Shattered Kingdoms

If a person attacks and kills a tribunal member (or anyone) and the crime is reported, the minimum requirement for banish is met. The limit is one high murder meaning they can be banished for successfully killing a single tribunal member.

A

fair enough... i'll stop my whinging then.

I thought that it was 10 NPC deaths or Crimes or one high crime like a murder of a PC

These changes as a whole are excellent. In one update we see tribunals powers greatly increase and kingdoms begin to get the ability to engage in warfare. I don’t understand all the crying over these updates, so lets look at them one by one.

Leadership: This is such an obvious buff to tribunal power it shouldn't need any discussion. Although, a point was made about how tribunals now will have to face stronger opposition when defending. This is true if the change is only looked at from one angle. Granted invading forces will be stronger, but now your invading forces will also be stronger. This also only applies to factions at war, meaning you know who might be looking to invade and can act accordingly (preparation, preemptive strike, etc.). Which also gives greater influence to the diplomacy system and a reason to make peace or reach a compromise. Also defenders will now have the advantage of advanced warning and location of enemies due to another part of this last update (see below).

Bounty hunter warning: This is the boon to defenders I mentioned. Now bounty hunters will tell the tribunal when and where enemies of the state are within the boarders. Tribunals have all the defensive benefits they’ve always had but now they also get an advanced warning system. This is a mighty powerful upgrade in defensive tactical ability.

Killing NPC enemy combatants not illegal: This is a needed change and please note that this is enemy combatants, which I read as members of a faction at war with your faction. If kingdom warfare is desired (which the player base voted highly for), then racking up tons of NPC kills just for acting out that warfare needed to be curbed. Without doing that, racking up those crimes would act as a deterrent to practical application of kingdom warfare.

Reducing wilderness bounty hunter spawning: I see this as having three impacts, all beneficial. First, it reduces the ability to drain a tribunal’s account by just running up and down the boarder, thus encouraging actual attacks (aka the ability to defend the tribunal account). Second, makes the above advanced warning system not over powering. And third, it makes traveling to an attack destination much more feasible.

Attempted crimes against PC tribunal members is legal: This is the one I don’t like but it is a necessary evil. Unfortunately, tribunal members brought this change on themselves by abusing the system. Hence tribunal members don't have a right to complain, but they don't have to meekly accept it either. I suggest not wasting time and energy crying about the change, instead spend that energy trying to devise an alternate solution.

All in all, I think these up dates are fantastic. I would suggest that any “enemy of the state” (aka member of a warring tribunal) cause bounty NPCs to spawn at least at a very low rate (increases with number of crimes). I also suggest that if one enters a city that a warning cry of invasion goes out within that city. This would allow newbies/lowbies to move out of the streets and likely battle grounds to avoid getting caught in the cross fire.

Lei Kung

One minor correction here. The definition of "enemy combatants" in this case are NPC law guards from a warring kingdom. In other words, any NPC that the tribunal members can bring with using leadership. This does not currently affect the PC tribunal members in the party, because I felt that would automatically confirm your membership, and I thought the desire was for there to still be some plausible deniability of membership.

"Hey, I don't even know those Council mofos! I thought that necrophidius was just... err... hanging out with us."

Ill start my post with new things before I regress to my old complaint.

If your looking for a way to make PC waring attackers unlaw protected there is the old school justice term of Outlaw = outside the law. Meaning they have no shelter inside the protection of the law (wanted dead or alive). Banish could then be followed with an outlaw flag giving them no protection of the law of that nation.
However dont forget by adding this kind of code in you are taking away the biggest draw card of a tribunal "law immunity". Unless the duel membership is well in the works I would strongly advice holding off on this till later or giving tribunals something else. tribunal war NPCs are cool but they have a glaring blind spot that is Uxmal.

The problem between tribunal and cabal has been a long one the major issue is everything you can get from a tribunal you can get from another player or items accept for law immunity (If you log in around the time of a leader who will pardon you, you almost have this as well). A cabal gets things you can not get from anywhere else that really boost you. Tribunals have always suffered because of this. I do not see how this problem will be addressed aside from duel membership where people effectively get tribunal stuff for free on the side. This how ever devalues tribunals.

Back to old issues



This is true how ever for anyone who can not report a crime and being dead makes it hard if there are no priests, you can be killed and they can get away with out charge and with out banishment yet still be a foe of the nation worthy of banishment. Can tribunal members make pleas to Imms to banish someone the same way people could make accusations of banish being abused ? Also the old attack a foe to outlaw them was a way to deal with cabals that have spells to make them law immune are tribunals meant to be completely defenseless to this ?

Maybe there can be a shopkeeper somewhere. Well really... a mercenary leader, which you can pay, to hire a merc. A merc NPC of relative level to a nation's guard. Maybe a lower level one at less of a cost as well.

Not sure you'd want to have these dudes flagged as guards/treated as such.

But the concept would serve the country and help the balance.