On Bearing Arms in Cormyr and Arabel

[Voice of Kerensky]

Hello, fellow RPers!

While this thread ultimately springs from a recent series of events involving one of my characters (thanks to those involved for the RP!), it brought to my attention a couple of things regarding the setting.

1) There seems to be a lot of confusion and/or uncertainty regarding the laws regarding armament in Cormyr.

2) If there are significantly different laws or rules than those that are listed within the canon, they are not documented well (read: at all) within any of the server information.

First, I am going to quote from the section "Bearing Arms in Cormyr" from Volo's Guide to Cormyr (an official source; I'll leave it to you to find a pdf as posting here may not be a good idea legally. I will then proceed to examine this material.

The war wizards’ vigilance makes a
word or two of warning necessary: Anyone
bearing an item clearly a weapon
into Cormyr must seek out the nearest
Purple Dragon guardpost and have these
arms inspected and bound with peacestrings.
For these purposes, a weapon is
any knife larger than a belt blade used
for dining, or anything that does harm
when swung that can’t be explained
away as a wayfarer’s staff or tradesman’s
tool. Purple Dragon patrols and passing
war wizards are surprisingly frequent,
and anyone going armed will be challenged
unless their weapons are clearly
tied. Being found with an unbound
weaponunless one has just defended
one’s life against an armed attacker and
has witnesses who can attest to the fact
that you didn’t draw steel firstis
grounds for arrest on the spot and a sentence
of at least confiscation of goods
and expulsion from the realm.

Only persons named in a royal charter
of arms (customarily sold to adventurers’
bands for sizable sums of money), bearing
a license to sell weapons, able to
prove that they belong to the Purple
Dragons or the war wizards, or fulfilling
other specific circumstances, have the
right to bear arms in the realm. Some of
the other valid reasons for bearing arms
are: if one is of noble Cormyrean birth, if
on militia duty, if pursuing weapons
practice under the supervision of your
local lord, if on a hunt sanctioned by
your local lord, if temporarily attending a
recognized hunting lodge, or if holding a
Crown writ. Outlanders visiting Cormyr
can only use the latter two reasons.

As we can see from the above writing, charters of arms are available to "adventurers bands" -- a rather loosely defined term that could hypothetically be as small as one adventurer; I think of note here is the use of "bands" and not guilds. Furthermore, deeper within the material it details the exact fees that the typical Charter would cost per person. According to the material, these are readily available so long as the fee is paid; it is essentially a tax paid to the Crown for the right to bear arms. I think this could be well equated with what is available from the Eyes and Ears, as it allows adventurers to officially pursue bounties and so forth, which would be a rather difficult process in most Cormyrean territories if the adventurer otherwise had to keep his or her weapon peace-bound. Logically, this can go so far as to having a drawn or wielded weapon, as it equates those with charters to those who are on a sanctioned hunt or those pursuing weapons practice--both categories that would certainly have a weapon actively in hand!

The peace-knot itself is further detailed within the available canon material. This is not a simple knot that can be done by just anyone; it is largely a Purple Dragon secret and officially the knots are only tied by Purple Dragons. There are those who know how to mimic the knot, but their one-time services have a hefty gold fee attached. The knot itself is a complex knot that is designed to come apart very easily (so that one may defend themselves with a simple draw of the sword if necessary), but extraordinarily difficult to re-tie properly (as it is, as mentioned previously, a Purple Dragon secret). The purpose is not to prevent violence exactly, but rather, to identify those who have committed violence.

As such, since in our continuity the Purple Dragons have been... politely asked to leave Arabel... peace-binding is not a practice that would be practiced in Arabel, as there is typically no one around to do it--with the rare exception of a Purple Dragon errant, or someone who otherwise has learned to tie the peace knot (far, far from an every day skill).

However, even that is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to Arabel. I am going to quote from aforementioned source again.

Not counting fortresses such as High
Horn, Arabel is the one place in Cormyr
where unbound weapons are worn
openly in public. So many residents and
visitors have the right to go armed that the
watch doesn’t challenge anyone seen with
a ready weapon. The city is home to a
large number of mercenaries who provide
bodyguard service to individuals, valuable
items, or caravans.

There are several things of great note in this paragraph.

1) Unbound weapons are openly worn in public, and are very common (due to the abundance of trade, related guards, and mercenaries).

