Oh I see, so when you have the option to turn of attacking ncps on, you cannot kill them if they become hostile. I remember this being an issue for me during beta and launch.

Tipsy wrote: »

In my opionion,it would only be logical if they attack first the label of innocent should be disabled on that npc.

I don't think any city guard or Imperial judge or counselor would take you as the innocent part because that NPC in his own house caught you plundering it and decided to fight for his home/money/pride.

BenLocoDete wrote: »

I don't think any city guard or Imperial judge or counselor would take you as the innocent part because that NPC in his own house caught you plundering it and decided to fight for his home/money/pride.

To act violent or attempting to kill an intruder that is eating all your chocolate cookies is a disproportionate response.
The law however gives everyone the right of self-defense.In case the intruder does attack you.
However this means the court can also give the owner a lesser punishment if he/she acted with a disproportionate response.
Like the example of the attack for a chocolate cookie,that would be judged as an imperfect self-defense & the home owner would likely receive a punishment as well.

By definition the one attacking is no longer blameless or "innocent'
When the home owner pulls out the axe because you steal soms beets ,it is a disproportionate response to the theft.
But then suddenly you are the murderer for taking down an "innocent" lol..In this scenario its self-defense on part of the intruder because the cow is mad enough to pull an axe for a beet.
If however the owner would call the guard ,or take cover ,it would be just that he/she would remain " innocent "
And if you then attack them first,it is justified to call you the murderer once they get killed

WanderingJarlPuncher wrote: »

Bounty hunting . period. you get a justic Bounty on your head? the system allows Bounty hunter to track you. kinda like repo but with more bite

I was thinking about bounty hunters that chase you once you make it back to your own alliance.
if the bounty on your head gets high enough.Pretty much like how the Thalmor in Skyrim sends a few agents after you in the wilderness now and then when you pose a great threat to them.
The only problem there is that the other campaigns you do after your own campaign are "what if scenario's" and according to the story the ones of the other alliance will not recognize you.
Badges for kills would be ok though as the other alliance would see those as a sign of dedication and service(just like how they never question how you imported the stuff you gain in the other campaigns xD)
But with the cross alliance bounty hunting it would mean they need to be aware ,or does anyone have another idea for this?

What about this?
With an insane bounty, you would be flagged for pvp for the respective alliance members to engage you once you get back to your own allliance(I heared soon all alliances will play together)
Ofcourse the bounty hunter player would then receive a reward too for killing the wanted fugitive of his/her alliance

Get caught stealing, owner attacks you... that's legal lol

Tipsy wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

I don't think any city guard or Imperial judge or counselor would take you as the innocent part because that NPC in his own house caught you plundering it and decided to fight for his home/money/pride.

To act violent or attempting to kill an intruder that is eating all your chocolate cookies is a disproportionate response.
The law however gives everyone the right of self-defense.In case the intruder does attack you.
However this means the court can also give the owner a lesser punishment if he/she acted with a disproportionate response.
Like the example of the attack for a chocolate cookie,that would be judged as an imperfect self-defense & the home owner would likely receive a punishment as well.

By definition the one attacking is no longer blameless or "innocent'
When the home owner pulls out the axe because you steal soms beets ,it is a disproportionate response to the theft.
But then suddenly you are the murderer for taking down an "innocent" lol..In this scenario its self-defense on part of the intruder because the cow is mad enough to pull an axe for a beet.
If however the owner would call the guard ,or take cover ,it would be just that he/she would remain " innocent "
And if you then attack them first,it is justified to call you the murderer once they get killed

You're assuming the game culture mimics the common culture and ethics of the real world with regard to justice.

Personally i favour the games justice versus reality, people keep taking your stuff, you can actually protect it with lethal force. No questions asked, if you lose though, the intruder gets murder added on top. What good is calling for the guards and giving the intruder a chance run off with any valuables when you're right there and willing to try to stop it?

Twilix01 wrote: »

Smasherx74 wrote: »

Oh I see, so when you have the option to turn of attacking ncps on, you cannot kill them if they become hostile. I remember this being an issue for me during beta and launch.

What are you talking about? The justice system didn't exist in beta or at launch.

Back at launch it was possible, rarely, to aggro non-combat NPCs. They'd attack you, and you couldn't do anything about it.

It honestly sounds like Tipsy aggroed a non-justice NPC somehow. If you turn on nameplates it becomes instantly apparent which NPCs can be killed/pickpocketed/whatever and which ones can't. In theory you shouldn't be able to draw aggro from non-Justice NPCs, but apparently it is possible.

Again, i think you're getting non-specific ideals of the game mixed up with knowledge of real world laws in your area.

