That being said, if the opporitunity to be logged in for part of the imprisonment isn't wholly a bad idea if you can be and if the faction imprisoning you can have someone on hand.

Also, Akhlys:

I get your point for single items and small affairs.. though if you arm a bunch of bad guys and sell them wares especially if you KNOW what they'll likely be doing, you may have a harder time justifying your arguement. You may also find that providing high quality tools expressly to carry out a criminal act (assassination) may still make you culpable especially if you know.

Example: Joe Schmoe sells Villain McVillainous a single standard weapon.. which he then uses to kill, okay.. not as problematic.

Example 2: Joe Schome sells Villain McVillainous , a known enemy of the state he hails from (Angelsville for sake of arguement) a Celestial Bane Weapon , which is then used to kill the High Priest of Angelsville. Congratu-freaking lations.. you've PROBABLY aided and abetted in a major crime, and even if you play the ignorance card, you're gonna have a hard time selling that you didn't think that was a probable outcome.

Plus, we aren't playing in a world where modern rules of law nescessarily apply. We are in Faerun where execution depending on the nature of the crime IS a realistic possible punishment. That not exactly is a viable punishment on Amia since without consent, Permanent destruction is not a tenable point and even in Faerun, with enough backup and friends you can be recovered most times.

Get killed enough and that backup MAY waver but , such is life.

You can be moral and assumptive (chaotic good) or law abiding and measured (lawful good) but ya can't go around slinging accusations and assumptions and then say you're lawful. In my opinion you can go hard on people you think are bad or did something bad as much as you like, but unless you can prove it it's not lawful, unless they broke a law it's not lawful, etc. etc.

_________________
bad man

That part i'll also give, but at the same time how is it KNOWN there's no proof?

Part of the complication of being a Goodly or even a prudent Neutral organization.. if legitimate information is provided us , we are obliged especially in sensitive cases to protect our sources are we not?

If you go to trial (part of this ruling) you should be mandated to prove your stuff, that's part of the lawful process. In the US you are allowed to see your accuser and witnesses, even horrible people are given that chance.

_________________
bad man

Yeah. This is one of the big problems of the old system. Assumed guilt based on rumors/incorrect info (such as crimes done during alter self, or not done at all).

_________________

ANT ALARM

ANT ALARM

To be honest...Rosary gave Budly a hin killer great sword to dispose off. If he suddenly gives it to a Blackguard which goes and butchers Rosarys kid, husband and friends...Budly is to blame.

Faerun is to me, closer to worlds like Game of Thrones than to real life. Where the local Geudal lord can just chop da woop your head if he is the head of "state" there.

_________________
Plays:
Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise.
Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar.
Budly : Has gone to a better place.
Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.

I don't think many people would have wanted such a detailed and number-based system if it wasn't preceded by long stretches of unnecessarily difficult OOC red tape due to guard PC's not really being beholden at all to giving any OOC consideration to the player. There were good guards (Who even played harsh characters). There was good imprisonment roleplay. But until now, nothing was really required of the banning PC or player, and it's become a problem.

It's not like people wanted to be at this stage. I think most people would have preferred a simple, fluid, organic banning system that was entirely IC. But problems happened, and here we are. And these are good changes that are helping marginalized players.

Good work, Amarice and team.

This is sad and it proves there need to be a strong enforcement to be IC and follow along with RP only. OOC solutions can be very imersion breaking

_________________
Plays:
Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise.
Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar.
Budly : Has gone to a better place.
Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.

We have no easy means to measure how many hrs someone one online what chara like that. You also make this far too complicated.

It is 24 RL hrs. That's it.

_________________

Would it be allowed, to talk in Cory's example, to take a character who does not play his imprisoned character, who would otherwise be working menial labour, as "having refused to work", which would not affect the current 24 hour imprisonment, but speak against him in a later case, where he might be judged by a DM/IC court?

That seems like a good solution. If you really mind, and notice he plays his alt, you could say "you didn't work, so we are going to be more harsh with the next punishment". I'm pretty sure there is a better way to word this, but as a draft, what do you think about this?

So then your better off just always issuing the 31RL day ban because they don't have to be logged in and the 24 hour count down starts the second you issue it and 3/4 of it you most likely will be away Sleeping,eating, Work/school, so kind of seems moot to even do the 1day holding because after factoring in IRL stuff it effects you for 6 hours average person.

Then the fact they can just go play a alt for said time, it just does not feel like a punishments to me.