2) Many have the right to go armed.

3) Because of these two factors, it specifically notes that the watch doesn't challenge anyone seen with a ready weapon.

It requires a little imagination, as the 12+ year old game engine and the server simply cannot accurately portray the hustle and bustle of Arabel. This is a city that has large groups of mercenaries in it looking for hire, that has the constant movement of merchants and caravans with armed guards strolling about. It's not some peaceful little sleepy town with a few well behaved adventurers sitting around a town square. It's a busy and heavily armed city.

And "ready" weapon is certainly something to take note of here. Keep in mind that there are a number of weapons that do not take well to being sheathed, slung, or otherwise holstered. The majority of these are large polearm type weapons -- spears, halberds, things of that nature. These types of weapons are very commonly associated with guards and mercenaries, and I imagine that seeing merchant caravans with guards walking with halberds and polaxes and the like would be rather common. Storing such 6-10 ft long weapons anywhere but in the hand is neither feasible nor practical; they certainly cannot be sheathed, and to wear them slung on the back at a sufficient angle for walking would require so much side to side clearance as to be unwieldy, if not outright dangerous. Unslinging such a large haft from the back with the commonly available movement available to humanoid arms would also be an unwieldy and slow process. This is not something very ideal for any sort of vigilant person. Indeed; long hafted weapons such as spears, pikes, and halberds are often viewed as weapons of vigilance and readiness precisely because they must be held by the wielder, rather than worn like a sidearm such as a sword.

Now, in places like Suzail, where armed parties are somewhat less common and there are Purple Dragons and War Wizards available to perform and examine peace-bindings, armed caravans and the like would probably be examined thoroughly for the appropriate paperwork and what have you at checkpoints.

Finally, from a game mechanics standpoint, to go with the above note on "realism" and polearms, it should be noted that polearm-type weapons are held in the game engine in a relatively "peaceful", held on the shoulders type position when not in combat. It is more or less how you would safely and at ease hold a polearm. To go along with this, there is no issue with, say, mages walking around with powerfully glowing sticks of magic--supposing you were a common  citizen or militiaman, would you be more concerned with one of the hundreds of weapons you probably see on a daily basis, or a glowy stick of magic doom?

Anyhow, your thoughts are most appreciated, and it would seem that this is a conversation that needs to be had. Please note that you can find more information within Volo's Guide to Cormyr and other canon sources, such as the details on peace-binding.

Cheers!

[onivel]

Most polearms could be slung in this manner or across the back. The length does not need to be be equally extending in both directions (ie not centered) so that the longer arms will extend higher over one's head.

Volo's guide aside, the guards of Arabel in game have long since had issues with adventurers fighting in the city. We don't enforce having to have arms "peace knotted", but they are expected to be stowed (sheathed, slung etc). While not every weapon may be conveniently stowed in such a manner to hold 100% to realism, that is a minor sacrifice to having an equally enforced policy of not allowing adventurers to walk about with brandished weapons in the city. 

[Voice of Kerensky]

Dec 12, 2014 2:19:54 GMT -5 onivel said:

*Snip for space*

This fails to address three concerns:

1) Why would guards care about a single adventurer and not hundreds if not thousands of other armed individuals moving throughout the city, some most likely with weapons in hand as per canon sources? Again, Arabel isn't just a few people chatting in the square. We have to imagine all of the traffic--a guard getting worked up about a single occurrence is absurd. They no doubt have to deal with rowdy mercenaries and the like all the time in addition to said adventurers; this is just life in Arabel. Booting out the Purple Dragons and losing a few thousand well trained troops to help enforce such laws would only make such a situation more difficult, even if they wished to do so. Keep in mind it was considered impractical when a garrison was there.

2) From a roleplaying perspective, visual impact can be important. A spear as you have it slung in that picture is by all means both a very visible and a ready weapon. You can instantly commit an act of aggression from such positioning; in this case it is to make it a little easier for long term carrying and much less a means of "disarming." From a visual perspective, since there are no item/clothing based means of displaying the carrying of a very, very notable and visible weapon such as a polearm, does it not make more sense to simply have the weapon "equipped" if you want this to be an important part of the visuals of your character, just as I would equip a sheathe or a back strap for a sword/axe/similar carrying character.

