them off to the whipping post for fun? No. Her guard should. And she has the right. The code just won't let her, yet. That's what I want to see change.
There's not really much room for abuse, frankly, assuming that nobles are semi-trusted players.
Also, I don't want to see the crim flag induced by this command, because soldiers gang-bang folks. I'd hate to lose someone I'm trying to give a fun RP scene to that spam fest of murder. I'd rather see nobles given a different command to call for help from the City Soldiers, rather than using this one.
I think you could do this simply by giving nobles the ability to incriminate. Don't remember if you get crim-flagged for attacking someone with a crim-flag, though. Either way, nearby soldiers should be the first choice to handle a problem person instead of guards.
However, I think you may overestimate nobles' leeway in regards to the law. They're not really supposed to be abducting or executing people in public themselves. I also suspect that OOCly they're also told not to use NPC guards offensively.
Heh.
I don't believe this is a good idea. For the nobility to essentally be the law -- it would give far too much power to the nobility and I don't see the Templarate allowing it. (See docs about why the nobility need the templarate and vice versa)
Templars get their powers dirrectly from the Highlord -- they are the law. Nobility, on the other hand, isn't the law itself. Rather, should they do "wrong" it's simply overlooked by the templarate.
I like this command with a strict timer. I do not like the idea of giving nobles powers of incrimination - not only is that very dangerous, but also, nobles don't command His soldiers. Templars do. Nobles should never forget that.
A permission command would be no less of a command over His soldiers than incriminate.
I'd love to know how.
You allow your guard to protect you for moments. You don't allow arrests, you don't have anything to do with soldiers of the state ... nothing.
It's just one PC, who is your 'protector' for the moment, who doesn't get arrested for punching or subduing that rinther who's doing what he likes.
Yeh, way less than an incriminate.
You're making your guard immune to crim-code. That's command over the militia.
I think incriminate would have the same effect, but with one additional effect of having any NPC soldiers present take care of things for you. Getting dragged off to jail is probably a lesser punishment than being executed, abducted, or beaten unconscious by bodyguards.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on January 07, 2009, 12:34:22 PM
You're making your guard immune to crim-code. That's command over the militia.
Same problem as with careless PC militia privates. :D
The "victim" would have to be able to engage in guard-initiated melee combat without getting crime flagged.
Maybe the "brawl" code could follow a noble -- thus, if there is a noble in the room a guard could possibly get away with a little rough-handling.
Meh... but then likewise any hooligan could just walk up and punch a noble's bodyguard in the nose without serious recourse.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on January 07, 2009, 12:44:54 PM
Meh... but then likewise any hooligan could just walk up and punch a noble's bodyguard in the nose without serious recourse.
Naw; it would have to be immunity
only when the guard starts the fight.
Amos punches Torpion ==> Amos goes to jail
Torpion punches Amos ==> crimeflag-immune fight
Honestly, I think allowing noble guards to subdue and brawl within their city's limits is a closer-to-optimal solution. Noble guards can probably get by with manhandling someone, but they're technically overstepping their authority. A guard hauling someone down the street should draw militia attention, though not an immediate crime flag.
My guess and opinion, not canon: If Malik the Scorpion Silver attacks someone on his noble's "authority," he is breaking the law. If Talia the Fale Whatsit hands her mistress a grain of spice, she is breaking the law. As disobeying orders is also dangerous, they must hope that the boss makes big enough tracks to rescue them if the Templarate takes offense.
Brawls aren't "started", though. It's a one-shot command.
But anyway... I think even allowing just subdue is too much. It's a death sentence because they can just drag someone off to an estate/apartment and then they're as good as dead.
I think we need to figure out what situations we want noble guards to play out but currently can't due to crim code, then figure out a solution. This "permission" thing and "incriminate" are indeed a bit too much power.
I think that the law in somewhere like Allanak would be much less black and white than the code currently represents.
If the local militia saw a Tor noble watching as three exquisitely dressed Scorpions beating on some rinth rat, I doubt they'd intervene.
I think that the proposed code change would do a good job of demonstrating the hierarchies and brutality embedded in nakki culture. The noble would certainly have to be present though.
What militiaman is going to argue with a noble when he says its alright for his man to beat up that rat? A pc likely wouldn't. Whether or not specific incidences overstepped the noble's authority would best be dealt with through the chain of command, inevitably reaching a grumpy templar in particularly touchy cases.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on January 07, 2009, 01:09:58 PM
Brawls aren't "started", though. It's a one-shot command.
Right; I was thinking there of actual melee. (Which I also think is too dangerous.)
Subdue
is a lot of power, but there are only two ways to get rid of twink-verging nuisances: scare the player into leaving, or force the character away. We're starting down the road of overcomplication, but consider:
- Guards can brawl anywhere. (Not so their victims.)
- Guards can subdue anywhere, but dragging a victim anywhere crimeflags the guard.
- Guards can push a subdued victim.
That's the thing -- brawl is a role-play tool. It allows for the 'rinither to be beaten up (fun for all involved) without the rinither's player feeling cheated or worrying about being flat-out killed for the fun of some NPC/ PC guards.
The Law itself (Highlord's rules) are never to be openly and flat out broken -- it would be disrespectful. Rather, people who have high social power (nobility/ soldiers/ etc) can get away be quietly stretching and bending the law. The code should enforce this.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on January 07, 2009, 01:24:35 PM
- Guards can subdue anywhere, but dragging a victim anywhere crimeflags the guard.
- Guards can push a subdued victim.
This is an interesting compromise.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on January 07, 2009, 12:34:22 PM
You're making your guard immune to crim-code. That's command over the militia.
It's not "command over the militia" when it's something soldiers should already have standing orders from their commanders to do.
In essence, soldiers are currently not behaving as they should. That is, they are not appropriately respecting the authority and power of the nobility. This command is a proposed solution.
Quote from: Synthesis on January 07, 2009, 03:56:16 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on January 07, 2009, 12:34:22 PM
You're making your guard immune to crim-code. That's command over the militia.
It's not "command over the militia" when it's something soldiers should already have standing orders from their commanders to do.
In essence, soldiers are currently not behaving as they should. That is, they are not appropriately respecting the authority and power of the nobility. This command is a proposed solution.
Exactly. It's not up to the militia to tell a noble what he can and can not do, and I sincerely doubt your average militia would step in his way. Whether or not the templarate came down hard on that noble later is another matter, put I can only imagine that publicly disregarding the commands of a member of the nobility would get any militiaman in deep, deep shit.
With pcs this isn't an issue, the crim code is hard to argue with though.
Quote from: staggerlee on January 07, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
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.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on January 07, 2009, 04:49:33 PM
Quote from: staggerlee on January 07, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Tisiphone on January 07, 2009, 06:42:06 PM
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.
Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on January 07, 2009, 06:47:49 PM
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.
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.
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.