Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 15:08:32 GMT -5
Because for the injustice to happen, it needs to happen. If we see nobility esque people in every position, then it cant happen.
It's like the situation with mages. Mages are supposed to be shunned. But what happens when an upswing of mages happen and a third of the entire city playerbase are mages. Then mages are the community itself and since they dont shun each other, there is no shunning going on, the atmosphere is not Zalanthan. Plenty of threads and complaints about that on GDB. Where no matter where you turn it's a gemmer, to a point of mundane people being a minority. It comes and goes ofcourse, but I doubt you will argue that it doesnt happen.
At some point, an upswing of nobility will happen and then there will be nobles everywhere. Whom is Templar going to oppress? It will change the atmosphere to be so non Zalanthan, it'll be an entirely different game.
If that noble gets knifed, a Templar will actually be "required" to genuinely investigate. It'll be exceedingly difficult to bribe him away, or distract him, or for that templar to not give a fuck. Which means those nobles will be rarely assassinated. They might get killed if situations like Allanak vs Tuluk war is to happen. Where killing notable characters of the opposing city state is encouraged. But aside that, most of the time nobles dont get killed is because it's too messy and not worth it, unless significantly incentivized. It'll basically change the game, but not in a direction that I think will be good.
Let nobility have their superiority and immunity, but let them be totally dependent on commoners. Let commoners have the greatest freedom of activity, but be beholden to nobility.
|
|
tedium
Clueless newb
Posts: 164 
|
Post by tedium on Sept 1, 2019 15:25:48 GMT -5
Because for the injustice to happen, it needs to happen. If we see nobility esque people in every position, then it cant happen.
How do you figure that every position is going to have a 2 Karma role in it? Especially on high-risk combat characters. Do you not consider everything outside of Allanak and in the Labyrinth to be part of the game, or do you think that nobles will somehow take over those positions too? Besides, like I've already said, you can murder nobles. If a noble opens up their own fledgling merchant house, I think that the other merchant houses and the other noble houses will have something to say about it.
I don't understand your logic at all. You're right, for the injustice to happen it needs to happen. Right now there's no conflict between commoners and nobles because they're barred as a matter of policy from wanting the same things. That's why there isn't significant conflict between commoners and nobles. Your description of them is literally symbiotic. Nobles need commoners. There is no injustice or class conflict because they form a mutualistic relationship.
I think having nobles who fight and die and get assassinated is way more Zalanthan than having this safe-space of PCs who are kept in a bubble, isolated from the game, not to effect the world or be effected by it, because of clearly OOC reasons. Templars do all of the things you're saying would be un-Zalanthan, already, and Templars feel way more 'murder, corruption, betrayal' than nobles. I'm just suggesting we flesh out the spectrum to make certain noble roles more of a midground between Templar and Commoner.
To address the idea that noble assassinations can't happen: First of all, I don't buy the idea that a Templar is required to investigate, especially if the knifing is covered up, unless there are more arbitrary OOC policies that require it. Secondly, I don't buy the idea that a Templar isn't allowed to lie about how a noble died -- at least to the public -- unless there are more arbitrary OOC policies. Thirdly, I'd imagine that the Templars want the Noble Houses to get thinned out from time to time so that they can't grow too powerful and challenge the Templarate. Considering that the Templarate is drawn from the nobility, it makes sense that blue-robes might be more easily swayed to their family, while black robes are aware of the phenomena and want to secure their position (and the long-term security of the city) by letting the nobles occasionally kill each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by explayer on Sept 1, 2019 16:47:22 GMT -5
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. This reminds me of one of those ads where everything is beautiful, and then at the end you look for the small note "your experience may vary". Following the demise of CAM (and plenty of gemmed since), I was hired exactly once under the table. It was as a Whiran to go look for a raider encampment. Templars will sometimes press the gemmed into service. Like once in a RL month or slower. It's a thin, thin gruel compared to being in an actual clan. Anyhow, I'm not going to argue the point further, I had enough of that on the GDB. |
|
|
|
Post by explayer on Sept 1, 2019 17:00:50 GMT -5
It's like the situation with mages. Mages are supposed to be shunned. But what happens when an upswing of mages happen and a third of the entire city playerbase are mages. Shabaigo (?) posted some class statistics a little while ago. About one in ten characters has an elementalist subclass. I sincerely doubt the gemmed population ever approaches even a fifth of the Allanaki population. It may feel like that when most PCs don't go to the Gaj though. Is it really surprising to see the gemmed in numbers in the one tavern they are not tacitly barred from? There's a better feel during the arena games, since more of the playerbase appears for those. The gemmed never seemed relatively numerous in the stands. My recent experience is that people started complaining when they saw two gemmed together in the Gaj. He suggested going to the Red if they didn't want to see any gemmed. |
|
gristle
staff puppet account
Posts: 26
|
Post by gristle on Sept 2, 2019 22:44:09 GMT -5