3) Glowy mage death sticks, freely equipped. Easily usable both as a polearm and a weapon of mass destruction... whereas a polearm is just a polearm. Where do you draw the line here? Is a stick you can beat someone senseless with and shoot fireballs out of okay? What about a stick with a pointy thing on the end? A stick with a blade on the end? I have heard the argument that practitioners of magic are registered as a reasoning for it to be okay for them to have a magic staff in hand. What if the mage wants to carry around a pointy stick as their "mage staff"? Does that cease being okay, and why in every layer of the Hells would that be more scary than a glowing death stick? How does a guard know off-hand if they're a mage? For that matter, how does the guard know that it's a registered mage at all that's carrying around a glowy death stick? It could just as well be some yutz that knows just a little too much about magical equipment, and is about to set off a fireball in the middle of a market center. I'd be way more concerned about that than someone resting a heavy polearm on their shoulder for convenience.

Mechanically, the difference between an attack order and hitting a hotbar equip and an attack order are almost moot--from an OOC perspective, if someone wants to start crap they hardly need to have the weapon currently "equipped" for it. I would argue (from experience) that having certain weapons equipped that cannot be accurately portrayed otherwise is more useful as a roleplay tool than keeping them "symbolically" de-equipped has any function in preventing violence. If anything, I would say it only furthers a very false image of Arabel as an empty, peaceful town. It's a heavily armed city of mercenaries and merchants, and the last thing an under-supported militia trying to police an entire city is going to worry about is where someone is simply holding a weapon at any given moment. 

Ultimately, it would seem more important to me to focus on what people are roleplaying rather than if they have a weapon OOCly mechanically "equipped" or "de-equipped".

[Edge]

Frankly, all the arguments and justifications are irrelevant to me. Especially quotations from source material; CD is its own beast and has been such for years, thanks to multiple player and DM actions that have deviated away from "core FR", 100% for the better in my opinion.

What I care about at this point is upholding the precedent that has been set. We have arrested, fined, chased out, or otherwise punished players in the past for refusing to unequip weapons in the city. The guards have, on multiple repeated occasions going back years RL, made it quite clear that carrying weapons - pretty much ONLY excepting quarterstaves and wizard staves - openly equipped in town was unacceptable.

If it's an unwritten "rule" then yes, I believe that needs to be changed, and the rule needs to be written down. But what I do NOT agree with is suddenly changing that enforcement.

[sinisteromnibus]

Dec 12, 2014 4:34:26 GMT -5 psappho said:

Dec 12, 2014 2:19:54 GMT -5 onivel said:

*Snip for space*

This fails to address three concerns:

1) Why would guards care about a single adventurer and not hundreds if not thousands of other armed individuals moving throughout the city, some most likely with weapons in hand as per canon sources? Again, Arabel isn't just a few people chatting in the square. We have to imagine all of the traffic--a guard getting worked up about a single occurrence is absurd. They no doubt have to deal with rowdy mercenaries and the like all the time in addition to said adventurers; this is just life in Arabel. Booting out the Purple Dragons and losing a few thousand well trained troops to help enforce such laws would only make such a situation more difficult, even if they wished to do so. Keep in mind it was considered impractical when a garrison was there.

2) From a roleplaying perspective, visual impact can be important. A spear as you have it slung in that picture is by all means both a very visible and a ready weapon. You can instantly commit an act of aggression from such positioning; in this case it is to make it a little easier for long term carrying and much less a means of "disarming." From a visual perspective, since there are no item/clothing based means of displaying the carrying of a very, very notable and visible weapon such as a polearm, does it not make more sense to simply have the weapon "equipped" if you want this to be an important part of the visuals of your character, just as I would equip a sheathe or a back strap for a sword/axe/similar carrying character.

3) Glowy mage death sticks, freely equipped. Easily usable both as a polearm and a weapon of mass destruction... whereas a polearm is just a polearm. Where do you draw the line here? Is a stick you can beat someone senseless with and shoot fireballs out of okay? What about a stick with a pointy thing on the end? A stick with a blade on the end? I have heard the argument that practitioners of magic are registered as a reasoning for it to be okay for them to have a magic staff in hand. What if the mage wants to carry around a pointy stick as their "mage staff"? Does that cease being okay, and why in every layer of the Hells would that be more scary than a glowing death stick? How does a guard know off-hand if they're a mage? For that matter, how does the guard know that it's a registered mage at all that's carrying around a glowy death stick? It could just as well be some yutz that knows just a little too much about magical equipment, and is about to set off a fireball in the middle of a market center. I'd be way more concerned about that than someone resting a heavy polearm on their shoulder for convenience.

