The Tribunal executes people who willingly break laws with clearly stated consequence. If laws are complied with, the Tribunal will not have to engage in combat.
The Syndicate would kill an innocent person if the name was on the list. Their job is based around killing these people, whereas the Tribunals job is to prevent murder within lawful areas.
Maybe some of the issue is we don't need another all Evil Cabal?
1 hour ago, Grim_Reefer said:
The Syndicate would kill an innocent person if the name was on the list. Their job is based around killing these people, whereas the Tribunals job is to prevent murder within lawful areas.
INNOCENTS DON'T MAKE THE... LIST.
9 minutes ago, Ulmusdorn said:
INNOCENTS DON'T MAKE THE... LIST.
I said “would kill”. There is no restriction on whom an evil character can bounty. The scenario exists where an evil character places a bounty on someone otherwise undeserving of death. The Syndicate is the charged with killing the person with no questions asked.
I'm reading a lot of generalizations here. As a whole these are fun conversations that push the idea of how something exists within a rule set but are largely impractical to implement from a game design standpoint.
There are many individual reasons why a neutral might join a crime syndicate. Killing for money in FL is not inherently evil. A good neutral will have a reason to need that money and in a perfect world that reason would involve restrictions. A really good neutral would also explore 'good' ways to make money. As has been noted and enforced many times, a neutral whose RP is 'I need the money' without adequate justification is outcast to evil. it falls to the administrators to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. That shouldn't restrict neutrals with plausible RP and limit choice.
Neither is crime inherently evil. Knights are a fine example. As for Brinnyl, I have paid close attention to his RP and his law makes perfect sense, especially given how he's managed to jump in piles of shit with both feet. Accusing the player of concocting the sedition law to circumvent the neutral rule is patently false.
Finally I will direct everyone's attention, once again, to this post. When it doubt, read it twice. Funny enough the griping about what neutral means in that thread is the same. It's almost like it's some sort of amorphous philosophy that needs to be considered on a case by case basis....
In line with what should be malleable RP, I feel like I've noticed a trend in the past where Syndicates -must- always collect bounties. This is most often addressed when Syndicate, neutral or evil avoid bounties that are too strong for them. However would said Neutrals, who should be more discerning than evils who may kill for the pleasure of it, be punished for not collecting a bounty if the target somehow earned their lenience? Would a Neutral Syndicate be allowed to let a target live if they paid for their life (Not just bounty buyout which is not often available to most targets)? What if they RP'd their way out of a bounty collection attempt? Is this a possibility? I am asking Staff, and the Syndicate Immortal in general.
I had a Neutral Invoker Syndicate who favored a relationship with Lady Luck. If she had you stunned after a PK she would flip a coin. If it landed on heads you lived. Tails you died. (I really did use a random outcome generator for this coin flip) I got told I can't really do this, as if they lived I am failing to do my job and collect bounties.
1 minute ago, Twinblades713 said:
However would said Neutrals, who should be more discerning than evils who may kill for the pleasure of it, be punished for not collecting a bounty if the target somehow earned their lenience? Would a Neutral Syndicate be allowed to let a target live if they paid for their life (Not just bounty buyout which is not often available to most targets)? What if they RP'd their way out of a bounty collection attempt? Is this a possibility? I am asking Staff, and the Syndicate Immortal in general.
On 12/4/2013 at 9:34 PM, Volgathras said:
Direct Immortal Command
Divine Mandates
General Game Rules (avoid death, neutral aggression etc)
Cabal Requirements *
Race/Align/Ethos Requirements *
Personal RP
If the focus of the cabal at the time is collection, then they collect as required by the cabal. When in doubt reach out your imm.
21 hours ago, Fool_Hardy said:
What about a Tribunal who sentenced people to death to uphold the laws? They do it to protect the people is the premise. Then they go council and make new laws that allow them to attack people because no one was breaking the laws on the Maxim. They essentially wanted more reasons to attack people.
Look at this sedition law for instance. Now you can be arrested for RP. Does this law protect anyone or is it just a neutral tribunal seeking more reasons to pad his roll numbers? Should we consider not allowing neuyrals into Tribunal? Maybe they are skirting PK restrictions.
Pretty sure the sedition law has something to do with the elf mobs screaming tribunal slurs in maelbrim
1 hour ago, Volgathras said:
If the focus of the cabal at the time is collection, then they collect as required by the cabal. When in doubt reach out your imm.
