Bounties for Writs

Aktillum

Problem: Writs system is archaic / outdated in todays PvP atmosphere. Bounties are much better. However, bounties cannot be put out on shrine defilers simply for the act of defiling, since technically defiling is not a crime against a city.

Solution: Allow writs to be yielded to a city that is associated with the Divine. The MoS can then turn that writ into a bounty.

Morthif

This works better in Mhaldor/Targossas then other cities as divine aren't as deeply tied the other city..

Mishgul

Just get rid of writs honestly. It's a horrid evidence system.

Make defiling give infamy instead.

Bluef

Aktillum said:

Problem: Writs system is archaic / outdated in todays PvP atmosphere. Bounties are much better. However, bounties cannot be put out on shrine defilers simply for the act of defiling, since technically defiling is not a crime against a city.

Solution: Allow writs to be yielded to a city that is associated with the Divine. The MoS can then turn that writ into a bounty.

Just some general thoughts on this - 

1. Why would a city want to take vengeance on behalf of an Order? The RP motivation behind this is questionable for me. 

2. Why is this change really needed? Order members can already seek vengeance for defiling in two different ways. That is, in the end, who should be concerned about shrine defilement (not the city in general). 

3. What does "is associated with the Divine" mean? Theocracies like Targossas and Mhaldor may benefit from this, but every other city will need to abide by the definition created. For example, is a Divine associated with a City if he/she is its Patron? Is a Divine associated with a City if he/she patrons its Houses? Where would the Garden draw the distinction and why?

Connected to this point - Wouldn't such a change inevitably leave some Order in exactly the same place they are now (without the ability to yield writs to any specific city due to the definition of "associated with" - thus giving some orders vengeance superiority?

4. Couldn't there be RP ramifications of such a change to the existing system? For example, Eleusis has been fairly resistant to Gaia and any suggestion of a theocracy in the past. If they suddenly gain the ability to create bounties for the defilement of Her shrines, then shouldn't that in turn mean that they need to roleplay a more steadfast loyalty to Her in general as their City patron?

My suggestion would be to change Writs so that they show up the same way Bounties do (with a clock noting the days a person has left to attack and kill the defiler). Unlike contracts, the person who defiled cannot clear the writ by killing the witnesser. Unlike bounties, a person could hold multiple writs; all of which would show up on WRITS for both the holder and the defiler/person who has been witnessed.

When a writ is yielded, it should then be removed, thus indicating that the person's PK rights have ceased and the time clock for the Order to hire a champion/assassin has started. Then everything would simply work the way Contracts always do. 

Aegoth

Solution: If you defile, or go to a shrine that's currently contested as a citizen of that divine's city, expect to die. You don't need a writ system to have common sense. Anyone.. ANYONE who participates in shrine conflict whether it be by defiling or by your mere presence at the contested shrine should know what they're getting into. End of story. If you witness a mugging RL, do you really expect the mugger to not attack you? Instead of being whiny carebears about it, accept common sense for what it is. 

Bluef

Aegoth said:

Solution: If you defile, or go to a shrine that's currently contested as a citizen of that divine's city, expect to die. You don't need a writ system to have common sense. Anyone.. ANYONE who participates in shrine conflict whether it be by defiling or by your mere presence at the contested shrine should know what they're getting into. End of story. If you witness a mugging RL, do you really expect the mugger to not attack you? Instead of being whiny carebears about it, accept common sense for what it is. 

Common sense goes both ways. You can't assume everyone who walks by your shrine is planning to defile it anymore than a defiler should assume to be safe standing on a shrine of a divine they recently defiled. But if people had common sense, there would probably be a lot fewer issues filed in Achaea.

The balance to all this is writs. They take out the guess work by alerting witnessers to who actually defiled, who they can attack/defend against, etc. 

I really don't understand why cities want to get so involved in what is truly an Order issue. If you're a member of a theocracy's Order, you more than likely are going to be involved in the witnessing or defense of a shrine anyway. Why bring cities and bounties into the mix - do people really not have enough valid reasons to attack others that more bounties are needed or does this mindset have something to do with the use of shrines in city defense?