Mechanically, the difference between an attack order and hitting a hotbar equip and an attack order are almost moot--from an OOC perspective, if someone wants to start crap they hardly need to have the weapon currently "equipped" for it. I would argue (from experience) that having certain weapons equipped that cannot be accurately portrayed otherwise is more useful as a roleplay tool than keeping them "symbolically" de-equipped has any function in preventing violence. If anything, I would say it only furthers a very false image of Arabel as an empty, peaceful town. It's a heavily armed city of mercenaries and merchants, and the last thing an under-supported militia trying to police an entire city is going to worry about is where someone is simply holding a weapon at any given moment. 

Ultimately, it would seem more important to me to focus on what people are roleplaying rather than if they have a weapon OOCly mechanically "equipped" or "de-equipped".

Let me take a shot at addressing these concerns:

1. Guards would care about a 'single' adventurer because a 'single' adventurer has cut someone down in the square on more than one occasion. A 'single' adventurer has gone on a killing spree in the city before. A 'single' adventurer can level an entire city block with a spell from a scroll. The source material is very good for telling a DM where to -start- a setting for a campaign, but no source material can adequately predict or describe how a setting evolves. In the case of CD as a game server: the simple truth is that so many characters in the past have abused the guards' laxness in this regard that at this point (almost 10 years after the start of the campaign/server - at which point CD very likely matched Volo's guide exactly in terms of how the guards view adventurers) that it would be a conscious choice of any DM to ignore the rp of -all- of those previous characters (and therefore the rp of others involved with those characters) over the last 10 years. Is that really fair? To have the rp of what is likely at least 10 or more player-characters thrown out the window for -any- reason seems a bit...well, discourteous.

As for traffic and the 'unrepresented npc' population of Arabel: adventurers stand out. It's a fact. Whether it's because of how they dress, how they talk, or how they act the guards would know an adventurer instantly apart from the crowd of npcs. Why? Well, the crowd of NPCs is background in terms of story - that is, no personality can reliably be assumed for any individual NPC because no writer ever defined a specific one for each of them. The adventurers we play can and should only be afforded the same treatment from the guards when they 'fit in' with these NPCs (what some writers call 'gray characters'). So...in short, the fact that your character has a personality at all immediately should and does set them apart from the background in the game world - that's why you play them and come up with interesting stories for them. Now, does that mean the guards are -only- targeting adventurers? I'd say no, but if you're going to assume that they're not stopping people - adventurers and non-adventurers - all the time without any further justification than 'the source material that is used to begin a campaign and describe a non-living setting that does not evolve' then with the same lack of justification you can make the assumption that after CD has had to deal with all the problems it has as a gameworld that grows and evolves as a result of player/character choices and interactions...you can make the assumption for just the opposite. -My- assumption is that the guards are not just standing around all day and staring at psychopaths in the square being psychopaths. -My- assumption is that the represented guards we see are merely a representation for the likely dozens or even hundreds of guards that are patrolling Arabel all the time and likely stopping people every few steps. Secondarily, you've mentioned that your character's weapon and its visual representation is very important to the theme of the character...I would challenge that this importance would cause your character to stand out - as it cannot be assumed that every or even many of the 'gray NPCs' would have this same trait. And thus, this is why the guards noticed your character amid the 'hundreds if not thousands' of unrepresented NPCs.


2. In your first point you seemed to rely on some roleplay assumptions about the NPCs, but in this second it seems you want to take a more 'you have to see it for it to be real' approach. If the 'unrepresented NPC' crowd of Arabel can be assumed to be doing one thing or another, why is it not possible/alright for you to simply emote: *carries a double-bladed axe taller than she is in a holster at her back*? From a visual standpoint, I would personally prefer not to rely on the game's models at all since by and large they're clunky, unrealistic, and cartoony-looking with no semblance of real-world perspective, balance, or weight (I mean, seriously...female tits on many of the outfits BLOW IN THE WIND). If you're really that invested in the visual representation of your character, there's a reason we have a character description editor on the server that can be used to keep your character's appearance constantly updated and viewable to anyone with a simple right-click. Furthermore, because of the clunky graphics of the game most people don't pay that much attention to actual character models (since most are aware that the models serve as only a pale representation and should always be considered a secondary source of visual information to the emotes a player types out). If you insist on sticking to this argument of "I need the weapon equipped for others to know it's there" then your character will never be able to touch another character, will have other characters pass through her like she's a ghost, cannot eat or drink unless it's from a potion bottle, has tits that blow in the wind, has triangle feet, has a head too big or too small for her body, and has a neck that ends somewhere in her abdomen. Which, I'm not sure how my character would feel about all that, but I'm pretty sure those things and figuring out what was wrong with me would take precedent over whether or not I can carry my weapon in my hand.

