tedium
Clueless newb
Posts: 164 
|
Post by tedium on Aug 31, 2019 9:53:26 GMT -5
Staff have traditionally turned away from having lesser-nobles in the game who are used differently than the very narrow white-collar-esque vision of nobles that they hold. In reality, noble houses often relied heavily on cadet branches and relatives for field work. Even if they weren't allowed to directly manage House affairs, fourth or fifth children and cousins could prove themselves as managers of lesser projects, political appointments, priests, or warriors. To point at fantasy fiction, look at Lancel as a Squire, Cupbearer, and then eventually a Knight, or Loras as a famed tournament knight, or the many noble (or knightly, or even wealthy commoner) ladies in waiting of lesser noble houses surrounding Margery, or the use of nobles as House Guards in Mistborn. These depictions are based on real practices.
I'm not saying that Armageddon should go full-Feudal fantasy, but I think that some leeway in what nobles are allowed to do, and their corresponding responsibilities, would make them more exciting, unpredictable, and even be a little more practical in terms of "real world responses." It seems like there's some blanket decree against nobles doing much of anything but politics.
If I'm wrong and you can totally app up a Borsail noble and spend your time fighting in the arena, or if you can make an Oashi noble who travels the world to cut deals with tribals for their unwanted witch children, then feel free to correct me. But in my experience this is a hard no from staff because they hold a very narrow view on ''noble behavior' that realistically only fits direct heirs, while also insisting that PC nobles are very far down the totem pole of House power.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Aug 31, 2019 9:54:06 GMT -5
I realize that. And with some deviations, the final conclusion of this change, or that change is probably inevitable. I mean it's been coded and tested, would be odd not to release it. I only mentioned it, because it's widescale enough that could potentially be the body to involve and tie in together various other plots. But in truth, not really. Because it's progression is tied in to feature release. The difference is, when the change is at the end of a series of events, you have a series of events. When the change is presented at the beginning of a series of events, you have (potentially) a metaplot. Literally the only thing staff would have had to do differently is code and test whatever they want, release it, and then present a metaplot that introduces the change and see what players do as a reaction to the change. Frontload the change if you're interested in a dynamic narrative that players can shape, backload the change if you want players to have an influence on what that change actually is or if you want to dictate the events leading up to the change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2019 15:04:45 GMT -5
Staff have traditionally turned away from having lesser-nobles in the game who are used differently than the very narrow white-collar-esque vision of nobles that they hold. In reality, noble houses often relied heavily on cadet branches and relatives for field work. Even if they weren't allowed to directly manage House affairs, fourth or fifth children and cousins could prove themselves as managers of lesser projects, political appointments, priests, or warriors. To point at fantasy fiction, look at Lancel as a Squire, Cupbearer, and then eventually a Knight, or Loras as a famed tournament knight, or the many noble (or knightly, or even wealthy commoner) ladies in waiting of lesser noble houses surrounding Margery, or the use of nobles as House Guards in Mistborn. These depictions are based on real practices. I'm not saying that Armageddon should go full-Feudal fantasy, but I think that some leeway in what nobles are allowed to do, and their corresponding responsibilities, would make them more exciting, unpredictable, and even be a little more practical in terms of "real world responses." It seems like there's some blanket decree against nobles doing much of anything but politics. If I'm wrong and you can totally app up a Borsail noble and spend your time fighting in the arena, or if you can make an Oashi noble who travels the world to cut deals with tribals for their unwanted witch children, then feel free to correct me. But in my experience this is a hard no from staff because they hold a very narrow view on ''noble behavior' that realistically only fits direct heirs, while also insisting that PC nobles are very far down the totem pole of House power. No. I'm pretty sure it'd be a hard no. But ... Why the hell do you even want this? The heavy corrupt boot of authority stomping on the commoners is one of the attractions of the game. Why would you want to lose that by playing a commoner role with immunity to class prejudice. |
|
tedium
Clueless newb
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedium on Sept 1, 2019 7:46:05 GMT -5
Why would you lose any of those things? If anything, it would allow for more corruption because by having lesser nobles, individual commoners/players might over overlapping goals, and higher nobles have a real reason to bribe, cajole, and nudge their family members into the positions that commoners strive for. Even in the example of an arena-fighting Borsail, they might challenge a clearly-highly-skilled player to an arena fight for sport. If you were that commoner, wouldn't you try to lose so that the noble doesn't get pissy and take off your head? That seems like corruption and authoritative boot-stomping to me. Right now it's random and arbitrary, which -- frankly -- is boring. It's why nobles and templars so rarely fuck with people. If you're a commoner aide for a Templar and suddenly, Nippy Oash wants her third cousin Floppy Oash to be that Templar's aide so that she gets word of Templar plans, wouldn't it drive home the class difference when you get immediately fired for a fuckwad who doesn't know what he's doing? Or if you're forced to be Floppy Oash's aide instead? You might have to secure your position by making an alliance with another noble who hates Nippy Oash so that they can bankroll bribes that you can't afford. If you're an Arm Soldier and you've worked hard to become Sergeant or Captain or whatever their PC leader rank is these days, and some Tor noble swoops in and takes it from you just by being noble, wouldn't that drive home that you're inferior to the nobles? Now you have to take orders from this guy just because he has a ring on his finger, and he's there every day. If you're a merchant who sources their logs from one grebber, and then a noble opens up shop and "gently suggests" that grebber sell their materials to the nobles first, often leaving you without any materials, wouldn't that be a constant remind of the class differences? It seems to me that having a hard line where nobles are these prissy, chardonnay-sipping fuckwads that are incapable of doing anything by a matter of policy makes them look weak and ineffective instead of terrifying forces of authority. I'm more afraid of dwarves with sneak than I am of nobles, because nobles don't do a whole lot unless you go looking for trouble.
