Fashion Police

[AmandaGreathouse]

I should invent/come up with something arbitrary that nevertheless would be allowed for nobles only. Commoners can't pay for metal rings, and nobody will ever get themselves a noble caste tattoo up in Tuluk. I'm thinking stuff like hairstyles and accesories in here.

I actually hate that. And, beyond that, if it's hairstyles, what about newbies or people who simply want that hairstyle? Why would it be offlimits? How would that add to the game world? I actually quit playing Dark Isles because of the sumptuary laws. They annoyed me to no end. Metal and caste inks make sense. Telling someone they can't wear certain other things seems pointless and arbitrary.

[HavokBlue]

In the cotton fields, no one can hear you scream.

[Reiloth]

I should invent/come up with something arbitrary that nevertheless would be allowed for nobles only. Commoners can't pay for metal rings, and nobody will ever get themselves a noble caste tattoo up in Tuluk. I'm thinking stuff like hairstyles and accesories in here.

I actually hate that. And, beyond that, if it's hairstyles, what about newbies or people who simply want that hairstyle? Why would it be offlimits? How would that add to the game world? I actually quit playing Dark Isles because of the sumptuary laws. They annoyed me to no end. Metal and caste inks make sense. Telling someone they can't wear certain other things seems pointless and arbitrary.

Don't all customs to outsiders look arbitrary and pointless?

I like laws like this. Quite a bit actually. Makes it seem like a real culture.

[Iiyola]

If a commoner can cover themselves in diamonds... I think that goes a bit too far. But that's just my own opinion.

[AmandaGreathouse]

If a commoner can cover themselves in diamonds... I think that goes a bit too far. But that's just my own opinion.

I think it looks gaudy and in poor taste, but I don't see any reason for the laws to appear out of nowhere and for no ostensible reason. If someone's putting on a ridiculous display of wealth, kill 'em for it if it's IC, if it's not, do what's IC to do about it.

I should invent/come up with something arbitrary that nevertheless would be allowed for nobles only. Commoners can't pay for metal rings, and nobody will ever get themselves a noble caste tattoo up in Tuluk. I'm thinking stuff like hairstyles and accesories in here.

I actually hate that. And, beyond that, if it's hairstyles, what about newbies or people who simply want that hairstyle? Why would it be offlimits? How would that add to the game world? I actually quit playing Dark Isles because of the sumptuary laws. They annoyed me to no end. Metal and caste inks make sense. Telling someone they can't wear certain other things seems pointless and arbitrary.

Don't all customs to outsiders look arbitrary and pointless?

I like laws like this. Quite a bit actually. Makes it seem like a real culture.

I think there's plenty of other things that do the same. Like the very real -taboo- against wearing silk for most of the pcs in Allanak outside an item or two, usually small ones. That makes its own sort of sense. But hard and fast laws, imposed OOC just for the sake of having them there, seem pointless and ridiculous to me.

[Iiyola]

51 players and it's past 2am server time. Lookin' good.

Voting works people!

Moar!

[HavokBlue]

Is there an actual documented taboo against commoners wearing silk in Allanak, or is this just something certain players like to believe? Because a decent number of Allanaki PCs seem to wear silk pretty regularly...

[BleakOne]

Is there an actual documented taboo against commoners wearing silk in Allanak, or is this just something certain players like to believe? Because a decent number of Allanaki PCs seem to wear silk pretty regularly...

There's a taboo if anyone with authority happens to think so at the time. If it's a pet peeve of a Lord Templar or member of the nobility, then it's pretty much law.

[HavokBlue]

Right, but is there anything in the documents to support this stance? I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong for certain PCs to take that stance, just wondering if there's any docs to back it up that I've somehow missed.

[MeTekillot]

Allanak is a class system, so the roles of commoners and nobles need to be a little more heavily enforced. So, silk really shouldn't be on all but the most important (GMH) commoners. Yes, that's nice that you've sold dozens of silky braies. Please stop cavorting about in full silk because I can't tell you from the noble who wears gloves.

[HavokBlue]

I don't think there's anything to suggest that commoners who can afford silk shouldn't be wearing it, though. If anything, it seems like a noble who's upset about a commoner in silk would be laughed at by his peers, because he couldn't buy an outfit flamboyant and distinct enough to distinguish himself from Merchant Talia in her silk cloak.

Source: http://armageddon.org/general/clothing.html#Allanak

Edit: Now a commoner trying to one-up a nobleman's outfit in terms of outlandishness and style would be another matter entirely.

[Reiloth]

If a commoner can cover themselves in diamonds... I think that goes a bit too far. But that's just my own opinion.

