Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ambrus" data-source="post: 4040660" data-attributes="member: 17691">Here's a summary of what's been said so far, along with my own two cent analysis of the issue. There have been roughly a dozen responses to the thread I posted concerning Sigil's civic rules for the looting of arrestees. Just thought I'd share the results to invite some discussion on the matter.Essentially, there were three (rule of threes) schools of thought on the matter (not including the one person who suggested that NPCs shouldn't generally possess anything of value).Looting is more or less tolerated (5 people)• 3 people held to the opinion that greed is the norm and everyone will grab anything they can get a hold of.• 1 person thought it'd be okay as long as the arrester wasn't purposefully targeting the wealthy for arrest.• 1 person thought it'd be okay as long as the suspect were convicted and bureaucratic procedures were followed.Outlaws have no legal rights to property (2 people)• Guilty till proven innocent. Suspects have no rights to property, so there's no crime in taking their stuff.• If an arrestee's legal heirs aren't around to claim of ownership, then there's no crime in taking their stuff.Seized property is turned over to the Harmonium (5 people)• 3 people held to the opinion that cash rewards should be offered to the arresters if suspects were convicted.• 1 person thought seized gear could be claimed by the victims before being put up for public auction.• 1 person thought that the arresters could petition the Harmonium for compensation, but that it wasn't guaranteed.My apologies if I misinterpreted what you said. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/nervous.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":heh:" title="Nervous Laugh    :heh:" data-shortname=":heh:" /> Although the first option is the easiest to manage in-game (kill something, take its stuff) I don't believe it would/should be the default assumption in Sigil. Sure corruption exists, and might even be widespread, but I don't believe it should be the de facto legal code of the city. The civic code is agreed upon in the Hall of Speakers and upheld by three law-abiding factions. Sanctioning the seizure of property by officers of the law can only encourage false arrests, unwarranted persecution, and ever-increasing civil unrest. In one word: chaos. Neither the Hardheads, Guvners not Mercykillers want that, so they have to devise a different method of dealing with an arrestees' property.The second option does have some historical merit to it, but it doesn't apply very well to a fantastic city like Sigil. The City of Doors is, first and foremost, a trade city; a planar hub of mercantilism. Two thirds of the city's population is, at any one time, transient. Most visitors simply don't have any form of valid identification or legal recognition within the city. But to survive and thrive, the city's government has to offer these foreign merchants a measure of legal protection, lest they simply choose to go somewhere more accommodating and safe. For that reason everyone within Sigil, whether they're natives with proper ID or clueless newly arrived from the prime, has to be granted some basic civil rights. They cannot be allowed to be accosted and their property taken from them without some sanctioned legal reprisals. Otherwise, many fewer people would risk coming through the City of Doors.For these reasons, I believe only the final option is truly tenable. To maintain order and harmony in the Cage all of an arrested suspect's possessions are seized by the Harmonium and held until trial; at which point they are returned in the case of an acquittal or permanently retained in the case of a conviction. Other Factions, such as the Fraternity of Order and the Fated, help oversee the process to ensure proper procedures are maintained. Following a conviction, a semi-public auction can be held amongst the factions, perhaps with due consideration going to the victims and/or arresters. Proceeds of the sale of a criminal's possessions go towards compensating the victims, legal and incarceration fees and in paying out rewards and compensations as appropriate to the arresters.Although the latter approach does dissuade baseless persecution due to the fact that the arresters won't be compensated for false arrests due to a lack of evidence, it does encourage corruption. For instance, there's little incentive for an officer to arrest a poor suspect since he can't hope to claim a lucrative reward after a successful conviction. On the other hand, it does encourage officers to pursue wealthy suspects and to falsefy evidence to ensure an eventual conviction. There's also little to stop an out-and-out corrupt officer from pocketing an arrestee's possessions during an arrest naturally.Thoughts? Opinions?</blockquote>

Verification