But then we just end up more or less right back where we are now.... we cant punish them so we will just put in a massive long ban so we don't have to deal with them and the second it ends as soon as they do something wrong after..... place another 31 day.

_________________
================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================
Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)

While i'm avoiding this as currently i don't have any character in, near or remotely likely to be banned from any place at the moment, it is this one line which stands out and i feel i have to comment on.

... you're not punishing the player of the character, but the character for his/her IC actions. Telling someone they HAVE to play this and MUST do that in order for his or her character to be released is borderline abuse. I have no issue logging on with a banned character and 'chitchatting' some time with my captor so long as... well, our online times match and they are around to rp.... just don't expect me to do it for 24hrs straight.

Your right in what you say, factoring in all the external things a PLAYER isn't around all the time to live out every aspect of imprisonment... so you have to be reasonable and flexible. I like rules but i like guidelines better because they are broader in how you apply them.

*Edited for clarity... glances down at Kudark's post*

_________________
When it rains, look for rainbows.
When it's dark, look for stars.

We are talking about punishing characters, not players, I'm assuming.

_________________

Folks, the 1 day imprisonment/capture rule is ancient. This is not new at all.

If you feel more is warranted, you can approach the DM team.

_________________

This is something I see a lot, and I think it's pretty toxic, honestly. You shouldn't be thinking of punishment in terms of punishing the person behind the character. This is the exact behavior and mindset that started this entire ban discussion in the first place. Your character =/= you. Most of the time

_________________

Thats the way it crumbles ... cookie-wise!

Its not toxic at all, its logical....maybe the rest of you just are not looking at it the way I am.

We have two punishment options IC without the need for a DM.... because that's what they are, punishments IC for the actions the character did IC!

Option one


Option two


My mind sent is long term imprisonment is meant for the really bad crimes.... like that is the panicle of punishments as the did something so bad they HAD to be locked away, and yet it just seems like such a slap on the wrist that acts more like a 24 hour drunk tank but we cant slap on a player enforceable gold fine for drunk and disorderly and we just let them go, where the other punishment is a 744 hour ban from the zones... just feels like more bang for your buck so to speak to always do the 31day ban to me?

It just seems like everyone will go with option one like they already do and more or less nothing will change from what it already is done.... hence a semi-discussion?

_________________
================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================
Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)

Oh, I see what you're saying.

Yeah, if someone will want an effectively 'permanent' or otherwise 'indefinite' ban, they would just ban them for the 31 days without needing to wait on DM consent, then when that's over, ban them for another 31; so on and so forth. Though I'm pretty sure that people and DMs alike would take offense to exploiting the ruling that way. Writing concrete rules down in such a way will always make it so that people will find loopholes and find the max "bang for your buck" with the way it works. Just how it goes.

Though banishment versus imprisonment are, after all, two different ball-parks. Banishment is just enforcing an absence in an area. Imprisonment is effectively killing the character and dredging them down to one single existence that's now broken down into rules and forced RP with the prisoner, or else.

And so you're right. People will more often look to banning as measurements of punishment because its more easily attainable and can be enforced over long periods of time, and jailing wouldn't see that much of a use since you can't do anything that important without DM or player consent .... but, this is how it's always been. No one could get imprisoned for more than 24, whether in jail or held captive by people(s) against their will without DM/player consent, and with the caveat that you'll offer RP for them.

So all in all it's not really that different from before. It's the exact same scenario except you now have to look to DMs for any permanent fixture (or consenting PCs, which do not tend to be the case in these situations - re: permanent / long-term jailing = effective death of character). That's already an accepted trend, here.

_________________

Thats the way it crumbles ... cookie-wise!

I would have hoped that it is common sense that no, you cannot ban someone 31 days, then not bother to contact DMs for a longer ban and just ban them 31 days yourself.

I am disappointed that this even came up, especially after explicitly mentioned with the 1 day imprisonment this is a no go already.

That's the same in green folks.

_________________

...... what?

edit;

OH.

_________________

ANT ALARM

ANT ALARM

You know how common sense on Amia goes!

It only came up because people are bound to try and use rules to their advantage in ways that it's written. Not that we personally would - but I can tell you people were already thinking it Unfortunately these are reasons why we have to be careful in the way we write our rules and why these discussions exist.

_________________

Thats the way it crumbles ... cookie-wise!

Well, those who already tried to find such a cheap and obvious exploit:

1. These rules are just because of people like you.

2. Ideally you should not even hold an authority position in a city, because clearly you can't handle it.

My personal opinion, now you can go and whine about it, and about how mean I am.

_________________