The fact that noble and commoner (and other spheres of the game in general to be honest) interests don't intersect more already is the exact reason why the dystopian theme of Armmud isn't as prominent as its docs suggest. There's little to no reason for a noble to actually go out and antagonize commoners besides sadistic, cartoonishly evil whim. While there is room for the Elizabeth Bathory-esque archetype of tormenting the lower rung for shits and giggles or perceived slights, if that's all that's going on it ends up being entirely contrived.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Sept 3, 2019 6:51:24 GMT -5
Let nobility have their superiority and immunity, but let them be totally dependent on commoners. Let commoners have the greatest freedom of activity, but be beholden to nobility. Good idea in theory, yet poor in practice, especially in Allanak. Tuluk at least had a little give either way, where it was appropriate for nobles to get their hands dirty to some small extent while it was also appropriate for commoners to exercise their value as a potential partisan in negotiations with nobility. In Allanak, your idea doesn't work because the Venn diagram between nobles and commoners has no overlap. Noble PCs can, and often do, go days without interacting with a single commoner outside their clan. Same with templars and the AoD, albeit to a lesser extent. So while nobles are supposed to be totally dependent on VNPC commoners who contribute to nobles being fed and clothed, the players of nobles have almost no OOC dependency on the players of commoners when it comes to the task of extracting fun from the game. On the flip side, commoners can go for a very long time without ever interacting with a noble or templar directly. Given Armageddon's tendency to enforce the world culture from the top down - staff tell sponsored roles what is or isn't appropriate, and sponsored roles ostensibly set a good example for everyone else - the disconnect between most nobles and most commoners is a huge problem. tedium hit the nail on the head with regards to encouraging some level of mingling between nobles, templars, and commoners. It doesn't really matter how it's done, but I think tedium has the right idea as far as encouraging nobles and templars to get into what passes for competitive sports in Allanak. When your game relies on interaction between an increasingly smaller number of players, telling players that it wouldn't be appropriate to have their characters do certain basic things is akin to putting nails in the coffin of your game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 18:33:52 GMT -5
Let nobility have their superiority and immunity, but let them be totally dependent on commoners. Let commoners have the greatest freedom of activity, but be beholden to nobility. Good idea in theory, yet poor in practice, especially in Allanak. Tuluk at least had a little give either way, where it was appropriate for nobles to get their hands dirty to some small extent while it was also appropriate for commoners to exercise their value as a potential partisan in negotiations with nobility. In Allanak, your idea doesn't work because the Venn diagram between nobles and commoners has no overlap. Noble PCs can, and often do, go days without interacting with a single commoner outside their clan. Same with templars and the AoD, albeit to a lesser extent. So while nobles are supposed to be totally dependent on VNPC commoners who contribute to nobles being fed and clothed, the players of nobles have almost no OOC dependency on the players of commoners when it comes to the task of extracting fun from the game. On the flip side, commoners can go for a very long time without ever interacting with a noble or templar directly. Given Armageddon's tendency to enforce the world culture from the top down - staff tell sponsored roles what is or isn't appropriate, and sponsored roles ostensibly set a good example for everyone else - the disconnect between most nobles and most commoners is a huge problem. tedium hit the nail on the head with regards to encouraging some level of mingling between nobles, templars, and commoners. It doesn't really matter how it's done, but I think tedium has the right idea as far as encouraging nobles and templars to get into what passes for competitive sports in Allanak. When your game relies on interaction between an increasingly smaller number of players, telling players that it wouldn't be appropriate to have their characters do certain basic things is akin to putting nails in the coffin of your game. Right. Perfect example. And I guess Tuluk was known for the level of oppression and corruption. It was waaaay higher then Allanak. Is that what you're saying? It is indeed true that a commoner can live a long life without ever interacting with a noble. That displays a pretty solid and realistic portrayal of the world. Only when a commoner decides to gain an ambition of significant proportions, or gains some kind of rank, will life invariably make him deal with nobility. Be it minor merchant houses, or sargeanting Byn, or bossing guild, etc. But to say that nobility does not interact with commoners. I mean, it's feasable if the noble is a complete dunce and a bore. Someone who doesnt have an aide, or a clan, nor wish for them. Sitting in the tavern all day, waiting for other nobles to show up. There are indeed nobles like that. Or there are the people who actually have ambitions and want their role to be an interesting one. Those guys meet with commoners all the time and the usual pause between different commoners reporting in, or whatever else is counted in single digit minutes. Having said all that. I dont think the situation is optimal exactly. No. It's definitely a challenge. But being able to mass produce nobles who get to do commoner stuff will, in my opinion, harm the game more then help it. |
|
|
|
Post by shakes on Sept 3, 2019 19:20:36 GMT -5
If I'm tooling around the salt flats, skinning some scorpions, and some fucker wants to ride up and demand I bow because he's a salt-grebbing noble ...
It's throat-slitting time.
