Are clans too nice to their minions? Derail from Depressing Death

[musashi]

Continue that conversation here. Not in the depressing deaths thread please.

[Dakota]

No.

But I'm sure they're exceptions. But in my 2 years of playing arm (wow.. already?), I can count off a few real long lived leaders, who were real bastards to the 'minions'.

Some will be nice. Others will treat you like shit. If you're a breed, you deserved it anyway...

On a side note.. Being a good leader doesn't not (at times) go hand in hand w. being nice.. And besides it creates good drama and some nice good 'ol stab you in the back plots.

It's a harsh world.. Remember?

[Is Friday]

I don't think every clan is like this, but I think sometimes you'll get someone who is too nice, yes. Nobles should not care about disagreements between their employees, nor should they give a shit unless it adversely effects something. A lot of things get blown way out of proportion and it would be nice to have characters and groups as a whole demonstrate "thicker skin". Telling someone to "fuck off" or a rude instance does not equate to extreme violence or pulling political favors. The risk to reward factor just isn't there.

[Kismetic]

I think it's more important to be fair to minions than be nice.  Treat them with dignity.

[Patuk]

Only been in a low number of clans, but this question varies per clan, I figure. Your average Byn sergeant or Guild leader can afford to be more of a bastard than an Elven tribal or a GMH merchant could be.

[Tuannon]

I find most clans to be the same if they have similar MOs.

All you're really varying is what days you should be doing this that and the other.

Really though the clan is just some colour to add to your Arpeez.

[Synthesis]

I think most of you are missing the point my post was intended to address, which is that entire networks of clans are often mobilized to DEFCON-1 because of relatively minor slights.  I don't really care about whether your Sarge gave you a nice sword or let you off latrine duty--that's not what I was talking about.

[AreteX]

I think there is an inherent OOC problem with people really treating minions as they should...

That problem is when you have an active group of clan members it is great, but when two or three of those members die/vanish/quit/store then suddenly the clan dies down and its in a lull state which in turn often causes more clan members to go do stupid things for entertainment(die) or store.

So, leaders might want to treat their minions like shit but also have a somewhat OOC obligation to keep the clan running, right?  I think its a hard thing to balance properly.  I think it would be pretty nice though to let the lower rungs of clan members and other commoners work out their own differences without having the DEFCON-1 style of reaction that Synthesis is talking about.

The boss could react based off certain conditions, too.  1.  It this going to mess with my business?  2.  Is this person important to the House, or just some recruit/minion/not even involved in anything I am currently doing specifically.  3.  Is this person human?  4.  Have they annoyed/whined to me in the past?  Is this a "cry wolf" whiner situation?  5.  What have they done for me lately?  6.  Who is the one causing the problem?  Would it be more beneficial for me to side with them on this, and thus gain some type of favor?  7.  Do I really care?

I think being the boss is tough, and I commend all bosses for doing a good job... because its hard to do!

[Cutthroat]

"Too nice" is a relative term that loses significance when you are observing how a clan leader PC acts as someone who isn't the player of said clan leader PC. Pretty much every possible response by a clan leader to any clan situation can be justified in some way. And overall it doesn't really matter from an OOC perspective how a player chooses to play their character, so long as it's within the bounds of the documentation. If you have a problem with how a clan leader treats their minions ICly, bring up the problem IC. A bunch of stuff can arise from a situation where your PC observes a clan leader treating one of their employees too leniently/favorably/unfavorably.

As for the problem brought up initially by Synthesis, clans getting into huge conflicts for relatively minor reasons, I've seen it happen only occasionally over the past five years and don't really have an opinion either way about it. It is kind of realistic that the stupidest, smallest things snowball into something much bigger, but I think that change should be gradual. It shouldn't jump from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 1, but I don't have a problem with theft of a pack taking things from 5 to 4, efforts to get the pack back taking things from 4 to 3, political accusations and character assassination making things go to 2, etc.

That sort of conflict is one of the things that makes clan life preferable to indie life from an "OOC enjoyment" standpoint, in my opinion.

[Is Friday]

It should probably matter more (or less) depending on whether that guy is lifesworn, has put in a few years' work into the organization, and/or holds a position of leadership. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. I remember physically watching the assassination of one of my GMH's officers but because he wasn't lifesworn the House didn't want to do anything about it.

[Hot_Dancer]

I remember an event where my character (established fighter) was asked by a superior to guard another soldier on patrol of lesser ability.

"He aint wounded, he aint precious - he can guard himself."

My PC wasn't interested in playing meatshield for a perfectly capable, armed and healthy PC soldier simply because the other guy was newer
and obviously not warrior classed. Gotta pull your weight in the unit baby boy.