Jacen

Probably not the right place for this, but why aren't writs pooled for the Order? Like say I witness Rangor, then the next time any Order member kills Rangor, the writ would be used up? Doesn't really make sense that you can go into a group fight with writs, and theoretically come out with just as many writs as you had going in, while still killing the whole group (if no one personally kills a person they have a writ for)

Bluef

Jacen said:

Probably not the right place for this, but why aren't writs pooled for the Order? Like say I witness Rangor, then the next time any Order member kills Rangor, the writ would be used up? Doesn't really make sense that you can go into a group fight with writs, and theoretically come out with just as many writs as you had going in, while still killing the whole group (if no one personally kills a person they have a writ for)

I think it is because as the system exists now a writ yielded to an Order only has one potential outcome remaining: Hiring a Mark to kill the target on the basis of the writ.

But if yields did pool, that would be so awesome. Also if they were simply tracked by WRITS and you could see which order held them against you and the length of their duration.  

Ulrike

Mishgul said:

Just get rid of writs honestly. It's a horrid evidence system.

Make defiling give infamy instead.

Quoting this because it's the best solution. Amended to allow people to attack anybody actively defiling.

That way you can take appropriate revenge against regular offenders, and people like that newbie Linus was training can dip their toe in without being pwned into dust.

Talysin

Ulrike said:

Mishgul said:

Just get rid of writs honestly. It's a horrid evidence system.

Make defiling give infamy instead.

Quoting this because it's the best solution. Amended to allow people to attack anybody actively defiling.

That way you can take appropriate revenge against regular offenders, and people like that newbie Linus was training can dip their toe in without being pwned into dust.

I second/third/whatever this.

Halios

Ulrike said:

Mishgul said:

Just get rid of writs honestly. It's a horrid evidence system.

Make defiling give infamy instead.

Quoting this because it's the best solution. Amended to allow people to attack anybody actively defiling.

That way you can take appropriate revenge against regular offenders, and people like that newbie Linus was training can dip their toe in without being pwned into dust.

I really would rather people just RP it out if it's a novice.

I'm not gonna defend my house from a team of burglars but spare the kid who is on his first robbery serving as the lookout/thief-in-training.

Seems really odd.

Mishgul

If the novice was involved, it will be infamous, and you can have your "RP" at it.

Halios

Mishgul said:

If the novice was involved, it will be infamous, and you can have your "RP" at it.

Yea your suggestion makes the most sense.

Siduri

Simple but efficient, I agree. Ahem...

"Yes."

Antonius

Mishgul said:

If the novice was involved, it will be infamous, and you can have your "RP" at it.

And so can anybody else who is Infamous or a Mark and feels like killing them just because they're Infamous. Defiling a shrine to a God shouldn't also make you fair game to people who have precisely zero connection to the Order. I'd consider Infamy to be a worse system than Writs, to be perfectly honest.

Hasar

Infamous non marks can also hire on attackers..

Mishgul

I don't understand why anyone should think defiling should be something that people can get away with consequence free. It's an aggressive action all around and should be treated as such. 

People can be involved in conflict without dragging newbies into the mess that is shrine warfare. Be creative.

Siduri

To be fair, we're not looking for a way to let people get away scot free, we're looking for a way to have a system that makes sense.

@Antonius said something insightful, because it is true that Infamy opens you to much, much more killing, if only from the jerks outside of the Order who are hunting for infamous.

Maybe some sort of Order infamy? Something that shows in honour and can only be seen by members of the concerned divine order. It would slowly decay over time, be cleared by assasination by an order member, and still allow members of the order to have a feel of who's been actively defiling lately (thus replacing the risk associated with witnessing).

What about it?

Mishgul

You can say the same thing about things like theft and raids. You target a specific org, get infamous, and bob is your gankle.

There are many avenues to resolve the majority of things if someone does a grave injustice against a specific individual.

Austere

Order infamy(if I understand this correctly) seems like a lazy fix and seems like it would result in orders not responding to defiles when they happen.  This would result in the easiest way to initiate conflict being lost.  No longer could a body defile a shrine twice and wait thirty seconds for the possibility of a good fight. 

Ruth

I've just had a hilarious few hours earlier dealing with situations that highlight why the writ system is so broken. I purposefully engaged in the whole two hours of it just to understand what it is I was writing about. Writs mean nothing currently, even if they are contracted out for marks to deal with. That it even costs the Order member gold to hire the writ out to assassins and champions make it that much little worth to see them die for their crimes. This is why I don't witness. I just attack, or bring a group with me to defend and pursue.