Mechanically speaking, having a weapon 'equipped' in NWN not only means that weapon is unsheathed - since many characters do not wear their swords sheathed and carry them openly on their belts without sheathes - it also means that the weapon is 'at the ready.' In short, your character appears to be ready for a fight. How do we know this? Well, just as it is in paper and pencil DnD you don't have to take the time in-combat to draw your weapon. That is why some weapons are considered always 'at the ready'. In the case of weapons on NWN having it 'equipped' is the same as 'brandishing' it. In RL if you brandish a knife or gun in front of a cop or a soldier, what do you think will happen to you regardless of the laws of your current location? (My money's on you getting hurt and/or killed).


3. Glowy mage death sticks are considered weapons and actually put mages in a -very- bad position. According to Arabel's laws, if that mage gets in any kind of fight - even if they don't cast a spell or defend themselves in any way - they are considered to have had a weapon equipped, and thus offered less protection by the law (Voss found this out when he got thrown in jail for chopping up a certain arcane apprentice). The fact that Voss had attacked a mage was the difference in him getting a harsher punishment and just spending a day in jail. As for the guards? I don't really think they'd care if it's a mage or not. I'm pretty sure they'd be well within their rights to just assume: "hey, that guy's carrying a staff, he's probably a mage" and if a scuffle erupts whether that guy is a mage or not, he counts as one for all intents and purposes. But let's just say that's not the case and we'll visit your first point again where you cited the 'unrepresented npcs' and their actions and reactions (which is always dangerous unless you are a DM running a plot). Once again, we can easily assume that the guards stop every adventurer in Arabel at least once or twice a tenday to check their charters and registrations (we can assume this because they are unrepresented and we never see a reason why they -can't- do this or don't). Does this mean that the representative NPCs Derrick, Josephine, and Claire know your character or did these checks themselves? I'd say not, but what they do know is that they're appointed representatives of the law in Arabel and as such until someone is in shackles and sitting in court or prison what's on the books doesn't mean jack. The Watchmen of Arabel are peace-keepers, and thus their primary role and concern should always be keeping the peace. The law only comes into play -after- a character has been arrested or punished - and this is true from both an IC and OOC standpoint. If it worked the other way around, you'd have to be put on trial before ever being arrested. The reality is: in real life and in the game world the peacekeepers can make mistakes. If the guards in this case -did- make a mistake your character has the obligation of pursuing the right courses to get retribution (In-Character) - just as you would in rl if you were the victim of police brutality or abuse of authority (you'd sue and the cop would likely lose his job if you won). Taking up an argument with the DMs is cheating yourself out of awesome rp, in my opinion.

Arabel is Lawful Neutral aligned on CD, I'm told, but that does not mean that every NPC in it is of that alignment. It doesn't mean that the guards are of that alignment. I mean, hell...there's a Purple Dragon faction on the server that is player run that could very well have a Chaotic Evil character in it. If this is allowed, how can we expect the NPCs to represent the alignment of their faction any better? We can't. I think in the case of the incident you cited your character was not fined, nor imprisoned, nor taken to trial...nor even arrested. They were told to leave or put the weapon away. The -reason- they were told to do so is irrelevant. The fact is: a figure of authority (representative of law and order) within Arabel gave your character a choice. The fact that legal prosecution was never pursued means this entire interaction really had nothing to do with the laws of Arabel beyond 'that's what Claire felt like citing instead of saying: "Because I said so."' And again, since we cannot assume the unrepresented actions of unrepresented NPCs for all we know Claire will be reprimanded for her behavior and it was just the result of her having a bad day and wanting to mess with an adventurer (because they mess with the guards all the time).