Simply - sometimes a clan leader is going to promote preservation and sometimes it's up to the clan to establish the rough and tumble.
The leader PC's probably have too much on their plates already.

[X-D]

Title should be: Are clans to protective of minions.

I think that it actually used to be much worse...many years ago. If you pulled something on somebody clanned, often that clan staff would get involved in catching your ass and giving you a beat down...that was bad.

Today I do not see that, in fact I do see things go the other way, specially if not lifesworn, at which point clan staff actually makes sure the PC clan leaders know that the clan chisel is more important and to stop wasting time and resources.

As to PC clan leaders being protective, sure, and that is understandable, getting good long lived PCs in your clan is hard.
And I do not mind it myself, I at least stand a fighting chance against PCs. IE:Fun.

[Harmless]

I'd like to thank arma's old farts for sharing their viewpoints. I hope the trend X-D mentioned continues.

[Marauder Moe]

There's also a consideration that many clans (formally or informally) take measures to protect their public image.

So, let's say Aide Amos and Bynner Bemos get into an argument/brawl.  Amos's Lord certainly can't having the public think it's OK for a lowly mercenary to strike house employees, and may very well call in his Kruth-night templar friend to come deliver a public lashing to the Bynner.  However, behind closed doors, it's also fairly likely that Amos will be disciplined for being stupid and causing trouble with the rabble.

[Red Ranger]

I think there are multiple reasons why leader PCs may coddle their minions and many of them are good IC reasons.  Nonetheless, I support the sentiment of Synthesis's couple quips.

I think there is a distortion of the supply and demand for potential hirelings in the eyes of leader PCs.  In my opinion, to a leader PC in a given city there is often a limited pool of hireling PCs compared to the large number of positions that multiple PC clans are trying to fill.  Thus OOC'ly the hiring scene can often play out like a "sellers' markers" where the potential PC hirelings shop around to get the best deal, which can include shopping around for a coddling and nonjudgmental employer PC who is willing to overlook many flaws in their PC employees and who may also go to war to protect their low level PC "snowflakes."

IC'ly though, IMO, the hiring scene should be a "buyers' market" where there are lots of virtual NPCs willing to fill any paying job offered by a clan because having a paying clan job would immediately put them in the Zalanthan 1%.  If it's a buyers' market then the leader PCs can treat their new and low level minions like the expendable and fungible cogs that they are.  In that case if the minion acts up they're kicked out or harshly taught a lesson because hey, even if the minion gets pissed and leaves it's no big deal because there are hundreds of (virtual) people willing to fill the vacancy.  Furthermore, if a minion receives some minor slight it's also not necessarily a big deal, because if the minion gets pissed that their employer PC didn't go to war for them then fine, just fire the minion and hire someone less sensitive.

If PC hires are as rare and precious as snowflakes, then they'll be treated as snowflakes.  But if they're as common as sand, then they'll be treated like dirt.

Edited to include links.

[ShaLeah]

If PC hires are as rare and precious as snowflakes, then they'll be treated as snowflakes.  But if they're as common as sand, then they'll be treated like dirt.

This has mostly been my experience within a clan. I've been a snowflake and a cluster of up your bathing suit chaffing you raw constantly sand. I've also been a precious snowflake who is a major pain in the ass for dealings outside the clan.

Even on Zalanthas you get more bees with honey so to speak, which means more spice sid, more awesomest gear, promotions, sleeping (okay sexing) in a BED, allies, reputation, silks, POWER.

The nicer you are to your employees, the more death they'll face for you. Unless they are masochists in which case, w00t.

[Titania]

It's just supply and demand. Too many clans and not enough players. The clan needs you more than you need them. There are a lot of benefits but you'll probably be richer, not have to listen to a jerk boss, not be stuck solo rping or idling during strict schedules and so on, on your own. Templar or noble aides seem to be better because one per. Could be just my perception there.

I don't think they should limit amount of people joining a clan, other than footlocker reasons. People die off in droves, and the more people the more they will fight and leave anyway. Better to have one rocking clan than two sparse?

[Lizzie]

It's just supply and demand. Too many clans and not enough players. The clan needs you more than you need them. There are a lot of benefits but you'll probably be richer, not have to listen to a jerk boss, not be stuck solo rping or idling during strict schedules and so on, on your own. Templar or noble aides seem to be better because one per. Could be just my perception there.

I don't think they should limit amount of people joining a clan, other than footlocker reasons. People die off in droves, and the more people the more they will fight and leave anyway. Better to have one rocking clan than two sparse?

