Crime and Punishment

[TeckXKnight]

Given that the nature and severity of crime, criminals, and justice are all radically subjective I find all of the ideas presented in this thread terrible. What is being suggested is mostly ways to publicly humiliate people and to discourage them from playing. Yes it is much worse to hold someone's character hostage than to just kill it off -- uncertainty is a legitimate feeling, concern, and stress to put on someone. Not knowing whether or not you should invest yourself in a new character for the day--week--month--year is a big deal for someone. If anything this is the worst idea I have ever seen presented before. You have the right to take vengeance on criminals as much as they have the right to steal from you; this is all in-game and fair. You do not hold the right to restrict players from access to the game or to the capacity to harass them with potential torture; where holding an individual hostage is a form of torture and is incredibly degrading to them. Holding a character hostage is, in many ways, keeping a player from playing the game; in its most immediate form, you're dissuading them from making a new character by tempting them with their old one. All the while, it is cruel to leave a button for suicide in-front of them taunting them with a horrible decision.

Being capable of taking revenge should be enough to satisfy you; you may steal, destroy, and kill to your hearts content in the name of whatever made up martial justice you've established for yourself, your community, and whatever lands you claim jurisdiction over. Beyond that, the need to capture and persecute criminals is insane. You should never have such absolute control over another player's character unless you're roleplaying some sort of sexual fantasy out and then it's between you two to deal with as consenting adults.

Fess up, you just want to be able to commit murder without leaving a murder scent in the open. An assault and a battery scent are nothing and will disappear without anyone noticing but that murder scent will draw attention.

[Repercussionist]

Given that the nature and severity of crime, criminals, and justice are all radically subjective I find all of the ideas presented in this thread terrible. What is being suggested is mostly ways to publicly humiliate people and to discourage them from playing. Yes it is much worse to hold someone's character hostage than to just kill it off -- uncertainty is a legitimate feeling, concern, and stress to put on someone. Not knowing whether or not you should invest yourself in a new character for the day--week--month--year is a big deal for someone. If anything this is the worst idea I have ever seen presented before. You have the right to take vengeance on criminals as much as they have the right to steal from you; this is all in-game and fair. You do not hold the right to restrict players from access to the game or to the capacity to harass them with potential torture; where holding an individual hostage is a form of torture and is incredibly degrading to them. Holding a character hostage is, in many ways, keeping a player from playing the game; in its most immediate form, you're dissuading them from making a new character by tempting them with their old one. All the while, it is cruel to leave a button for suicide in-front of them taunting them with a horrible decision.

Being capable of taking revenge should be enough to satisfy you; you may steal, destroy, and kill to your hearts content in the name of whatever made up martial justice you've established for yourself, your community, and whatever lands you claim jurisdiction over. Beyond that, the need to capture and persecute criminals is insane. You should never have such absolute control over another player's character unless you're roleplaying some sort of sexual fantasy out and then it's between you two to deal with as consenting adults.

Fess up, you just want to be able to commit murder without leaving a murder scent in the open. An assault and a battery scent are nothing and will disappear without anyone noticing but that murder scent will draw attention.

+9001

[BWithey]

Given that the nature and severity of crime, criminals, and justice are all radically subjective I find all of the ideas presented in this thread terrible.

You have the right to take vengeance on criminals as much as they have the right to steal from you; this is all in-game and fair.

Incorrect, we currently have only a handful of meaningful methods of retribution, most of them involving mere assault (which is truly nothing more than a minor irritant, unless done repeatedly, at which point it leads into the realm of griefing), theft of the property of those who stole from us (largely difficult as pertains to career thieves, especially seeing how they tend to not hold any one location as 'home'), vandalism or murder (Both of which may not quite mete out the level of punishment you feel is appropriate. I for one do not feel that vandalizing anothers property is effective punishment when they did nothing more than trespass).

You do not hold the right to restrict players from access to the game or to the capacity to harass them with potential torture; where holding an individual hostage is a form of torture and is incredibly degrading to them.

As is having ones virtual home invaded and violated degrading to those who have spent much time making the effort to build and produce the resources being violated. The punishment of death is brief and, at full trad, an mere annoyance fairly quickly recouped. If they possess no holdings of equal worth to those they stole/destroyed then you have no meaningful method of exacting justice outside of murder, which is a bit over the top.

Holding a character hostage is, in many ways, keeping a player from playing the game; in its most immediate form, you're dissuading them from making a new character by tempting them with their old one. All the while, it is cruel to leave a button for suicide in-front of them taunting them with a horrible decision.

Strange, I feel it equally cruel to allow the possessions and holdings of hearthlings dedicated to spending much time building and protecting their resources be destroyed without any meaningful recompense being able to be made.

