Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Uleha wrote:Personally I feel that the guard should tell someone to sheathe, and if after 20 seconds (I'm being generous here) they've not done it, they get hauled off for 5 irl minutes of sullen time-out in the waterdeep jail.

I'm actually for this, if it were easily implemented. Too many people take things for granted, and if they saw that there were consequences, they would take the laws more seriously.

You two are missing my point. I'm ok with the law in game. But we shouldn't sit here trying to BS Serra by saying it makes sense IC...because it doesn't. The law is such because a GM can't sit there and appropriately deal with people who ignore unacting RP elements.

It could be implemented using a really simple mob trigger in circlemud. I'm not sure which codebase FK is on since I'm a total noob at life but I doubt it would be much different here.

(This isn't actually real code so don't laugh at me but...)

greet prog:
sayto $n Yo sucka put yo sword away b4 i bust u
sayto $n U breakin the law son
if (playerinput(sheathe) {end script;
else;
sleep 20;
mteleport $n jailvnum
msend $n One of the dozens of guards in the square takes you by the arm, saying, "boiii u done it now"
msend $n YOU are in JAIL
mecho A guard has thrown $n in jail!}


(all echoes and says are dumb purely for humor value... little as they may have.)

Kallias wrote:You two are missing my point. I'm ok with the law in game. But we shouldn't sit here trying to BS Serra by saying it makes sense IC...because it doesn't. The law is such because a GM can't sit there and appropriately deal with people who ignore unacting RP elements.

I haven't missed your point, hon. It makes sense to me, maybe not that it's only "enforced" in the MS proper and not the whole Market, but it makes sense. As Brar stated in an earlier post,

Brar wrote:It is a market square, that's valid enough reason to forbids having weapon draws there and the actual law is(was?) about the entire Square, not just this room, but you can't go putting mobs in every room without deterring the fun, that's a code limitation that should be easily enough to override with player good sense no?

Sure, we could put guards everywhere and have them tell you "You can't go in there" when you're weapon's drawn, like if you're trying to ride a horse into the MS, but people should have common sense.

That's not a guard mob, but an echo produced by a trigger, I think.

I think soldiers have told me that in the past. >_>

But "A soldier says to you, 'SON U CANT RIDE YO HORSE IN THERE SON'" happens whether or not there's an actual soldier mob in the room.

I never pay attention to if there is one there or not, I'm usually too embarrassed that I nearly pranced in like Yanky Doodle Dandy.

*ahem* Anyway, it'd be nice to include something like that for weapons as well.

Last post here, promise.

Here is why it doesn't make sense:

Problem: People killing children and dropping swords - we can go ahead and include harming of any person

Solution: Make it illegal to hold any martial weapon in your hands.

Why it doesn't make sense IC (excluding the mechanical boundary restraints): The difference between holding a weapon and having a weapon sheathed is minute. The act of killing or harming someone is already illegal. Throwing swords on the ground is an OOC nuisance, in character the populace would be much appreciative of the good natured johnny apple sword. The law in no way deters either killing/harming others or dropping swords any more than the already illegal acts of murder/assault/littering. The weapons are still on their person, no more inaccessible than being in their hands. These are not scalpels. You won't chop off someone's hand by them accidentally bumping into you.

Why it makes sense OOC: Someone did something bad. They did it in a way that ignored RP elements that should have been recognized. Something had to be done to send a message that this kind of action isn't acceptable, it was chosen to be done so IC through the watch. This law has no real affect on the game other than sending a message. Follow the law, it reminds people what is and isn't ok.

Kallias wrote: Why it doesn't make sense IC (excluding the mechanical boundary restraints): The difference between holding a weapon and having a weapon sheathed is minute

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. There's a big difference in a sheathed weapon and a naked blade. Let's take a gun for example. A holstered gun is less likely to offend someone that a gun in hand. It's still not what you want to see everyday, but if I'm living in a place that this is common day (let's take the old west), I'd rather see someone with a gun holstered than in their hand. It's less threatening in an area of peace than walking around with weapon in hand, less likely to cause a panic, and less likely that someone will get hurt.

