"Freeman" means nothing?

[KarMagedonn]

But, I do not underestand very good, A freeman can be executed without being banned? isn't ?
Now, can be a freeman executed with no reason? Just because The Judge wants? I say, if you are in war with the realm of that freeman, can that be enough to execute him? without torture him at last first to know something? and declare him guilty from something.

[Telrunya]

A Freeman Adventurer in a Dungeon can be executed by the Judge for no reason and without having been banned by that Realm per Game Mechanics.

[KarMagedonn]

Well, in RP reasons I am not agree. Killing a freeman, especially with high prestige and honour, that hasn't do anything against the realm or a noble just because I am bored is not a RP reason, In RP if you are going to do something it has to have a RP background, unless that commoner is an outlaw (and usually you torture first, not just kill). Plus this only in Tyranny or Monarchy leaded by a tyranny that happens. If the Judge does that I think that he has to lose as minimun some honour, if he does not even tell the commoner what is he accused to let him know why, or cause some civil unrest (is not the same to kill an outlaw than a freeman with 20 honour and near to 15 of prestige, probably the peasants like him)
It is my opinion, but what do you think?

[Velax]

I agree, to be honest. Whether it has any basis in RP or not, I would prefer that my character that I've had for months or years could not be executed on a whim by a judge having a bad day.

[D'Espana]

Yep, freeman should not be the same as outlaw. Besides, didn't freemen use to have something like that? Though I think I read somewhere that it was removed.

[Ketchum]

Yep, freeman should not be the same as outlaw. Besides, didn't freemen use to have something like that? Though I think I read somewhere that it was removed.

I agree. Freeman should not be the same as Outlaw. It makes no distinction between Outlaw and Freeman at all. What is the point of Outlaw and Freeman status if there is nothing that diffentiate between both?

This is not going bring more players to go and try out Adventurer class, if you will die not only when you hunting monsters, undead. But die at the hand of Judge bad mood.

Hear Adventurer gained Freeman status last time used to be not able execute on the spot, is it true? I vividly remember I was threaten with execution even though my character was Freeman status. I survived that of course, so not a chance to find out if Freeman could be executed at that time.

[KarMagedonn]

I see some members of the community thinks the same as I. In RP ways, I think that it is a lot of metagaming killing a freeman because you do not like his family for any reason, freemans and commoners in general are not known by their surname but for his name and I think that is Power-Gaming to kill him because "I had a bad day" Judges have awareness and they are usually prudent in their actions.
Even though, if you are going to kill somebody, in all RPG you have to have a reason if he/she is a NPC and more if is a player. Obviously, chaotic people does not have to had a reason, and for tyrants is a sport. If you win the Freeman achievement I think that, since there and for the future, the people is knowing you (if not, there is not any reason to earn prestige and honour for an adventurer) more the time passes earning honour and prestige more the people will know you as the 'hero of the commoners' or something like that, and if commoners know you well, it would not be weird that if that freeman get executed (and more if there is no reason) it causes some civil unrest and honour lost (prestige might, but honour at list)
Am I wrong?

[vonGenf]

I see some members of the community thinks the same as I. In RP ways, I think that it is a lot of metagaming killing a freeman because you do not like his family for any reason, freemans and commoners in general are not known by their surname but for his name and I think that is Power-Gaming to kill him because "I had a bad day" Judges have awareness and they are usually prudent in their actions.
Even though, if you are going to kill somebody, in all RPG you have to have a reason if he/she is a NPC and more if is a player. Obviously, chaotic people does not have to had a reason, and for tyrants is a sport. If you win the Freeman achievement I think that, since there and for the future, the people is knowing you (if not, there is not any reason to earn prestige and honour for an adventurer) more the time passes earning honour and prestige more the people will know you as the 'hero of the commoners' or something like that, and if commoners know you well, it would not be weird that if that freeman get executed (and more if there is no reason) it causes some civil unrest and honour lost (prestige might, but honour at list)
Am I wrong?

It would seem reasonable to me to require a ban to execute freemen. That's a feature request however, so you would have to submit a properly formatted one. You can see the format here:

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2131.0.html

[fodder]

a peasant is a peasant. off with his head.

[egamma]

a peasant is a peasant. off with his head.

Hear hear!

It would seem reasonable to me to require a ban to execute freemen. That's a feature request however, so you would have to submit a properly formatted one. You can see the format here:

http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,2131.0.html

So...should a judge have to "ban" the rebels before you can use the "hang rebels" option?

[vonGenf]

Hear hear!

So...should a judge have to "ban" the rebels before you can use the "hang rebels" option?

Rebels are outlaws. Otherwise they would be freedom fighters. That's what prestige is all about.

[Indirik]

So call him a rebel, *then* hang him.

[vonGenf]

So call him a rebel, *then* hang him.

I'm not saying the current situation makes no sense (it does make sense).

I'm saying requiring a ban to execute a Freeman may be nice from a game-mechanics point of view and is just as rationalizable as the status quo is.

[KarMagedonn]

Agree, it should be first banned. And a rebel is an outlaw, it is pretty diferent thing.

[egamma]

Agree, it should be first banned. And a rebel is an outlaw, it is pretty diferent thing.

So, call the freeman an outlaw. Problem solved. After all, the judge wouldn't execute an innocent man; therefore, any commoner, freeman or otherwise, executed by the judge is guilty of being a rebel.