From: bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Carrying weapons around (was Re: META:  Swords, etc)
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:04:39 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <9319@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>In article <40721@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.034021.19763@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>
>	Well, guess you'd be suspicious of an awful lot of the gamers I
>have gamed with over the years. Several of them carry loaded large-caliber
>handguns with them at all times. They aren't psychotics out to kill
>someone, but they feel that there are enough "bad people" out there so that
>it is worthwhile to carry a good piece of self defense around with them.

	(I hope this doesn't turn into Rec.Guns.Ban!  Kill me if it
does!)
	Yes, I would be suspicious.  I live in a city called Los
Alamitos out here in Southern California and my neighbors (and
others in the city) have called the cops for less than that.
	But, in my opinion, if you're carrying a gun, either you're
doing it for bluster (and then you're a fool), or you're doing it
because you're prepared to use it.  I'm assuming your friends are
the latter and that means that they most definitely are preapred to
kill someone with their weapon.  If not, then I'd question why
they're carrying the weapon around to begin with.
	In Los Alamitos I've had friends pulled over for no real
reason other than, "You look suspicious."  In Long Beach (a handful
of blocks away) I know people who get stopped by the cops once a
month who look through their cars searching for guns and drugs.
	Getting away from personal experience, though, the nicer the
neighborhood, the more well-to-do the people are, the less open
weaponry is going to be tolerated.  Although the more dangerous the
neighborhood, this might hold true as well if the weapons are out in
the open.
	A good example for a setting where open weaponry MAY be
accepted is the "Wild West" campaigning.  (Of course in the
Unforgiven, there's a very specific town where guns are to be turned
into the sheriff).
	Again, the less reason you have to use a weapon, the greater
the chance is for you to be carrying it around, and the greater the
chance is that the police/whatever may decide to stop you.  (And
yes, I've had friends stopped for carrying swords.  I had a friend
who was taken in for carrying a sword in the back of his car.  Me, I
think the cops were bored, but he was still hassled for hours...)

>	And I've walked through the city streets of two cities, so far, 
>wearing a sword on my hip. No one's done anything to me, although one
>cop car did slow down and the police gave me odd looks.
>
	Guess they weren't bored!  :)

>	Well, that depends very much on the world, eh?

	Yup, I thought I made that clear.  I was just producing a
conter-example to the "Yah, sure, run around with all the guns 'n
armor you want" AD&D-style world.

>	In my world, Adventurer is a recognized profession. People 
>admire Adventurers (they occupy much the same position in society as,
>say, major movie stars do in the US) and want to be like them.

	Well, that's scary, to be honest (grin), but people
fantasize about being like Madonna, so who am I to argue?

>	Weapons are worn as a matter of course in almost all cities,
>and most certainly will be worn by adventurers. Considering that legal
>issues are often resolved by the principals involved and not the 
>local constabulary, adventurers are well-known to be vulnerable to
>attack at any time. An Adventurer who was walking around completely
>unarmed in my world would be thought either crazy, or else he must
>have something REALLY nasty up his sleeve.

	Life must be hard on the normal people, then, wouldn't it?
Pretty scary world.  I'd assume that some cities wouldn't allow
adventuerers within their walls (unless they're into open warfare in
the streets...), and some inns, etc, wouldn't let adventurers stay
at their establishments for the same reasons...


>	In fact, the social strata higher up REQUIRE that you come 
>armed -- especially if you are going to meet the King. To be disarmed
>is to indicate not only a lack of trust but an insult and an implication
>that you offer yourself helpless before your host.

	Interesting interpretation, I must admit.  In most worlds
(including our modern ones), I would rule oppositely, but my worlds
are hardly like yours!
	Again, your world is a high-risk world (especially for them
adventurers!) and being armed can be accepted.  If the world was at
relative peace, no wars were going on in the nearby vincinity,
running around armed may very well be cause for alarm.  (And I can
think of a lot of examples in your world where being adventurers
would get parties kicked out of cities.  "We don't want our peaceful
city turned into a warfield!  Out!  Out!"  Heck, if it's as
dangerous as you say, what inn would open their doors to an
adventuring party?  "Yeah, there were some adventurers here last
week.  A group of kobold assassins caught up with them in the night
and nearly burnt down half the inn.  At least they were nice enough
to pay for the damage...")

>                                 Sea Wasp
>                                   /^\
>                                   ;;;

	*I* know what a sea wasp is!  :)