And we're not taking an extreme and saying people are going to lose a limb, but I don't want to get cut in a market or have a child get poked in the face by someone's weapon. People trip and fall into others, someone turns a corner quickly, a freak accident can happen anywhere, and it's better to be cautious than apologize.

"I'm sorry ma'am, but your kid's eye is poked out because I didn't want to put my dagger away. But let's look at the bright side! He's got a smashing career ahead of him as a pirate!" Cue angry mob.

"Hey honey, I bought you this (random bobble) in the market today!"
"That's so sweet! Why is there a gash in your arm?"
"Oh, I got that free of charge when someone walked past me and tripped. Longsword to the arm. Isn't that great?" (not shown, for every wound received in the market, each customer gets a random infection free of charge while supplies last!)

I do want to stress that this is a game. This is fantasy. Not everything is going to be perfect. Don't take everything so literally. Enjoy, have fun, relax. A game should not stress you. They are meant as sources of entertainment.

Lysha wrote:
It's called being a good samaritan, and if someone's breaking the law in real life, I'm going to point it out to them, even if I don't have authority. It's better to make sure someone knows they're breaking the rules than neglect them and letting them get in trouble.

It sounds like you're trying to balance good samaritan against conscientious citizen and the two don't balance out because one is about the perpetrator and ooc considerations while the other is about the victim and IC'ness. Which is a priority here?

From my perspective, having someone claim to be just trying to help me, then promptly running to get the guard when I don't heed their advice, smacks of an attempt to establish an authority that player doesn't have in the first place, even if it wasn't the way they intended it. It comes off as extremely high-handed "do as I tell you, or I'll make you pay for it." It's also unnecessarily mixing issues that don't need to be mixed.

As you've pointed out, the laws should be posted. I'm in complete agreement, and I think the guards should be designed to be consistent with those rules. This is not some major coding or design issue. It's a -extremely- minor cosmetic change. The auto-tell is not so minor, but really, isn't there a law channel for that sort of thing? In a world where "tell" exists as a form of magical mental communication, there's no excuse for the watch not to know what's going on.

Lysha wrote: Jaywalking, okay. Go to Austin, Texas and jaywalk, and you're going to get a ticket of at least $75. It's no joke. It's called ignoring the traffic -laws-. Not everyone blows off tiny laws.

Yeah, and Austin is the better for it. In places where it's not enforced properly, people get hurt. I think it makes the point that if a law is going to be on the books, it should be taken seriously, don't you?

Now, you make a couple of points here, and I want to address them because they illustrate perfectly a certain disconnect that is hard on
people who are trying to figure out something works:

Lysha wrote: After it's all said and done, it's only script, only code. There's no one behind the screen who logs hours as the guard and enforces everything perfectly. That's why PCs step in and try to teach new people the laws and rules.

That's the whole point of fixing this. There's no need for the limits in this issue. I won't even pretend approach fixes everything. It fixes this problem and this problem only. Players should not be part of the equation, especially not when they're trying to rationalize a really, really stupid system. Do you have any idea how well that presents to me as a new player, when someone with no authority comes up to me ICLY and tells me that some perfunctory advice an NPC gave me is actually LAW and no matter how ridiculous that law is, I must obey it? It sounds like griefing and having fun at the newbie's expense. It does NOT sound like a good samaritan.

Lysha wrote:Being told to put your weapon away by an officer of the law is like being told not to drink and drive.

An officer of the law isn't going to tell you that it's not okay to drink and drive on 1/6th of the road. You don't do it anywhere, at all.

Lysha wrote:As for not knowing the laws, imagine you're going into another country. If the citizens of the country are telling you something is against the law, it's generally a good idea to take heed in their words rather than ignore them and blow them off rudely.

