arbiter
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
arbiter [2012/11/25 20:49] – Namespaces pinkgothic | arbiter [2017/11/18 21:34] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | An **Arbiter** in [[Sehto]] is a human being chosen as an interface to the human world by the [[legendaries]]. | + | An **Arbiter** in [[Sehto]] is a human being chosen as an interface to the human world by the [[Legendaries]]. |
+ | |||
+ | ====== Purpose ====== | ||
An Arbiter fields two primary purposes: | An Arbiter fields two primary purposes: | ||
- | For one, he is designated as the one person allowed to pass final judgement on his fellow human beings | + | For one, he is designated as the one person allowed to pass final judgement on his fellow human beings when they' |
- | when they' | + | |
- | themselves, but they will look to the Arbiter for the final call. Since this privilege is granted by the | + | For two, rather unlike what the term might imply, the Arbiter is responsible for the execution of the will of the legendaries once a consensus between him and the Legendary Council is attained. |
- | legendaries, it can, of course, equally be revoked at any time, effectively nilling its power in theory, | + | |
- | though in practise the legendaries | + | ====== Initial Formal Design ====== |
- | [[character: | + | |
+ | Formally, the position of Arbiter began as a pure advisor to the Council. He had no power to fell decisions about the sentence of the accused, but he was granted the ability to //veto// these decisions, which was an indirect way of having much the same influence - if the Arbiter wished, he could veto all decisions but the one precisely conforming to his expectations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The combination of formal alignment and the ability to veto any decision formed the axioms for the third purpose - the execution of the sentence. The Council deemed it important that it was executed by someone on the victim' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Arbiters in Practise ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | While a strong supporter of principle of an Arbiter, Jagdish Tsukinaka only reluctantly fills the role himself, because the associated chore of sentence execution is not entirely to his liking; while he fully agrees the victims of the Council deserve their (arbitrated) fates, emotionally, | ||
- | For two, rather unlike what the term might imply, the Arbiter is responsible | + | There have been no other Arbiters yet, though [[character: |
- | of the legendaries once a consensus between him and the legendary Council is attained. | + | |
- | While a strong supporter of principle of an Arbiter, Jagdish Tsukinaka only reluctantly fills the role | + | {{tag> |
- | himself, because the second chore is not entirely to his liking - while he fully agrees the victims of the | + | |
- | Council deserve their (arbitrated) fates, emotionally, | + | |
- | to someone else. Rationally, he deems himself the best candidate, as it is precisely his lack of sadism | + | |
- | that makes his actions so meticulously and precisely applied. | + |
arbiter.1353876577.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/11/18 21:34 (external edit)