The idea that being a figher, aide, priest, or merchant is a "commoner role" when Templars literally do just that (seriously, the guy that sells mounts is a Templar ffs), and historically, nobles have done that, really shows how much staff have warped the game's perspective on what nobles are. It's such a narrow, stifling version of nobility that it makes the rank kind of useless in game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 12:05:06 GMT -5
Perhaps so. But don't you think what will happen instead is that the sergeant position that the noble takes will stick with them and they'll be doing a fair job. Afterall, they 'are' ran by the same players. That merchant position will become established. Yeah, he muscled out the competition, which was fun, but then it's over.
What we might end up with is nobility in every rank of population. Will commoners be pressed by their authority? Yes, but they'd be pressed by authority of their higher position anyway. Will the higher position (ie Templars) be able to press now noble officers? No. They wouldn't.
We'd end up with a percentage of the playerbase that lead active lives and are immune to the injustices of Allanaki government stature.
For the corruption to remain in it's place, the nobility that do this must have a maximum of 8 wisdom as a compulsory requirement.
mages are powerful with spells, but are shunned by society, killed on sight by other societies, and are often unemployable legally.
delves have high mobility, and inherent sneak/hide, but they are limited to turfs, have tribes with weird ways, cant ride. Cant live in cities.
HGs are very strong, but are very dumb. Cant pull off leadership roles, cant do many intelligence required tasks.
Muls are very strong and smart, but have inner emotional conflicts that occasionally result in massacres. Can only be slaves, or escaped slaves.
Nobles are … yes? Nobles are what? What are their balancing factors? Currently the nobles balancing factor is that they cannot get things done themselves due to appropriateness of tradition of higher standing. They "have" to hire out. Now with your proposal, they can actually use their hands, heads, and get shit done. What are their balancing factor now?
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,515 
|
Post by Jeshin on Sept 1, 2019 12:18:09 GMT -5
Mages are employable, gemmable, are not killed on sight, and evidently make up a large part of the Allanak force projection strategy. What is their balancing factor?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 12:22:10 GMT -5
Shunned by society? Are you implying that gemmed do not have societal balancing factor? Really, Jeshin?
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Jeshin on Sept 1, 2019 12:30:41 GMT -5
Can a mage be shunned by staff and some PCs. Sure.
Is it intermittent and often discussed even on the GDB that people are to friendly with elves, breeds, and mages and that there is no functional deterrent to this and in fact, it is advantageous for players to commit taboo things because of the power benefit of a mage friendly to yourself?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 12:36:39 GMT -5
Well. Players acting against docs is a thing. But it has nothing to do with the subtopic of this conversation. If you think that mages have no societal balancing factor, I cant help you and I'm not going to bother arguing.
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Jeshin on Sept 1, 2019 12:49:39 GMT -5
Noble balancing factors...
1 - If they do things themselves they are opening themselves up to more risk.
2 - Nobles are prime targets for aggression, their opening to risk is higher than some nameless schlub.
3 - There have been combat-y nobles in the past. Raleris, Tor, etc etc. What made them so bad wasn't the balancing factor that they were war heroes and not particularly politically inclined beyond that?
Balancing Factors in General..