If you consider responding to said advice and choosing not to heed it "ignoring them and blowing them off rudely" then that's a perception problem on your part.

serra wrote: From my perspective, having someone claim to be just trying to help me, then promptly running to get the guard when I don't heed their advice, smacks of an attempt to establish an authority that player doesn't have in the first place, even if it wasn't the way they intended it. It comes off as extremely high-handed "do as I tell you, or I'll make you pay for it." It's also unnecessarily mixing issues that don't need to be mixed.

Honestly, that's not how it happened. I don't think I need to explain myself to you, but here it goes anyway. I did not promptly run off to get a guard as you seem to believe. I had even left the city and then doubled/triple/quadruple checked my understanding of the law when I saw a watchman came on. You yourself had said that if it was really against the law, that you would have gone to jail already. The watchman and I ended up meeting so we could speak face to face, rather than over amulet, and had already switched topics when you arrived. He had asked me who you were prior, and I did not (and still don't) have a greet from you, so when you arrived, I pointed out "there she is". I don't need to say here how it progressed.

I'll be the -very- first person to tell you I have absolutely no authority, no say in this game. I am a player in this game just like you, just like the watchman, and just like everyone else who had tried to advise you and/or became involved somehow. There was no "do as I tell you to, or I'll make you pay for it." I don't believe in playing like that, it's petty, stupid, and useless. This is only a game and not worth losing sleep over.

I saw you were new and was trying to help you, but unfortunately it seem that things didn't turn out for the best. Also, the character I was playing at the time tends to be bold and sometimes quite out-spoken.

serra wrote: Do you have any idea how well that presents to me as a new player, when someone with no authority comes up to me ICLY and tells me that some perfunctory advice an NPC gave me is actually LAW and no matter how ridiculous that law is, I must obey it? It sounds like griefing and having fun at the newbie's expense. It does NOT sound like a good samaritan.

I assure you that griefing isn't and wasn't my intention, nor will it ever be my intention. As I stated above, I was trying to help you, a new player, understand how things work. I know that when I started, I was very grateful for advice on how the game worked and what I was and was not supposed to do. The last thing I ever want to do is get in trouble over a silly mistake or (mis)understanding.

serra wrote:An officer of the law isn't going to tell you that it's not okay to drink and drive on 1/6th of the road. You don't do it anywhere, at all.

This was addressed previously. I believe we've beat this dead horse enough. See posts that came after what you're quoting.

serra wrote: If you consider responding to said advice and choosing not to heed it "ignoring them and blowing them off rudely" then that's a perception problem on your part.

What I considered rude was how you argued with not only citizens, but an officer of the law. To me, and perhaps it wasn't your intent, it looked like you were insulting him, and insulting myself by calling us busybodies and what not. I didn't personally appreciate it.

This topic is becoming redundant, and going off topic slightly, but has served it's purpose, I believe. We've established that the Laws need to be readily made available for all new people, and it is suggested that the guard's speech be altered to reflect that it is not just advice, but indeed the law and should be followed to avoid consequences.

Lysha wrote:...

As you say, some of this is becoming redundant argument as the most important part has been settle, so I'll leave off. However, I'm going to address this last bit:

Lysha wrote: What I considered rude was how you argued with not only citizens, but an officer of the law. To me, and perhaps it wasn't your intent, it looked like you were insulting him, and insulting myself by calling us busybodies and what not. I didn't personally appreciate it.

I have absolutely no problem with the officer in question either ICly or OOCly. While you might feel that not simply accepting things the way they are is an insult to his authority, I do not. I followed his order and made no argument about doing it. Both player and character of serra recognize that the officer was dealt a ridiculously cruddy hand and is forced to rationalize a law that makes very little sense.

Like you, I'm very out-spoken and do not simply let things be. If they need fixing, then fix them. Apathy is not a virtue. That was what my character was attempting to achieve, first by arguing the merits of the law with that officer and then with the lord when he showed up.