If you travelled to any other country they would have different customs, different laws, sure they can be similar, but not 100% the same. Some countries still do extreme things that would be considered horrible by another.

This isn't really different, in that it's not a nation you live in and deal with their style of getting things done so applying your semantics on top is moot.

Afterall, that's what it is, semantics, you personally think lethal force is overkill for defending ones home/property, i personally think it's justified. If youwere the one in charge of writing the rules society must follow you may say people have to put up with things being taken and they can't fight to keep it. If i were in control, i'd simply allow the owner to use whatever means to protect themself and their property.

My point with that is, people tend to stick with what they've always known growing up, anything different is likely "too extreme" whereas it may be an everyday normality to the other.


Untill such a day that Bethesda or ZoS write out a fully fleshed out legal system with every Tamrielic law or just enough to cover the basic crimes we are able to commit and penalties and precents, it will never be fully known if in this fictional world it's legal to use such means to protect your property.

It was at least once legal in the US to use lethal force to defend against intruders, whether it still is or in some states i'm not sure. but the logic with that is someone is in your home, unannounced, you don't have time to ask them "are you a thief or just a murderer?" in they are also a murderer you give them too much time.

Not everyone is innocent

They are if you break into their home and steal their stuff.

there have been real house break ins that lead to the home owner being killed because they wake up to some noise.

I hardly see how it makes me a 'psychopath' because i don't care to try a home owner for murder if they happen to kill a robber who breaks into their home.

It's all about culture, and right now for this game, going at face value, it's fair to say the untold culture is that you have a right to kill to protect your possessions.

If this were a real world nation, would be still be arguing innocents have no rights to protect themself and their things?

No where did i mention chopping the remains to hide it. Only guilty people do that, and if it's self defense you can't be guilty.

And yes, the innocence tag still applies because you robbed them. It's a game, it lacks the ability to fully provide immersion of a realistic scale where you can see just why breaking in and robbing someone would be scary for them.

A couple months back, a guy was charged in australia because he accidently killed a man who broke into his home, and was found in a room standing and facing his baby. Let that sink in, a man broke into someone's home and was found in a room facing his baby. What reaction would you think is more likely, to ask "Are you hear to steal candy from a baby? or get aggressive fast to get an intruder out and protect yourself/loved ones/property?

that's the sad thing with this world, people doing the wrong thing are the ones protected by law while everyone wants to pick on the victim. "He has no right to defend himself, thieves have every right to his stuff!"

Go back several centuries it's less so, and more so like in ESO, kill a thief or a highwayman and no one bats an eye. it was normal, and welcomed because people don't like being robbed.

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of justice, not just for a game but in the real world sense. Just to re-iterate, with the guy protecting his baby, the killing itself was an accident, he just wanted a random stranger who appeared in HIS home staring at HIS child.

You might be willing to wait to see what a random person in your home would do to your child before doing anything about it, but don't pretend the victim is the one doing anything wrong.

Once again, don't get concepts from your own current legal system mixed up with thinking it's a universal belief across all nations and throughout all time. Unfortunately people have this "all life is precious" mentality, even for serial killers and would argue prefer to argue "it's just an item, you should have let them steal it" rather than "it's just an item, you shouldn't be stealing". forgetting at the same time, not all thieves are *just* thieves.

You stole an item, you got attacked, you want the victim NPC to be the bad guy. In a real world simulation, even in real cases, people get killed by house thieves. just because a game is rather limited in trying to show exactly that feel, nor perspective you fail to see that aspect in why after you murder the npc, you're still the bad guy.

there is a fine line ,I give you that.
In my opinon that line should be "weapon drawn or not" as explained above

Just imagine a home owner carving into someone with an axe while the intruder's weapon is sheathed...innocent ?
I know another story of a man that got shot because he stole a pumpkin from someone's garden.The owner got the punishment rightfully in my opinion because his offense was far greater and it was an overreacted response.
There are different manners to settle pitiful thievery

The intruder stealing the pumpkin did not get aggresive and the vegetable garden was located on the property of the homeowner.
The owner shot the pumpkin thief while he was making a run for it... but whether it happened on the property or not ,that I don't know
Perhaps the rules should be different for when someone enters a house with open door
And for when someone picks the lock on the front door to enter a property?

It would be difficult for some players not to gloat ,if an owner with unreasonable response(like an npc trying to kill the player for stealing a pumpkin from the garden)
gets arrested instead of them.
Although this would mean that NPC's would need personality too,because we don't want all NPC to suddenly lose their minds around us.
It would have to be sporadical and only for NPCs that are not related to quests.

Ofcourse if they are out of their mind and capable of doing anything,they are blamable and a danger to society