Disagree on limiting. The point of all games, is to present challenges, and overcome them. If everyone's in the same clan, then the only challenge they will face (specifically with regards to being in that clan) will be "drama." The whole "my story is more better than yours, let's mudsex, who cares if the other 3 people can't stand watching us snog all day on hunts, hey you wanna spam-craft with me, my elf girlfriend is prettier than your breed girlfriend, I'm sleeping with your boyfriend, no wait I'm having your boyfriend's baby wah wah drama drama" really bad, cheesy soap opera shit.

That's what you end up with, when everyone is in the same clan. It becomes them vs. themselves, if only to have some kind of challenge that doesn't involve bahamet #475 or kryl pack #9999 or silt horror #20661.

When people are in different clans, they have built-in factions that are intended to create challenges. House A can't stand house B, house C has been vying for the senior position of the houses against House D for the past 3 senate meetings and lost. Merchant House A and B are always competing for customers on 10 particular items they both make, albeit differently, therefore, they want the best hunters because they don't want the opposing house to get all the scrab shells.

These are challenges that you have an opportunity to face, from the moment you don your clan livery. You can choose not to take it as a challenge, and get along with your opposing clan's members, but then yo uget the challenge of explaining it to the boss, which is a challenging consequence of a built-in  but rejected challenge.

It's not the micromanaged "soap opera shit" day in and day out. You can -still- have that soap opera shit, but you're not stuck with it just because everyone is in the same clan as you and you are forced to deal with them as a part of your job.

[Voular]

Okay, I am going to be rude. But it all boils down to players not able to portray maturity. We have young players, we have also individuals who clearly aren't average joe by any standards, and to expect them to behave rationally in a desert world filled with death, destruction and betrayal is sort of a silly notion. Some players seem to think that we're all members of the Tudors or something, as well, playing up the drama. I've played MANY variants of standoffish and asshole-like characters over my time, and there are very rare instances where their behaviour was met with any sort of rationality. It is always "OMG YOU DISRESPECTED ME THE SLIGHTEST, TO ARMS!" sort of deal.

Thus it is obvious that clans care way to much about their employees if they get involved in their personal arguments and get roped into silly stuff like "let's kill Amos because he winked at my kank"..

/rant

[Red Ranger]

It's just supply and demand.

I agree!  It's just OOC supply and demand trumping IC supply and demand, in my opinion.  For a human dominated city clan OOC'ly the supply of PC hirelings is small compared to the demand to fill PC positions.  This is one reason that employers are willing to overlook flaws and mistakes in their new PC hirelings and they're often willing to coddle or jealously defend their new and low level PC minions from even minor slights or threats.  IC'ly, though, the supply of (mostly VNPC) hirelings far exceeds the demand to fill clan positions.

One way to bring the OOC supply/demand into line with the proper IC supply/demand is to put a hard cap on the number of PCs that a given clan or clan leader may hire, which I gather Lizzie may favor.  Another way would be to cut down on the number of clans, as Titania seems to suggest.  If it were a question of only one or the other, I favor caps on clan hiring versus reducing the numbers of clans for precisely the reasons that Lizzie cites.

But there are additional ways to help correct the current situation of OOC hiring concerns directly contradicting and trumping IC hiring concerns.  This is a roleplaying game after all, and we're all supposed to be acting IC'ly based on IC concerns.  After all, isn't the OOC incentive for elves to ride mounts?  OOC'ly it costs the riding elf less stamina when they travel around, so what's not to like?   Isn't the OOC incentive for leader PCs to have magickers on the payroll?  After all, magickers are powerful and one magicker might be able to do the specialized work that any number mundane PCs can't.  Fortunately I haven't heard of a riding elf in many many years, and in my view the exceptions made for magicky PC employment in major clans have dramatically declined (though I guess maybe the exceptions made for magicky PC mudsex haven't declined).

My preferred solution to the problem that I see in the OOC versus IC supply/demand mismatch in PC hirelings is... more conscientious RP.  IC'ly hirelings don't have any rights, nor should they have a sense of entitlement to a good job with reasonable working conditions, those are silly RL notions that literally don't exist in Zalanthas.  Similarly employers shouldn't (typically) feel pressured IC to hire folks just to fill the ranks.  Having hirelings shouldn't be an important end in itself for most clan leaders, but rather Doing Something Important^TM should be the end that is sought by PC leaders and IC'ly rewarded.  If Doing Something Important^TM requires making exceptions when hiring PCs and then coddling those PCs (which could be often!) then great, but there should also be an IC downside to nobles hiring mumbly mouthed dwarves who can't even speak the King's Sirihish properly, to merchants that employ halfbreeds, or to any leader who has a reputation for flying off the handle over trivial injuries to their mek-fodder peons who will be dead in a month.