As far as your character goes, the insult was (icly) intentional. My character reacts to what she sees in-game as a matter of course - this is a roleplaying game. Her first encounter with your character was while she was preoccupied and the first words she saw from you were snarking about being ignored when she was doing no such thing. Coming from a creature reputed to be good and goodly-inclined, that was an insanely bad first impression, not just for the character but the entire race of that character. While you've explained the other things you've done, from my character's limited point of view, it came off as a negative first impression followed by worse. Stacked with a nasty little parting comment made by one of your fellow creatures about how you're a good person and therefore logically I must not be... well, it shouldn't be too surprising that my character doesn't like yours in particular, not to mention other impressions she's getting of her first encounters with the race.

I'm not seeing anything productive coming out of this discussion, so won't say anything further on it. This is not to say that others can't continue it if they so choose, but keep it civil.

I'm not swayed that it is worth the time it would take to add to the guard's statements something about there being a law...there are too many other things to fix (and each weapon type has a custom response, so they would all need a tweak). It's not a non-issue, and I appreciate your raising it...and I want to explain why I'm not acting on it. I do think the more important laws DO need to be posted, and am working on that. Thanks for the suggestions.

Aight, here's my very anticipated (by all) opinion on the matter:

I don't agree with the 'law'/rule. In my mind, it's about as silly as guards wandering the entirety of the market and inspecting every wizard's spell pouch to ensure it's properly shut. A greataxe's haft resting against a Fighter's shoulder is not brandishing the weapon; intentional harm is not imminent to wandering consumer in the Market Square. Sure, if they begin emoting out threatening swings or the like, of course there should be consequences, but otherwise, I think the consistent spammy, annoying, and excessive text spouted out by an NPC guard should be given the axe; replace it with a reminder that it is against the law to brandish your weapon in public.

I think it'd be nice to have the same for casting. I'm just not a fan of unnecessary text applied to everyone in the same "room" as the person the message is intended for.

Now, all that being said, currently it is the law. A character, of course, has the right to break the law. Those who uphold the laws have the responsibility of bringing such characters to justice. That does not just mean the Watch, but many Lawful alignments might demand laws be upheld (I have a few..). Even to the point of a medieval form of a citizen's arrest. Be careful!

Raona wrote:I do think the more important laws DO need to be posted, and am working on that. Thanks for the suggestions.

Ok, a long-overdue posting of the laws is on the way (with the next copyover). If the information there needs clarification or something is missing, please let me know; I tried to make it easy to update.

As for the wielding/casting rules in the central market square - I see how each can become a nuisance...however, I don't think it is too much to have a single room with those restrictions. If nothing else, it sets that room aside as special. There are, as others have pointed out, five other market square rooms that lack those restrictions. People can certainly take to congregating in one of those, if they prefer.

Selveem wrote: I don't agree with the 'law'/rule. In my mind, it's about as silly as guards wandering the entirety of the market and inspecting every wizard's spell pouch to ensure it's properly shut. A greataxe's haft resting against a Fighter's shoulder is not brandishing the weapon; intentional harm is not imminent to wandering consumer in the Market Square.

If you take the time to smote and set a pose, more than likely those that would object to seeing a weapon out in the open would be more open to allowing it to be so. In the past, there have been characters that have devoted a pose and smote to sharpening their weapons or restringing their bows in the market, thus creating an air of ambiance and roleplay. But if you don't bother to do so, then their is no point to assume you are in fact resting your weapon on your shoulder.

I have no authority to say or assume everyone will think as I do on this in regard to pose setting or smotes, however, this is how I react when the event surfaces.

As for the echo, I'd just live with it. If the guard sees and understands your pose or smote he more than likely will not react unless the situation calls for it.

Raona wrote:

Raona wrote:I do think the more important laws DO need to be posted, and am working on that. Thanks for the suggestions.

Ok, a long-overdue posting of the laws is on the way (with the next copyover). If the information there needs clarification or something is missing, please let me know; I tried to make it easy to update.

Very well done on the law posts.

Not sure if it is official Waterdeep law, but should we mention the only place, within Waterdeep, that fights/duels are allowed is the "Fields of Triumph"?

I just saw the listing of laws. Very nice! Thank you!