1 - Yes people play against docs
2 - You need to create disincentives to that
3 - They need to be applied consistently
4 - Claiming bad players are bad, but not changing the game to enforce their badness is not a solution
5 - Reality trumps intention every time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 13:07:32 GMT -5
Noble balancing factors... 1 - If they do things themselves they are opening themselves up to more risk. 2 - Nobles are prime targets for aggression, their opening to risk is higher than some nameless schlub. 3 - There have been combat-y nobles in the past. Raleris, Tor, etc etc. What made them so bad wasn't the balancing factor that they were war heroes and not particularly politically inclined beyond that? Balancing Factors in General.. 1 - Yes people play against docs 2 - You need to create disincentives to that 3 - They need to be applied consistently 4 - Claiming bad players are bad, but not changing the game to enforce their badness is not a solution 5 - Reality trumps intention every time 1 - For example? 2 - What do you mean? Could you come up with a scenario? 3 - Raleris was plenty politically inclined. Tor/Raleris positions was also exceedingly unfair to all the other nobles, because they had actual way of earning loyalty from other people. These are very easy houses to do that in. But at a price of creating an entire warband of people who are not AoD/Legion and are not Byn and therefore have some pretty awkward combat engagement rules that tend to stifle activities. Not that it stopped them, but unfortunately a lot more preferable if players who wanted to play in military clans would go to AoD/Byn, because it's a lot easier to get into action in there. Instead of creating a 3 party clusterfucks of everyone waiting on each other and nothing happening. |
|
|
|
Post by explayer on Sept 1, 2019 13:09:46 GMT -5
Mages are employable, gemmable, are not killed on sight, and evidently make up a large part of the Allanak force projection strategy. What is their balancing factor? You can pick any option for employment as a gemmed mage that you want, so long as that option is House Oash. Or you can be a mage in secret (which basically means almost never using magick, or living alone in the wilderness). "Not killed on sight"? Died on sight with my last gemmer. |
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Jeshin on Sept 1, 2019 13:15:48 GMT -5
Once there was a young Faithful, he played it a little preachy/religiousy, he wanted to go to Luirs for his own reasons. During the escort he was attacked. He opened himself up to risk, he was attacked because someone recognized a tuluki leadership role and the whiran took their shot. The two rangers (I was one) were unable to save him. He died.
Raleris left the city semi-frequently and when I was playing an Oashi Aide, my whiran buddy cop had a huge IC hate on for Raleris. Had the stars aligned the whiran would have made a play to kill him, it'd been discussed IC a few times. Raleris leaving the city was opening him up to risk, if we had ever foundout he was 'in the open' there would have been an assassination attempt.
I imagine this would be true for nobles in the rinth, outside the walls, traveling to and from Luirs, etc etc. Being hands on opens you up to risk.
Some characters even have it in their backgrounds to have grudges against the noble class or specific houses etc etc. This means nobles who have never done anything wrong are prime targets for IC aggression. This extends to tribals who are like fuck the pits and the people in them. Etc etc.
As for 3rd party I have to disagree. The citizens call which I started was a third party thing which was later changed by staff into the levy (in my opinion). It seemed to do very well as a simple volunteer army/3rd party armies answer to the AoD or they get rekt because we don't permit organized armed forces to defy us yada yada conflict betrayal whatever.
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Jeshin on Sept 1, 2019 13:20:35 GMT -5
Mages are employable, gemmable, are not killed on sight, and evidently make up a large part of the Allanak force projection strategy. What is their balancing factor? You can pick any option for employment as a gemmed mage that you want, so long as that option is House Oash. Or you can be a mage in secret (which basically means almost never using magick, or living alone in the wilderness). "Not killed on sight"? Died on sight with my last gemmer. Templars use mages, Oash use mages, plenty of people pay mages under the table, indies pay mages, etc etc. Can you join a merchant house as a gemmed, no... Can you work for them and get that $$$ , yes. As for KoS I'll concede some people will KoS a mage. I know tribals will often be KoS in the Pah/Desert but that is a known killzone for mages and has been for years. I'm at least willing to say mages are (like nobles) open to a heightened level of aggression for being hands on. I haven't played in years so I'm not aware of how consistently hostile the playerbase is, back in my day though some mages got a pass in the wilds. |
|
tedium
Clueless newb
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedium on Sept 1, 2019 14:30:53 GMT -5
We'd end up with a percentage of the playerbase that lead active lives and are immune to the injustices of Allanaki government stature. For the corruption to remain in it's place, the nobility that do this must have a maximum of 8 wisdom as a compulsory requirement. I'm baffled by how this went from, 'We can't let Nobles have freedom because it makes them too normal and removes the feeling of a boot on the throat,' to, 'We can't let Nobles have freedom because it would be entirely unfair.' What? What's wrong with having a class of people that's immune to the injustice of Allanak's government? That's the point! That's why the Allanaki system of governance is unjust! Why are we avoiding actually RPing it? Nobles are supposed to be able to get away with stuff that regular people can't because they're just better than them under the law. Why do we artificially limit what they can do so that never actually plays out as part of the theme? 2 RPP is as much as a Whiran or Krathi, and you're only socially powerful, not codedly so. You can't turn invisible or flamestrike someone if they try to knife you.
I also don't follow the idea that nobles can't be corrupt. Why not? Templars are corrupt too.
Not to mention that aggression against a noble is extremely likely because you can ransom them back to their House, or 'enslave' them as a trophy, or hold them hostage, or any other thing like that. Their social advantage is only an advantage relating to Allanak. Outside of Allanak it can become a liability.
|
|