It seems to me the conclusion here is not where the laws of Arabel are currently at (as ambiguous and vague as that may be) - and it would be nice to see Arabel-specific laws somewhere on the forums since the Cormyr laws don't really seem to mention carrying weapons in cities one way or the other - but what authority a DM has with how NPCs react. And this is a pretty dangerous question to ask, honestly. It is my opinion that if a DM is controlling NPCs the player really has no leg to stand on in almost any argument because the player can't see the plot as a whole that the DM is working at. What if the DM in question here had decided that the law was being enforced this way because a brain parasite is slowly infesting the guards of Arabel? What if the DM had decided that there's a mage up to mischief and even when your character 'sheathes' her weapon an illusion spell causes it to still appear to be in her hands? What if the DM had decided that your character suddenly turned into a Xorn right before the guards' eyes?

Time and time again it seems on CD when some players are encountered by a situation they didn't expect rather than embracing it as a chance to define their character through more challenging rp the knee-jerk reaction is to immediately start an OOC discussion about their FR or CD knowledge vs. the DMs. Here's the reality: a DM's knowledge is less relevant than their ability to tell a story. Sad but true. Anyone can google nearly anything about FR, but it is only the DMs who have authority here to introduce your characters to stories and events not of your own making. In short: it is only the DMs that can help your character actually impact the server in a long-lasting or massive-scaled way...but when these DMs have to constantly argue and justify their stories OOC, I'm sure they must at some point begin to wonder why they bother when the stories they create are nothing but work for them so that the same people who fight them tooth and nail can have fun.

Remember, it's not always about being right. This is a game, and it should be about having fun - for everyone. If your character is challenged, show that challenge in the rp and turn it into something awesome! It's way more fun to take these things in-character and roll with them and see where they go than it is to get upset OOC about it and carry-on over it.

My long-winded two cents.

[trylobyte]

I think the core of this problem is one that's been long present on CD - Official canon differs with server canon and in almost all cases these changes aren't recorded anywhere - Only the biggest, most world-changing ones are even commented on (and even then that's hard to find).  Sometimes, old server canon disagrees with new server canon and it's easy for a player or DM to miss that - As an example, during the 'weapons' debate I was a bit miffed when the DM-controlled guard dismissed my character's statement on the political situation in the city, because I knew perfectly well my character was right and the guard should have known that - I was there for the political shuffle and my character, as a minor politician, was well informed on it.  The guard then insulting the noble (which is a crime in and of itself, not to mention incredibly stupid when said noble effectively runs the city) almost felt like the DM was deliberately spiting me.  But then I had to take a step back and remember this was an older DM that had only returned somewhat recently and there was a very good chance the DM themselves didn't know anything was different and assumed I was making stuff up to turn the situation to my own advantage.

It would take a lot of work, but I think the best way forward would be to go through all the old posts and changes and make a big list of the important differences from canon and server lore and keep it up to date as things change.  Asking who effectively rules Cormyr, which should be public knowledge, could garner you three different responses based on how well someone knows the server - It's either Princess-Regent Obarskyr (if they know official canon or oldest CD canon), nobody (if they know older CD canon), or a five-man council of regents (if they're up to date).  And even someone like me who likes to keep on top of political things couldn't tell you who those five regents actually are (I can name two, Lord Marliir of Arabel and Grand Marshal Crownsilver).  Arabel is in a similar state.  And a lot of the newer laws of Arabel, either the ones that aren't common sense or the ones that canon has issues with, aren't written down anywhere so a flip through the lawbook will not tell you 'This is illegal' even as the guards arrest you for it.

[Voice of Kerensky]

Dec 12, 2014 14:24:18 GMT -5 sinisteromnibus said:

Thank you for your well-detailed and nicely thought out post and counter. As you address, there is a certainly lack of clarity and a need for some sort of authority, in which I am in full agreement. I do have a couple concerns I wish to address regarding this topic, one more IC/character oriented and one more OOC/mechanics oriented.

The mostly IC/character angle: There is a very large body of canon material regarding the behavior, laws, and day-to-day life of Cormyr. Now, there is some of that information that over time the server has evolved away from. For example, there is no longer a Purple Dragon army in Arabel. The problem arises when we have situations regarding large changes in law and behavior that are not documented or otherwise accessible.