The concept of a Lawspeaker implies that there are laws, let there be punishments when laws are broken, and let the punishment fit the crime. It is my opinion that in no instance have I suggested something that goes beyond appropriate punishment for an appropriate crime.

On the concept of preventing people from playing the game, there are many ways of doing that. Destroying their holdings is one very real way of doing that. When one is having their holdings repeatedly destroyed or violated with no hope of any meaningful recompense, it detracts from the desire to play the game. It doesn't take nearly as long to do the damage as it does to undo it.

Being capable of taking revenge should be enough to satisfy you; you may steal, destroy, and kill to your hearts content in the name of whatever made up martial justice you've established for yourself, your community, and whatever lands you claim jurisdiction over.

Some of us may be trying to create a community where responding in kind is not the only form of punishment. It is my opinion that eye for an eye is not the only valid form of justice. I for one am suggesting a system that allows multiple forms of punishment for a crime, and varying degrees of justice. What I am specifically suggesting is that having jurisdiction over a land also determine what form of justice is handed out there, and by way of that suggestion providing more options to do so. Some of us may not choose to live by the sword.

Fess up, you just want to be able to commit murder without leaving a murder scent in the open. An assault and a battery scent are nothing and will disappear without anyone noticing but that murder scent will draw attention.

You will note that in every case I mention there is an option *OTHER* than murdering the offender, even in the case of murder. I will fess only to seeking options other than murder that will inconvenience the character as surely as they have inconvenienced me and mine. Allowing a murder scent to be left at the sign of an act of justice implies that the one enacting that justice committed a crime themselves, and allows the cycle to return with THEM being hunted as a criminal, when all they did was enact justice.

I believe that, were you to enact a crime punishable under this system, you would not wish to be inconvenienced on the same level as those you inconvenienced, or more appropriately, caught and punished for the crimes you committed in any way that does not fit your style of play. Your potential acts of violence and desecration do not necessarily fit others style of play. The system I suggest puts a system in place where real, meaningful punishment can be meted out in response to a crime. It even provides options as to how those crimes can be punished, so that no community is tied to merely one form of justice. A murdered may be imprisoned, he may be put to work, or he may be hunted and slain. These are more options than we have now, and more meaningful acts of justice than mere murder in retribution.

In a more perfect system towns would be able to make alliances, and that could include alliances involving reciprocation of laws. One could say that 'Murdering a murderer who is part of our town is a crime, and will be tried as such. We do not practice corporal punishment', while another says 'If a member of our town kills someone in an act of something other than self defense, (IE - Enacted by another while said member is not in the act of committing a murder-worthy crime) than that member is at the mercy of the murdered party's friends and relations'.'. In both cases, they could choose to sign an alliance agreement that either permits, or refuses, this right. Those not affiliated with a town are at the mercy of frontier justice.

[Zakorski]

I don't like the idea of forced imprisonment either. It's not like real life where a criminal that steals and kills is a bad person that needs to be punished. It's a game. Someone wants to play a bandito, let them. If someone leaves scents on your turf and you want to deal with it, kill them. Logging in to find yourself in someone's prison in some remote corner of the map because you snooped around their claim is a bad thing.

Anything another player can do to effectively end another player's playing is a bad idea. And to the person that suggested people kill themselves to get out of jail, I pose this question to you: Did you live under power lines as a small child? Terminating your character because of a backward mechanic like this is simply ludicrous. Someone shouldn't have to kill them self to get back to playing, and this game has steep enough penalties for dying by another person's hands. Forcing someone to kill them self is just adding insult to injury.

[TeckXKnight]

I apologize Bwithey but your argument is too full of flawed comparisons, straw-man arguments, and tl;dr that I won't bother to rebuttal.

To Zakorski; Yes, even at full tradition the 25% loss is more often than not more than about half of your total lp given that prices towards the top end are so much steeper than the lower values. At full change, the 75% loss is like a full restart for you. Death is very serious and coming back for more punishment is often unwise without giving yourself a chance to recoup first. It can take months of building a character to pull off a raid and five minutes to start over from square one.

I disagree that punishment shouldn't be doled out though -- anyone who commits a crime is at full liberty to have death dropped upon their head no matter how petty their crime was. Not one of us can set the bar for what is too lenient and too severe, all we can do is protect ours and our own.

[Zakorski]

I agree with punishment, just not imprisonment.

Frontier law. I steal your stuff, you beat me to death with my arms. If every time I steal or vandalize or murder a noob, someone comes by and tears me a new one, I'll be less inclined to commit these crimes if it means starting over.

[mvgulik]

... Of course if they used a charter stone or village, they could still get out if they have enough TW, but it would inconvenience and limit them.

Whats TW ?
---
Right. Travel Weariness.
... if they have a enough low TW ...