Imo, we could also consider making defilement give an aura to all individuals in the room where the shrine is being defiled. The aura on actual defilers/people who engage in offensive preparations around the shrine should last for a lengthy amount of time to highlight who did the deed, so further combat may be pursued, while auras on those who were actually in the room to help in group combat etc will fade in 5 minutes after they leave the area.

Like what Carmain said, defilement is an an aggressive action all round and should be treated as such. If someone follows a defiling group but does not defile, you can't realistically expect them to stay their hand if a defending party comes to smash the defilers for their actions.

Antonius

Mishgul said:

I don't understand why anyone should think defiling should be something that people can get away with consequence free. It's an aggressive action all around and should be treated as such. 

People can be involved in conflict without dragging newbies into the mess that is shrine warfare. Be creative.

Because people should be able to get away with EVERYTHING consequence free if nobody catches them actually doing it.

If somebody is defiling or with a group that is defiling, kill them at the shrine all you like. They should be going in expecting that their may be defense and that the defense may result in them dying. Afterwards, however, it should be left to the systems that are currently in place to facilitate retribution on the organisation's part.

Don't like the systems? Make a decent case for why they aren't working and suggest reasonable alternatives. Until that happens, they should be enforced.

Carmell

Defiling does already give infamy.  HELP INFAMY

Mishgul

Antonius said:

Mishgul said:

I don't understand why anyone should think defiling should be something that people can get away with consequence free. It's an aggressive action all around and should be treated as such. 

People can be involved in conflict without dragging newbies into the mess that is shrine warfare. Be creative.

Because people should be able to get away with EVERYTHING consequence free if nobody catches them actually doing it.

If somebody is defiling or with a group that is defiling, kill them at the shrine all you like. They should be going in expecting that their may be defense and that the defense may result in them dying. Afterwards, however, it should be left to the systems that are currently in place to facilitate retribution on the organisation's part.

Don't like the systems? Make a decent case for why they aren't working and suggest reasonable alternatives. Until that happens, they should be enforced.

Your opinion is not an argument either.

Shrines are far too easy to destroy quickly to prevent any kind of retribution, compared to the cost of raising them. Of course I want to defend the shrines I've raised to try and create the illusion of superiority, but I can't if it's physically impossible to do so.

I have not noticed defiling give infamy at all either. The rate should probably be increased initially and set to logarithmically decrease as you gain it per defile.

Ulrike

It's a hella tiny amount of infamy, IIRC.

Bluef

Raising the general infamy threshold does nothing to address the main concerns held by Orders because being Infamous only means you are open PK to all other Infamous people as well as all members of the Marks most of which will not in any way be affiliated with the Order. 

It would be much better to have a type of Order infamy as @Siduri suggested that permits members of that Order to attack defilers. This would work exactly like the pooled type of writ that @Jacen was suggesting, except that unlike a writ it will be clear to the defiler how long they have left to remain infamous and get attacked - and unlike current writs it will allow for more than one attack/death per defiling instance. If you're infamous to the Order, then anyone in the Order can attack you until that Order infamy goes away. I love this idea. 

Austere

Bluef said:

Raising the general infamy threshold does nothing to address the main concerns held by Orders because being Infamous only means you are open PK to all other Infamous people as well as all members of the Marks most of which will not in any way be affiliated with the Order. 

It would be much better to have a type of Order infamy as @Siduri suggested that permits members of that Order to attack defilers. This would work exactly like the pooled type of writ that @Jacen was suggesting, except that unlike a writ it will be clear to the defiler how long they have left to remain infamous and get attacked - and unlike current writs it will allow for more than one attack/death per defiling instance. If you're infamous to the Order, then anyone in the Order can attack you until that Order infamy goes away. I love this idea. 

Why would anyone rush to defend a shrine then?  This would just lead to orders ganking after the fact.  Defiling as it stands,  forces orders to react at that time if the are going to do anything.  You could never use this to instigate a raid,  as they would just sit back until the numbers were skewed or the group broke up.  Nonono. If they don't care enough to come gather their writ or confirm at the time,  they can just cry about it.  Pooled writs are an idea worth merit,  though.  If witnessing isn't balanceless, it should be and no more of this multiple witnesses for a single shrine crap. 

Bluef

Austere said:

Bluef said:

Raising the general infamy threshold does nothing to address the main concerns held by Orders because being Infamous only means you are open PK to all other Infamous people as well as all members of the Marks most of which will not in any way be affiliated with the Order. 