I think it looks gaudy and in poor taste, but I don't see any reason for the laws to appear out of nowhere and for no ostensible reason. If someone's putting on a ridiculous display of wealth, kill 'em for it if it's IC, if it's not, do what's IC to do about it.

I should invent/come up with something arbitrary that nevertheless would be allowed for nobles only. Commoners can't pay for metal rings, and nobody will ever get themselves a noble caste tattoo up in Tuluk. I'm thinking stuff like hairstyles and accesories in here.

I actually hate that. And, beyond that, if it's hairstyles, what about newbies or people who simply want that hairstyle? Why would it be offlimits? How would that add to the game world? I actually quit playing Dark Isles because of the sumptuary laws. They annoyed me to no end. Metal and caste inks make sense. Telling someone they can't wear certain other things seems pointless and arbitrary.

Don't all customs to outsiders look arbitrary and pointless?

I like laws like this. Quite a bit actually. Makes it seem like a real culture.

I think there's plenty of other things that do the same. Like the very real -taboo- against wearing silk for most of the pcs in Allanak outside an item or two, usually small ones. That makes its own sort of sense. But hard and fast laws, imposed OOC just for the sake of having them there, seem pointless and ridiculous to me.

I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. Can you be specific? While I appreciate vagueness for the sake of not divulging too much IC detail, this seems like being vague for the sake of not having too solid an argument, and relying on 'well this that and the other thing'.

Also the documentation on Allanak's clothing styles is here:

http://www.armageddon.org/general/clothing.html

[AmandaGreathouse]

It's mostly something I've seen grow up in game over the past few years. I've seen people be whipped, have the items taken and so on. It's not in the documentation, it's much more recent and more held up by the players regularly than the documentation.

Edit to add: Not like 'no silk', but more of a question of people not dressing head to toe in it regularly. If people wear too much silk in Allanak and they're not fairly important in the terms of ranks that pcs in game can achieve via the caste system, they often get shit about it, whether from nobility, templars, or others. A scarf or a belt or even like a shirt and pants, is fine in many cases, I mean the whole head to toe overload thing.

[Reiloth]

Seems about right.

Allanak isn't the United States of America. Templars can make up whatever laws they see fit, and so can Nobility to some extent. It's a despotic dictatorship, where the dictator lives in a tower made out of Gold high above people who never even see him. If they decide you're wearing too much silk and you deserve to be whipped, so be it. If they decide you are too ugly to live, off to the pit, so be it. If you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and should be made to stand on your tiptoes while reciting "Wind over the Plains" backwards, so be it. Such is the facist regime that rules Allanak.

[BleakOne]

I think it's an extremely complicated thing, really. Based on who you are, where you are, and who you are speaking to.

A Borsail Aide probably should wear fine silks when out and about, but nothing to outshine their betters. It might be offensive if they're tromping around in sweat-stained tunics and the like, since it's a bad image for the House.

A wealthy, well-connected commoner could probably get away with wearing a silk scarf or maybe a pair of gloves. He'd risk getting laughed at if he turned up to the Gaj in them though, or have them taken if some random highborn decided it was offensive.

Obviously Merchant House family members can wear whatever they damn well please, as long as they're not too obvious about showing up the nobility. House Kadius could probably get away even with that, being the fashion house and all.

Common grebbers might get pulled aside for disrespecting the noble material if they make a habit of grebbing, hunting or other menial tasks while wearing it.

[AmandaGreathouse]

@Reiloth: Exactly. That part, I like. It's not hard and fast. It's whimsical and based on the opinions of those in power. That is a big part of why I am opposed to adding arbitrary outside laws for no reason. People have invented and hold to their own in game and they do a fair job of keeping it up, and I feel that it is more reasonable and allows for more flexibility and enjoyment (and unintentional offense!) than hard and fast sumptuary laws would.

I think it's an extremely complicated thing, really. Based on who you are, where you are, and who you are speaking to.

A Borsail Aide probably should wear fine silks when out and about, but nothing to outshine their betters. It might be offensive if they're tromping around in sweat-stained tunics and the like, since it's a bad image for the House.

A wealthy, well-connected commoner could probably get away with wearing a silk scarf or maybe a pair of gloves. He'd risk getting laughed at if he turned up to the Gaj in them though, or have them taken if some random highborn decided it was offensive.

Obviously Merchant House family members can wear whatever they damn well please, as long as they're not too obvious about showing up the nobility. House Kadius could probably get away even with that, being the fashion house and all.

Common grebbers might get pulled aside for disrespecting the noble material if they make a habit of grebbing, hunting or other menial tasks while wearing it.

