Re: [MUD-Dev] Guilds & Politics

[Maddy <maddy#fysh,org>]

On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Koster, Raph wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 10, 1997 10:43 AM, Stephen 
> Zepp[SMTP:zoran#enid,com] wrote:
> > >A description of the system in place in UO:
> >
> >
> > Umm, ever consider black marks/suspicions, and "righteous combat"?
> 
> Sure, we've considered them. Basically, every extension to this system 
> has to be unabusable in any way, or it doesn't go in. Define an "act 
> of war" in such a way that requires no admin intervention whatsoever, 
> and that is capable of limiting the freedom from notoriety effects to 
> only members of the opposing army, wherein said army can ONLY be 
> joined by those who have valid cause to join it... you get the idea. 
> It's quickly much tougher than it seems.

Well if you take a large band of "fighters" as being an "army" and assume 
that an "act of war" is combat between two such "armies" then I don't see 
any way that it could be abused (at least not at this moment in time).  
Then if a band of raiders attacks a village, it'll be an army against a 
group of villagers and hence the army would gain noteriety?

> >  If I
> > attack to defend my home/possessions, I'm probably gonna receive 
> _more_
> > positive noteriety,
> 
> Unless you make your living by luring people into your house and 
> butchering them...

Well that would imply you have attacked first, rather than the "invader" 
of your home having attacked you or stolen from you.

Maddy