What if jails were player-created dungeons with mandatory escape routes or methods of escape, and going to such a jail was a choice in lieu of mandatory fine or spirit loss?

You can think of the usual punishment of loss of spirit (i.e., spark life time) as execution that happens in a world where spirit-walking revivification is a thing. If someone is infamous enough, and does something bad enough, the spirit loss will result in permadeath. So, the spirit loss penalties are like executions the same way coup de grace is like getting killed in combat..

Oof been a while since I posted on the forum but I'd like to weigh in. I see both sides of "Should we allow executions?" debates, and it's a tough call for me.

Anti-Execution The idea of having to pay real money to make a new character is a tough price to pay for in-game and perfectly within game-permissible actions. This seems a bit tough to swallow, especially since the people making the decisions are just players as well. There's no easy way to say it, there is a chance of it being heavily abused by some people.

Pro-Execution On the other hand, if a community as a whole decides they do not want to have some especially nefarious criminals, especially murderers or worse, they should have some kind of recourse to forcibly remove that person from the city, country, or even the world. I think NOT having executions ALSO has a chance of being abused, because it means you can never be terminated for your crimes. People mention the spirit loss aspect, but honestly that's a dead argument since we don't know how severe the spirit loss will be. Will it be a slap on the wrist or can the Nobles DECIDE how much spirit loss you are hit with? Since this is a variable, we can't really use it as a fair argument against execution.

Ultimately If execution isn't going to be an option, there SHOULD be a method to FORCIBLY banish someone from a kingdom. Mark them as being "Exiled", and after let's say... a week, if they haven't left the kingdom, then they're trespassing, and can no longer gain benefits for being in towns. Basically this means they'd be unable to own land, unable to gain comfort related bonuses for living in a town, etc... They'd be treated as a homeless person on the run from the law at all times until they left the kingdom and found a new refuge.

This allows for people to be bandits if they really want, but the world is a harsh place for criminals who do not have the numbers to make real towns. With no actual acknowledged authority in a town, any city they form would be unrecognized by the kingdom, and be attacked on sight for not complying with the King/Queen's law. Because of this, there is no benefit for these kind of exiled people to stay in town, and in fact living IN town would be near impossible for them, they'd have to camp outside of town and sneak in to perform their dastardly deeds.

That's just my take on the whole circumstance. Ultimately I believe there should be an execution mechanic, I just can't justify how to implement it fairly. This is why I propose the Exile method instead.

There is a Roman saying that you do not kill your enemies. You cripple them.

The reason to crippling them rather than killing them, the main one out of the secondary reasons, is that if you kill them you make them a martyr. Now in the game the idea of martyrism could be converted into that of thinking that dieing isn't such a big deal. And since dieing isn't such a big deal or getting caught isn't a big deal, you can commit atrocities that cause terror.

Another reason to crippling and going on from the main idea of martyrism is that, if you cripple them you also cripple their ability to fight back against you, or even commit any atrocities back to anyone.

The next reason to crippling is to have a permanent stained symbol of what was once great permanently walking around, reminding people of what would happen to you if you commited the same type of atrocities they have. This fear will be the first line of enforcement that would prevent most people from committing such atrocities.

So essentially you should not try to erase these people from existence, but constantly make examples out of them, prolonging their suffering for as long as you could. This would essentially be the crippling part, as you can't really cripple them in real life.

Second as you can not perhaps execute their accounts permanently (in reality the purpose of execution was to disconnect the criminal from the world so that they are no longer connected to the world, which disallows further crimes from them) you must encourage a continuous prolonged persecution till either that character is dead (after much prolonged suffering) or after they have acknowledged their crimes and serve willingly a sentence of service.

For this reason, if the decision to kill them is decided and they just get up and walk around again, you should capture them again, then sentence them to punishment again, and repeat this process, until they are either dead, or they acknowledge they have been wrong and agree to willingly serve a sentence for the good of the community.

Posted By Korinra at 02:20 AM - Thu Dec 12 2019

People mention the spirit loss aspect, but honestly that's a dead argument since we don't know how severe the spirit loss will be. Will it be a slap on the wrist or can the Nobles DECIDE how much spirit loss you are hit with? Since this is a variable, we can't really use it as a fair argument against execution.

Then we don't have enough information to have a meaningful discussion about it really. If we don't have enough information to say it works then that also means you don't have enough information to say it wont. Which tends to be the basis of the standard prison/execution argument. "That current mechanics wont work and more is needed". However you can't say more is needed but then also say, we don't have enough information.

For example, your quote here specifically goes on the notion that current mechanics fail and do not do their job:

I think NOT having executions ALSO has a chance of being abused, because it means you can never be terminated for your crimes

There are many planned ways to effectively cull criminals from their afflicted population. So if were saying we don't have enough information about current systems to say if they fail or not, you cannot make the above argument.

Also, exile is already planned.

You say I don't have enough information to say it doesn't work, but you'll also note I didn't say it wouldn't. I'm taking the two claims and valuing them at their independent values.

For claims that we SHOULD have execution available, I place the value that we don't really know how it will or won't be abused, but it does have the desired results of removing people from a society that doesn't want them.

For claims that we SHOULDN'T have execution, well the arguments against it aren't substantial since they typical rely on using game mechanics that we don't know yet. However, there is the argument that knowing you can't be executed could be abused just like the knowledge that executions could be abused.

Though ultimately the point you raise that I'm in disagreement with is saying that I don't have enough information to have the discussion with my aforementioned disagreement to mechanics knowledge. I'm sure you've heard the phrase, "I don't need to know the right answer to know an answer is wrong."

Without a calculator or a way to write anything down, you instinctively know that 1248x2937 does not equal 10. You may not have enough information to solve that in your head, but you can point out a wrong answer, or even a wrong method. The fact is, I can take each argument on their own merit. Saying that executions might be abused is a valid argument, but saying that spirit loss will be a sufficient penalty isn't because we don't know if it will be or not.

This means, yes, we have some unknown variables, but the discussion is still a worthwhile one to have. If you, for instance, wanted to argue that executing someone allows them to just come back in a new life and cause havoc, well we don't know that either. Maybe executions wouldn't allow you to come back into the same family, and you'd wind up playing in a new kingdom. We don't know, so that argument would be a moot point.

The truth is, I'm addressing the common claims as individual claims, that is why I started the discussion by saying I was torn. I still hold the default position, I haven't decided if I'm pro or against executions. I do like the idea of exiling people, and may ultimately grow to be anti-executions as a result, but that'll also depend on exactly how exiling works mechanically. If it works how I proposed it, there's a good chance I'll wind up just pushing for that to be the major penalty for crime.

We know that permadeath does not cause a loss of choices in the soul chamber. Execution is nothing but a guaranteed permadeath, from the point of view of the game's current mechanics. Preventing an executed person from resparking in any area would require a restriction of a player's choice in the soul chamber. This would be both an additional design element requiring coding and testing and a gameplay design change that would dash the expectations of many players. Therefore, it's extremely unlikely to happen, whether or not it's a good idea in principle.