Align the OOC and IC incentives, people!  Let's RP!

[titansfan]

We need a 'like' button......Red Ranger is a genius.

[A Large Bag]

My preferred solution to the problem that I see in the OOC versus IC supply/demand mismatch in PC hirelings is... more conscientious RP.  IC'ly hirelings don't have any rights, nor should they have a sense of entitlement to a good job with reasonable working conditions, those are silly RL notions that literally don't exist in Zalanthas.  Similarly employers shouldn't (typically) feel pressured IC to hire folks just to fill the ranks.  Having hirelings shouldn't be an important end in itself for most clan leaders, but rather Doing Something ImportantTM should be the end that is sought by PC leaders and IC'ly rewarded.  If Doing Something ImportantTM requires making exceptions when hiring PCs and then coddling those PCs (which could be often!) then great, but there should also be an IC downside to nobles hiring mumbly mouthed dwarves who can't even speak the King's Sirihish properly, to merchants that employ halfbreeds, or to any leader who has a reputation for flying off the handle over trivial injuries to their mek-fodder peons who will be dead in a month.

Align the OOC and IC incentives, people!  Let's RP!

Exactly. RR has hit the nail on the head, imo.

[Titania]

It's just supply and demand. Too many clans and not enough players. The clan needs you more than you need them. There are a lot of benefits but you'll probably be richer, not have to listen to a jerk boss, not be stuck solo rping or idling during strict schedules and so on, on your own. Templar or noble aides seem to be better because one per. Could be just my perception there.

I don't think they should limit amount of people joining a clan, other than footlocker reasons. People die off in droves, and the more people the more they will fight and leave anyway. Better to have one rocking clan than two sparse?

Disagree on limiting. The point of all games, is to present challenges, and overcome them. If everyone's in the same clan, then the only challenge they will face (specifically with regards to being in that clan) will be "drama." The whole "my story is more better than yours, let's mudsex, who cares if the other 3 people can't stand watching us snog all day on hunts, hey you wanna spam-craft with me, my elf girlfriend is prettier than your breed girlfriend, I'm sleeping with your boyfriend, no wait I'm having your boyfriend's baby wah wah drama drama" really bad, cheesy soap opera shit.

That's what you end up with, when everyone is in the same clan. It becomes them vs. themselves, if only to have some kind of challenge that doesn't involve bahamet #475 or kryl pack #9999 or silt horror #20661.

When people are in different clans, they have built-in factions that are intended to create challenges. House A can't stand house B, house C has been vying for the senior position of the houses against House D for the past 3 senate meetings and lost. Merchant House A and B are always competing for customers on 10 particular items they both make, albeit differently, therefore, they want the best hunters because they don't want the opposing house to get all the scrab shells.

These are challenges that you have an opportunity to face, from the moment you don your clan livery. You can choose not to take it as a challenge, and get along with your opposing clan's members, but then yo uget the challenge of explaining it to the boss, which is a challenging consequence of a built-in  but rejected challenge.

It's not the micromanaged "soap opera shit" day in and day out. You can -still- have that soap opera shit, but you're not stuck with it just because everyone is in the same clan as you and you are forced to deal with them as a part of your job.

And I disagree with you. If you get too many in one clan I feel they will pare themselves down naturally. Death or rivalry will lead to losses, unless they are all lifesworn maybe. The clan won't be overloaded for long anyway. People will get bored or fight and be gone soon enough in my experience. Maybe yours is different.

[Nyr]

It's just supply and demand. Too many clans and not enough players. The clan needs you more than you need them. There are a lot of benefits but you'll probably be richer, not have to listen to a jerk boss, not be stuck solo rping or idling during strict schedules and so on, on your own. Templar or noble aides seem to be better because one per. Could be just my perception there.

I don't think they should limit amount of people joining a clan, other than footlocker reasons. People die off in droves, and the more people the more they will fight and leave anyway. Better to have one rocking clan than two sparse?

[titansfan]

I personally think there should be more clans open too. The added variety would bring more players around. Ever since Tor closed Allanak just doesn't feel the same. *sniffle* *sniffle* Or Oashi Elites could make a comeback. Sorry my post is focused on the south, but I know players have a decent amount of options in the North for hunting/soldier like houses, plus GMH's and the Byn.

But, le sigh, I'm just a derailing fiend.

On topic thought: I have not seen a lot of people play to what the docs describe in higher social status roles. Literally everyone not at the same level as you should be treated pretty much like a tool except in very rare circumstances. Power and social status are like gold in Armageddon and most nobles/merchant house family members hold that above everyone quite well, or atleast they should. >.>