It would be much better to have a type of Order infamy as @Siduri suggested that permits members of that Order to attack defilers. This would work exactly like the pooled type of writ that @Jacen was suggesting, except that unlike a writ it will be clear to the defiler how long they have left to remain infamous and get attacked - and unlike current writs it will allow for more than one attack/death per defiling instance. If you're infamous to the Order, then anyone in the Order can attack you until that Order infamy goes away. I love this idea. 

Why would anyone rush to defend a shrine then?  This would just lead to orders ganking after the fact.  Defiling as it stands,  forces orders to react at that time if the are going to do anything.  You could never use this to instigate a raid,  as they would just sit back until the numbers were skewed or the group broke up.  Nonono. If they don't care enough to come gather their writ or confirm at the time,  they can just cry about it.  Pooled writs are an idea worth merit,  though.  If witnessing isn't balanceless, it should be and no more of this multiple witnesses for a single shrine crap. 

That's a really good question and something I'd not considered previously. Pooled writs would be nice too as long as the order could hold multiples for each act of witnessing. I have to agree with you that coming to defend a shrine via witnessing is the key thing that makes and breaks the entire topic of "shrine defense."

Carmell

Austere said:

Bluef said:

Raising the general infamy threshold does nothing to address the main concerns held by Orders because being Infamous only means you are open PK to all other Infamous people as well as all members of the Marks most of which will not in any way be affiliated with the Order. 

It would be much better to have a type of Order infamy as @Siduri suggested that permits members of that Order to attack defilers. This would work exactly like the pooled type of writ that @Jacen was suggesting, except that unlike a writ it will be clear to the defiler how long they have left to remain infamous and get attacked - and unlike current writs it will allow for more than one attack/death per defiling instance. If you're infamous to the Order, then anyone in the Order can attack you until that Order infamy goes away. I love this idea. 

Why would anyone rush to defend a shrine then?  This would just lead to orders ganking after the fact.  Defiling as it stands,  forces orders to react at that time if the are going to do anything.  You could never use this to instigate a raid,  as they would just sit back until the numbers were skewed or the group broke up.  Nonono. If they don't care enough to come gather their writ or confirm at the time,  they can just cry about it.  Pooled writs are an idea worth merit,  though.  If witnessing isn't balanceless, it should be and no more of this multiple witnesses for a single shrine crap. 

you can only get one writ per person for every instance of defiling a shrine not multiple witnesses the way everyone keeps saying.  If someone like @Proficy defiles a shrine and I go to witness I can get one witness on him unless he stops defiling for more then 20 seconds and then starts again.  .   I think if your going to talk about shrines and witnessing you need to be more aware of how it works.

Mishgul

It also doesn't address religion heavy cities that are violently encouraged to participate in shrine defense as part of their roleplay.

Austere

Carmell said:

Austere said:

Bluef said:

Raising the general infamy threshold does nothing to address the main concerns held by Orders because being Infamous only means you are open PK to all other Infamous people as well as all members of the Marks most of which will not in any way be affiliated with the Order. 

It would be much better to have a type of Order infamy as @Siduri suggested that permits members of that Order to attack defilers. This would work exactly like the pooled type of writ that @Jacen was suggesting, except that unlike a writ it will be clear to the defiler how long they have left to remain infamous and get attacked - and unlike current writs it will allow for more than one attack/death per defiling instance. If you're infamous to the Order, then anyone in the Order can attack you until that Order infamy goes away. I love this idea. 

Why would anyone rush to defend a shrine then?  This would just lead to orders ganking after the fact.  Defiling as it stands,  forces orders to react at that time if the are going to do anything.  You could never use this to instigate a raid,  as they would just sit back until the numbers were skewed or the group broke up.  Nonono. If they don't care enough to come gather their writ or confirm at the time,  they can just cry about it.  Pooled writs are an idea worth merit,  though.  If witnessing isn't balanceless, it should be and no more of this multiple witnesses for a single shrine crap. 

you can only get one writ per person for every instance of defiling a shrine not multiple witnesses the way everyone keeps saying.  If someone like @Proficy defiles a shrine and I go to witness I can get one witness on him unless he stops defiling for more then 20 seconds and then starts again.  .   I think if your going to talk about shrines and witnessing you need to be more aware of how it works.

I believe I said multiple witnesses for a single shrine.  The fact if he stops to kill someone and you can re witness when he tries to finish shrine is still dumb. I would think most one on one fights take over twenty seconds.   Learn to read plz.