Let's keep those nobles in Nak and not let the contagion spread.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Sept 3, 2019 19:33:25 GMT -5
Good idea in theory, yet poor in practice, especially in Allanak. Tuluk at least had a little give either way, where it was appropriate for nobles to get their hands dirty to some small extent while it was also appropriate for commoners to exercise their value as a potential partisan in negotiations with nobility. In Allanak, your idea doesn't work because the Venn diagram between nobles and commoners has no overlap. Noble PCs can, and often do, go days without interacting with a single commoner outside their clan. Same with templars and the AoD, albeit to a lesser extent. So while nobles are supposed to be totally dependent on VNPC commoners who contribute to nobles being fed and clothed, the players of nobles have almost no OOC dependency on the players of commoners when it comes to the task of extracting fun from the game. On the flip side, commoners can go for a very long time without ever interacting with a noble or templar directly. Given Armageddon's tendency to enforce the world culture from the top down - staff tell sponsored roles what is or isn't appropriate, and sponsored roles ostensibly set a good example for everyone else - the disconnect between most nobles and most commoners is a huge problem. tedium hit the nail on the head with regards to encouraging some level of mingling between nobles, templars, and commoners. It doesn't really matter how it's done, but I think tedium has the right idea as far as encouraging nobles and templars to get into what passes for competitive sports in Allanak. When your game relies on interaction between an increasingly smaller number of players, telling players that it wouldn't be appropriate to have their characters do certain basic things is akin to putting nails in the coffin of your game. Right. Perfect example. And I guess Tuluk was known for the level of oppression and corruption. It was waaaay higher then Allanak. Is that what you're saying? That's not what I'm saying at all. What I said was fairly clear. The rest of your post is just reiterating your point. You're still wrong, for the same reasons I stated in the post you quoted. |
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Sept 3, 2019 19:35:19 GMT -5
If I'm tooling around the salt flats, skinning some scorpions, and some fucker wants to ride up and demand I bow because he's a salt-grebbing noble ... It's throat-slitting time. Let's keep those nobles in Nak and not let the contagion spread. Why are you reducing "there should be more avenues for nobles to interact with commoners" to "nobles will be salt-grebbers". That's a mind-numbing slippery slope if I've ever seen one. |
|
|
|
Post by shakes on Sept 3, 2019 19:39:47 GMT -5
I dunno. I guess it's my dim view of the player base and the people they seem to keep giving these types of roles to.
If your argument is, "Nobles should be more involved in the city than just having fashion shows and fucking their aides" then I'm right there with you.
But I think there are also a lot of twinks who are going to want to get a noble raider so they can be the top of the social food chain WHILE going out and becoming a meta-god in their skillsheet.
|
|
mehtastic
GDB Superstar
Armers Anonymous sponsor
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by mehtastic on Sept 3, 2019 19:53:48 GMT -5
I dunno. I guess it's my dim view of the player base and the people they seem to keep giving these types of roles to. If your argument is, "Nobles should be more involved in the city than just having fashion shows and fucking their aides" then I'm right there with you. But I think there are also a lot of twinks who are going to want to get a noble raider so they can be the top of the social food chain WHILE going out and becoming a meta-god in their skillsheet. Yeah, that's basically my argument. And I don't fault you for having that dim of a view of the player base. You're probably right that twink/noble raider desire is going to exist in the group of players who apply for nobles. I would like to think that staff would suppress that kind of thing while encouraging more desirable forms of noble-commoner interaction, but my view of the staff is probably as dim as your view of the playerbase, so... eh. |
|
|
|
Post by shakes on Sept 3, 2019 20:30:25 GMT -5
There's no reason it has to be like that though. There COULD be a noble that the common man simply adores and can't wait for him to go chalton hunting with them, or cheers like he's their favorite gladiator when the guy walks in. Someone could roll up a noble with the goal of becoming the most beloved Noble-Bro in Allanak. Natural conflict would arise from THAT because you know what the Templar and the other non-bro nobles are going to do.  |
|
tedium
Clueless newb
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedium on Sept 4, 2019 8:49:15 GMT -5
There's no reason it has to be like that though. There COULD be a noble that the common man simply adores and can't wait for him to go chalton hunting with them, or cheers like he's their favorite gladiator when the guy walks in. Someone could roll up a noble with the goal of becoming the most beloved Noble-Bro in Allanak. Natural conflict would arise from THAT because you know what the Templar and the other non-bro nobles are going to do.
|
|
scrabby
staff puppet account
Posts: 7
|
Post by scrabby on Oct 12, 2019 3:33:49 GMT -5
I've managed to play once above commoner level in nearly 20 years of playtime. A Templar no less, who, because of his particular background, enjoyed spending more time at a table being 'nice' to commoners than to sit at the other table kissing Lord Fancy Pants butt because their House has something he wanted.
Actually got in trouble for it a couple of times, but, it gave me the freedom to use said commoners like unpaid spies, but my guy was the least scary, least nose in the air type than the others. Would he have killed you in an instant? Absolutely. He's a Templar. But, commoners have far more uses than Nobles, and can go places Nobles can't go, and do things they can't do.
I think Nobles, Templars, and commoners should mingle more. In my time of playing a Templar, it was actually a regular thing, albeit limited to a select group, Noble A wasn't going to be sitting in the Gaj sharing ale with a half-breed Bynner. But he might be over there with Grebber Amos and Hunter Andy.
|
|