Literally directly above cabal requirements is general game rules that use neutral aggression as an example
7 minutes ago, 'tarako said:
Literally directly above cabal requirements is general game rules that use neutral aggression as an example
Literally at the top is direct immortal directive, i.e. listening to your cabal imm. Also, I read his hypothetical more as character rp not neutral anti-aggression.
In his example the neutral is not breaking rules by pursuing contracts, the question was whether it would break rules according to his own RP by letting a target live.
This is a fun thread. I have no dog in this fight, but let me offer some input as a former Syndicate IMM and Syndicate Leader. The short answer to this thread is 'no', and the long answer has three parts: mechanics, the mafia, and morality.
Mechanics: From a mechanics standpoint, Forsaken Lands (note the name) is a world which revolves around death. Specifically, killing people (and mobs) to take their shit. This is true of ANY cabal or organization, excluding Herald. The entire concept of leveling, especially for a neutral, revolves around killing things to become stronger. An argument to make Syndicate 'evil only' because it revolves around killing people and taking their bounties is only valid when you ignore this fact. If killing for profit is inherently evil, then a neutral who levels with an evil group by killing nymphs and dryads should therefore be outcast, **as should a good who goes to Winter/Desolation and kills a bunch of neutral mobs to get their equipment. **From a pure RP standpoint, there is no difference; a mob has the exact same 'value' of life as any PC. Any change would have to be applied across the board, and quite frankly would require a complete rework of the game from the ground up. It's not realistic. The mechanics are built in this way - evils have no restrictions, neutrals have some restrictions, and good has many restrictions. It works as-is.
Mafia: The Syndicate, in and of itself, is an amoral organization based off the mafia. To understand it, you have to understand how and why the mafia originally existed, be it the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza, or the American/Sicilian mafia. Almost of these criminal organizations arose due to vacuums created when their governments was not willing or able to provide for disempowered communities, and so the mafias arose to provide those services and 'right wrongs' on their behalf, which includes hiring hitmen to take out those who wronged you, but with you being too weak to do anything about. In a certain sense, it represents a democratization of violence!
As a student of politics, a state is by definition an organization that controls a monopoly on violence in a certain area; it, and it alone, has the power to condemn its citizens to death. If we accept this definition, then the Syndicate (like the mafia) is the answer to this; it 'democratizes' violence by breaking the state's monopoly, allowing anyone to directly act against those who wronged them via the Syndicate, which in FL is done through the 'bounty' system. In a sense, the Syndicate can (and should, under a neutral leader) argue that it is the great equalizer and protector of the marginalized, as the power of the state (aka the Tribunal) is almost always in favor of those who are already powerful, whereas the Syndicate is willing to right any wrongs, so long as the supplicant is willing to compensate it for its time (aka a bounty); hey, everyone's gotta eat, and going after powerful heroes is risky!
From an RP standpoint, the moment when Syndicate members start to selectively enforce bounties is the moment when it loses the Syndicate 'moral authority' as a neutral third-party arbiter and executioner, and that is why neutrals (and evils) must go after all bounties. This is their job, and they have to do it. A Syndicate who selectively collects bounties is like a Tribunal that selectively enforces the law; deserving of getting his or her ass kicked, because in doing so their actions undermine the very raison d'être of their respectively organizations.
Morality: Applying real-world morality to FL is flawed from the start, because real-world morality is far more nuanced; there are no red or golden auras to tell us if a person is 'good' or 'evil'! However, there is one thing that is applicable to both - in both FL and the real world, there are people whose jobs are to bring death to others. In the real world, that composes of national armies as well as mercenary groups; the latter, although not really in vogue these days, are a close approximation of the role which Syndicate plays. There have been countless mercenary groups in the course of history who have sacked cities, killed people, and sank ships for payment from governments (see privateers), and they are rarely viewed as evil; some of them are even lauded as heroes by those they represented! Collecting bounties is a job; if you have a bounty on you, that means you pissed someone off, and Syndicate is here to address that issue. There's nothing inherently evil with that, although those you killed might feel otherwise!
Take Francis Drake as an example. A famous real-world privateer, he attacked and captured (or sank) many Spanish Galleons, and participated in the Rathlin Island massacre, where their forces killed hundreds of Scotsmen (including women and children). The Spanish felt as you probably would feel, that he was a murderer and pirate and placed a huge bounty of him (equivalent to like $10 million USD), but the English feted him as a hero and gave him a freakin' Knighthood!
Joining an organization whose role is to bring death to others is not inherently evil. It's not in vogue these days in the real world as we live in a fairly peaceful world with very strong governments, but that's not the case in FL.
Damn Raar. This was so excellently put that I've changed some of my opinions. Refined them at least, with a lot of these examples in mind.