In the case of my character and the aforementioned situation, given the lack of any evidence or indications to the contrary regarding the server specifically, I was roleplaying within what I felt to be established and uncontradicted canon. Now, if the situation in which she encountered a fussy guard was something of a "one off" situation rather than something really established, that is fine. On the other hand, if this is a problem she should have been encountering all along, if this is something that would impact her day to day life as a mercenary, it becomes OOCly problematic. Suddenly, all of the time I have put into roleplaying said character was simply completely incorrect and at least to me, I feel it invalidates a lot of it. Certainly, she has had conversations in the past in the square regarding her impressive weapon, but these were almost always of a "what an odd weapon" sort of nature rather than anything else. She wouldn't brazenly "brandish" a weapon in a city full of guards if she felt that was anything that was out of the ordinary that would attract attention. Since I had no indications from reading the server material that would be the case and was instead relying on canon material which specifically suggests that would not be a problem, I have now unintentionally run into a conflict that impacts the validity of past and present RP for me.

Such lack of clarity or information can also impact my other characters (or the characters of others who are setting nerds like me). Since I play a Purple Dragon officer, I would expect her to be very well versed in Cormyrean law and decorum, even though I myself can sometimes be lacking or forgetful. If that is the case, I have plenty of references on hand I can quickly look to when she should "know more than I do", so to speak, and I can roleplay her accurately. While she does not go around playing police by any means, she would certainly be happy to answer questions, provide suggestions, or act as a mediator. If she does so incorrectly ICly due to a lack of correct information OOCly (due to server setting law/theme changes or what have you), then I consider that an OOC problem that needs to be addressed.

Such changes also bring about setting-related questions. When did this change to law and behavior take effect? How is a city militia effectively imposing this quite drastic change on a city full of thousands of such individuals without the prior backing they had from a garrison army? How did the various mercenary groups and so forth react to such a change? And to address a concern that you raised, how are the adventurers now that can start fights or level city blocks any different from some of the past traffic and situations that Arabel has had? Arabel is anything but a city with a peaceful or calm history. Turbulence is the norm, and so are rowdy adventurers and mercenaries. 

The mostly OOC/mechanics angle: The question I would have here is when or why would a character having a weapon visually "equipped" matter? We are playing an old game with limited content and the ability to do things such as, say, have my character visually have her weapon on her back or such is rather... limited (or in this case, non-existent). Characters wear cloaks and headgear as visual props. Characters have sheathes on their characters hips/backs as visual props. Mages actively hold staves as visual props, rather than "RP" that they are wielding such everywhere they go. As there is no way to really visually represent what my character is carrying around other than to have her "equip" it, I find RP value in it as a visual prop (it certainly catches plenty of attention). This is much easier than having to "RP" that she has a massive, ridiculous weapon on her to some extent every time a new face appears--as a very militaristic and mercenary character, this is as much a part of her as her hair color. When the prop becomes a subject of RP, then I RP it accordingly.

My concern with the OOC/DM aspect of this is that shouldn't a DM be much more concerned with what is being roleplayed rather than what is being used as a visual prop--in the very least, shouldn't a DM inquire about it/request clarification rather than immediately act either ICly or OOCly? I freely admit that this is a personal preference and perception, and different people have different ways of "doing their thing". I can say with certainty that having the weapon "equipped" has much more of an impact rather than just RPing its existence--the visual abnormality of it attracts a lot of RP, and as such I consider it a positive experience. I can easily RP it as being "slung on her shoulder/back" if such is inquired, but I can't fully replace the results of that visual impact if it is mechanically stored in her inventory no matter how much I'd like to rely on imagination. A picture is worth a thousand words and all that.

I would like to note that I had zero problems with the way things were handled ICly with the guard and present characters the other day, and found it a very positive and enjoyable RP experience. The IC impact of that is something that can be addressed ICly (and to my understanding it currently is, as well has generated some fun RP for me). This post is more to OOCly address some of the questions and difficulties that I found the situation presented.

Also, much agreement with Trylobyte above. That rather largely tl;dr's many of my thoughts regarding this.

[ladybug]

Um...what about the idea that carrying weapons is in and of itself a hostile action? If I saw someone carrying a gun around because "they couldn't sheathe it," I'm going to hit the deck and call the cops.

If their excuse was "it's too big to carry," as I recall it was as I was in the square at the time, my concerns exponentially increase. Why does your character have a weapon you can't handle safely? Why would we want you to keep using it? Trusting your character to have a DOUBLE-BLADED FLAMING AXE in hand breaks my ability to play my character. That's a dangerous sharp object that could easily decapitate someone if she turned too quickly. It utterly destroys immersion. This is purely IC.

