Civil Death was some lame tactic used when incapable of forcekilling/lynching certain large active guilds, it was basically a âWe cant bully you, so weâll say -anyone- is legally allowed to kill you with zero repercussionsâ it was a way of getting others actually capable to do their dirty work, very often OOC influenced, n glad to hear you wont be having that as an arrow in the quiver.
This is a strange concept and it generates more of a headache and drama in my opinion.
One matter to have a bounty on someoneâs head. Another is to declare such thing on an entire band. Although, there is a current cult that has a âKill on sightâ warrant yet itâs not advertised or thrown into other people faces.
1 Like
Yeah this was used against Alliance military guilds who simply didnt join a certain skype clique back in the day or other similar reasons, it was lame af, and I agree, bounties are different, and ofc a âvillainâ guild can expect some level of âus guards arent going to protect youâ, Civil death was largely political/OOC influenced.
It is not tainting. Moonguard collectively approached to creating laws together from what Iâve gathered and this has inspired to make a similar approach. Nothing was taken in terms of content from their lawbook (As itâs way too comprehensive and has large amount of acts of all kind) except for the visual style of a document.
1 Like
Can I have examples of 5 laws being broken that a guard would encounter in Stormwind?
Not the extreme ones. I believe the answers is already âdeathâ. So what are some of the petty laws?
- Unarmed assault
- Armed assault
- Thievery
- Harassment / Stalking / Death threats
These happen more or less more frequently than others such as kidnapping, arson or damage property.
Okay. So what is stopping people just going âYou are under arrest for (Petty crime here)â.
Where does this law book come into place?
Because then it is left to a guard to iterate what punishment to apply on a player. What if criminal doesnât agree to it? Lawbook covers this via NPC court system, allowing it to explain and justify ICly without any conflict.
Or a community service suggestion.
Previously, before this project, guards would often go with âsend this person into an instanced area of stockadesâ or âban from the cityâ or âbeat the f outâ. For example I myself never thought about a community service or public shaming until someone said so.
So, suffice to say, if both parties want to go through this lawbook and use something out of it - great, lawbook served its purpose of being helpful. If not, then not!
1 Like
So this is less âlaw bookâ and more âsuitable punishmentsâ.
Which means you are more focused about punishments for people and trying to set a standard of different things guards can do instead of removing someone from RP.
Itâs a both. You canât just write down the punishments without âwhat punishments applicable to what offenseâ so you need to cover both parts to have it more clear. I say punishments, but I mean it only from IC standpoint. OOCly it was and will be just a guideline to use.
Iâm sorry but youâre naive if you think people wonât double down on this lawbook and that it wonât lead to RPers black-listing each other for not following it / trying to enforce it
1 Like
Very silly.
Had an encounter the other day when said lawbook was forced down my throat via some random roleplay. Will never ever recommend such is followed.
With your logic, same can go for anything else like another lawbook then. I canât dictate how people must exactly use it. Lawbook states, at the beginning, to respect each other roleplay experience. If people who use it, donât follow this common sense line, thatâs on them.
Oh? Can you tell me more about it?
You⌠havenât been reading that this server has had several of them in the past and none of them worked?
They donât work because people donât always see RP as a collab, they see it as a competition, and people in positions of power (guards) are rarely the level-headed people they should be
Just because previous iterations didnât work, doesnât mean itâs not worth another shot. I wasnât there and havenât seen how exactly these lawbooks were attempted to be made, by whom and under what conditions.
1 Like
Exactly the same as yours, with the same noble intentions.
I wonât reveal names but an assault/alteraction took place between 2-3 guilds who do not follow said rulebook. A party of bystanders from a seperate guild began preaching about assault in said place going against several legal acts which have supposedly been written in law/in the lawbook.
In addition, I had an experience a few years ago with the same group of players who attempted to enforce a âMechanostriderâ license, on the basis of global warming/pollution in the Eastern Kingdoms & Stormwind.
Admittedly that is funny at least.
1 Like
The existing lawbook has a cute gang of mediocre quality guilds attached to it that will start threatening new guard guilds with blacklists and similar if they dont agree to use their lawbook, even going so far as to say all of stormwind will reject them.
Thatâs the kind of disgusting teenage drama junk that these things make into being.
1 Like
Well, canât really comment on Mechanostrider license and pollution. It feels too far stretched in my opinion.
As for the rest.
Are you sure it is directly related to our Community Lawbook? Because we only recently wrote down a draft version of the laws. It even says that âPlaceholder until upvoted laws are introducedâ because there are currently debates about said laws. Itâs a work in progress project still.
If you had same ill experience with that group of players from a few years ago, it sounds more like the concern lies within that group. Not in the lawbook itself.