But Raar... killing for money is inherently evil.....
Then on that logic neutrals shouldn't be outcast to evil for aggressively pking for eq right? It's the inconsistencies I questioned. Neutral pk restrictions exist unless you have a syndi flag. I'm just of the opinion adding a cabal flag shouldn't eliminate the pk restrictions on you.
Killing an ideological enemy gives you a moral imperative. Knight vs nexus watcher vs trib. There is no ideological difference, just a sack of money. Which as a neutral you cannot kill someone just for profit, it's the core rule of being neutral. Having that rule go away because of a syndi is not consistent with an rp enforced structure where neutrals at their core are not allowed to do that.
Killing those who are bountied IS a moral imperative as well as a cabal imperative. Are good Tribunals permitted to capture good criminals still? If the answer is yes, then that's another example of a moral imperative. It isn't 'just' for personal profit, it's for the goals and the reasons of the cabal. When you collect a bounty, you are furthering the interests of your organization (the Syndicate) by continually reinforcing its status as an 'honest broker' that will go after anyone regardless of personal feelings (auctoritas), as well as the organization's overall prestige and dignity in taking down the most powerful heroes and villains of the land (dignitas).
As I already noted: "A Syndicate who selectively collects bounties is like a Tribunal that selectively enforces the law; deserving of getting his or her ass kicked, because in doing so their actions undermine the very raison d'être of their respectively organizations."
42 minutes ago, 'tarako said:
Killing an ideological enemy gives you a moral imperative. Knight vs nexus watcher vs trib. There is no ideological difference, just a sack of money.
Honestly, how can you say something like that after Raar's post?
He did so eloquently explain the ideology behind the cabal, and you are still there with the "killing for gold is evil".
Coming to this forum and trying to explain how "Syndicate = killing for gold" just shows how shallow understanding of the general RP environment you have. It's like trying to saying a surgeon does the same job as a butcher. They both cut meat, right?
If a good kills an evil, generally accepted as fine. Same if an evil kills a good. Trib arrests criminal, savant kills wm, wm kills savant. These all have underlying ideology that steers the players you can go far without killing in any cabal. Syndicates don't have that. Promos require murder. I understand what is being said, I understand the thought process. I see what is being said, I am saying I do not agree with it. Every cabal except herald, and syndi, have core cabal beliefs that drive their character. The absolute core of syndicate is murder for hire, no other in game effect besides collecting heads. I would be all for it if there was more to it than bounties. Maybe spies to hurt armies, sabotage to ruin gains, being able to buy raids, shops that undercut existing npc shops. None of these exist. The purpose of syndi is bounties, nothing else. They don't have any impact on the game as a cabal besides the bounty board. Operating in a morally grey area I totally understand, but there isn't anything morally grey about killing someone who does not oppose you, who does not hinder you or your ideology. It is evil, by every measure of FL helpfiles
51 minutes ago, 'tarako said:
If a good kills an evil, generally accepted as fine. Same if an evil kills a good. Trib arrests criminal, savant kills wm, wm kills savant. These all have underlying ideology that steers the players you can go far without killing in any cabal. Syndicates don't have that. Promos require murder. I understand what is being said, I understand the thought process. I see what is being said, I am saying I do not agree with it. Every cabal except herald, and syndi, have core cabal beliefs that drive their character. The absolute core of syndicate is murder for hire, no other in game effect besides collecting heads. I would be all for it if there was more to it than bounties. Maybe spies to hurt armies, sabotage to ruin gains, being able to buy raids, shops that undercut existing npc shops. None of these exist. The purpose of syndi is bounties, nothing else. They don't have any impact on the game as a cabal besides the bounty board. Operating in a morally grey area I totally understand, but there isn't anything morally grey about killing someone who does not oppose you, who does not hinder you or your ideology. It is evil, by every measure of FL helpfiles
You DO note the cognizant dissonance by saying 'Savant kills wm, wm kills savant', then say that 'you can go far without killing in any cabal', right? This is a PK game. All cabals revolve around PK. If your argument is 'Syndicate needs more non-PK related things to feel more mafia-esque', that's an argument I'll entertain (although harder to address), but if you simply say that 'Syndicate is too PK-focused and therefore neutrals shouldn't be allowed', then no.
Being a soldier is being paid to kill by the state. Being a mercenary is being paid to kill by individuals (or groups/corporations). Even in real life, soldiers and mercenary groups are rarely viewed as 'evil' or view themselves as 'evil'. It's that simple. YOU may personally feel that being paid to kill is 'evil', but history in both real life and the game suggests otherwise.