OOCly, One of the first things I was told when I joined CD was that it was a no-no to have weapons out because it would be interpreted as hostile. Why do you think you get a pass? Rules are only worth having if they are enforced for all. I don't doubt my characters would be punished for walking around armed.

[sinisteromnibus]

It sounds as if this is something that should be or has been handed off to an admin to resolve, and if so it's a bit rude to be having a public discussion about these things until the admins have had time to make a ruling. I'm all for academically discussing lore/setting, but the reality of it is, psappho that this thread appears to be your way of circumventing the oocly established protocol which is clearly defined here:

6. Player and DM Interaction

Again, see Rule #2. No player should ever be ranting to a DM in the game. Players that do this make DMs not want to do anything for anyone. If a player has an objection to something that a DM is doing, or that a DM is imposing, the player may politely ask the DM to reconsider. If the DM stands by the action, the player may choose to appeal to the Admins, and step back from the scene, at which point the DM will back off, and the matter will be reported to us, at which point we will review the situation. This rule exists to protect the players. Note however that anyone who tries to abuse this and escape well-deserved IC consequences will be dealt with severely.

It seems by this thread even existing that you may be attempting to either sway admin opinion, distract them from the issue, or simply ranting to get your angst out while waiting for them to have time to deliberate and discuss your particular case. I'm not saying that is your intent, but it's an unavoidable conclusion that many can and will reach given the short timeframe in which you interacted with the DMs about this topic in-game and then began this thread.

If your goal is truly academic and in no-way self-interested, then perhaps it's best to put discussion of this topic off until after the DMs/Admins have had time to hold up their end of things and discuss the matter. Even if you are truly just curious and trying to be helpful in this to avoid a future situation similar to your own, to avoid appearing to be trying to circumvent the rules it's likely best to abstain from public discussion of the topic until you've heard back from the admins or DMs.

[Vincent07]

I glanced over some of this.  Frankly, it's a lot of text and I don't have the time to read through all of it at present.  So I'll just post my simplified opinion of a solution that will work for all involved:

Don't walk around towns with weapons equipped.  

RP it all you want. I know I do with my big burly half-orc guy.

[ThayanKnight]

I always say "If you don't like a law, change it, don't break it." The accepted standard is to have weapons visibly unequipped. We will all have our personal opinions about it, but in this case, there is a possible RP angle of finding and gathering support among the adventurers, the general population and the nobility to back such a change. I'd say roll with the initial miscommunication as your character's personal interpretation of the law (which can differ from a judge's) and use it to create a story. Just my thought.

[sinisteromnibus]

Dec 12, 2014 19:53:24 GMT -5 Vincent07 said:

I glanced over some of this.  Frankly, it's a lot of text and I don't have the time to read through all of it at present.  So I'll just post my simplified opinion of a solution that will work for all involved:

Don't walk around towns with weapons equipped.  

RP it all you want. I know I do with my big burly half-orc guy.

'nuff said. +1

[trylobyte]

Dec 12, 2014 19:53:24 GMT -5 Vincent07 said:

I glanced over some of this.  Frankly, it's a lot of text and I don't have the time to read through all of it at present.  So I'll just post my simplified opinion of a solution that will work for all involved:

Don't walk around towns with weapons equipped.  

RP it all you want. I know I do with my big burly half-orc guy.

Think the problem is more that it's treated as a legal infraction if a DM sees a PC doing it, but there's no actual law recorded anywhere that could be found in-character that says it's a crime.  It's like arresting someone for having a legally-registered firearm being carried openly when your city doesn't have a law prohibiting open carry, just because it's something you've always done.  Needs to be recorded into law at some point; you can't arrest someone on precedent alone.  That's why I raised the larger issue I did, because I think it's the root of this problem and many others.

[ladybug]

A legally-registered firearm would more likely than not still be holstered either on the hip or on an over-the-shoulder strap. Carrying a firearm in your hand is some real Plan 9 violation of common sense and asking for an accidental discharge. Said holstering seems to be in line with Vincent's ruling about not walking about with weapons in hand, so the matter should be dropped.

[Deleted]

Don't be a menace to Arabel Central...wurd