Yeah, I like it this way, really. I think it makes a lot more sense with the shifting degrees of importance and power in game than hard and fast laws would. I think the shifting and changes make it seem more realistic than hard and fast laws would, honestly. That's why I expounded on my disagreement, but you put it very well.

[hyzhenhok]

It's important, especially in Allanak, to have nobles and templars bullying the common folk over what we would see as stupid, petty matters. Using wardrobe as an excuse is a pretty decent mainstay for that; I don't think it's an issue.

You'd probably have wealthy commoners trying to get away with dressing above their station even if Templar Fancypants has a reputation for punishing people who do, as long as he isn't executing them for it. If you get fined or your silks are confiscated, it's just another fashion expense. Something the wealthy commoners who have the resources and the reasons to be wearing silks should have no problem handling.

[Dakota]

If a commoner can cover themselves in diamonds... I think that goes a bit too far. But that's just my own opinion.

Sap bait.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

>read last two pages

>ask is Tek's Tower really made of gold?

[Lizzie]

>read last two pages

>ask is Tek's Tower really made of gold?

It's made out of cheese, just like the moon.

[Patuk]

Nobles and the alike being petty and arbitrary makes perfect sense both ICly and from a real-life perspective. I've read recountings of medieval peasants being put to death because they owned hawks(only noblemen above a certain ranks could do so) and women having torches shoved down their mouth for dancing on sundays. During the cultural revolution, multiple unfortunate citizens of china were publicly shamed and sometimes even killed because their hair looked too much like Mao Zedong's(there are pictures of this, even.) Randomly killing people for things they can't always help is a dick move, agreed, but as it stands I wouldn't mind seeing some more high-class brutality.

[Harmless]

Random killings in real life is fine as inspiration. I want to remind my malevolent players of nobles and templars that in Armageddon going straight for the death sentence would just be noobish, when there are countless ways to punish someone or get them to do what you want.

[Lizzie]

Random killings in real life is fine as inspiration. I want to remind my malevolent players of nobles and templars that in Armageddon going straight for the death sentence would just be noobish, when there are countless ways to punish someone or get them to do what you want.

I think that's a judgment call that only the staff of the game can make. If your character was killed by a "malevolent player" of a noble or templar, and you object to it, send a player complaint.

I've found in most cases, when templars killed my PCs, it was justified and made IC sense. I often objected to the timing of it, and in one case I objected to an OOC complaint that I didn't consent to torture, and I even don't like it that one particular templar was responsible for 3 of my PC deaths, but for the most part I was okay with the fact that my PC was PKed by them (or their player-animated NPC soldiers).

[Malken]

Random killings in real life is fine as inspiration. I want to remind my malevolent players of nobles and templars that in Armageddon going straight for the death sentence would just be noobish, when there are countless ways to punish someone or get them to do what you want.

Like death by snoo snoo.

[bcw81]

I really wish waking up wouldn't sit you up. If I want to sit up, I'll tell you I'm sitting up. The code should allow for you to wake up just like it does when you come back to your senses after passing out.

[Is Friday]

I would much rather a bunch of commoners respected the nobility fearfully because they are fickle and sometimes will kill them randomly than deal with drama bomb snuggle bunny groups who monologue about the class system in nak being "wrong" or a certain noble being "mean". They're not mean, your life just isn't meaningful so you should try pretty hard to stay alive via groveling.

[Harmless]

I have never been PKed by a templar. I have had a scattering of other interactions I really enjoyed. But, Templars are welcome to do things differently than I have experienced. at the expense of a volatile playerbase, that is.

[Is Friday]

You can go overboard with it I guess. Just keep in mind: a lot of players see any slight or punishment on their PC as the most grave injustice. That's just my experience.

[Delirium]

Ten years ago, templars/nobles would occasionally PK you for a wrong word, or a hint of disrespect.

The playerbase bitched.

Now, it seems, we've gone to the entire other end of the spectrum.

The playerbase still bitches.

It'd be nice to see a return toward the middle.

The playerbase will always bitch.

[Patuk]

I would much rather a bunch of commoners respected the nobility fearfully because they are fickle and sometimes will kill them randomly than deal with drama bomb snuggle bunny groups who monologue about the class system in nak being "wrong" or a certain noble being "mean". They're not mean, your life just isn't meaningful so you should try pretty hard to stay alive via groveling.

But I finally got advanced slashing_weapons! I can't grovel -now-!

[HavokBlue]

Ten years ago, templars/nobles would occasionally PK you for a wrong word, or a hint of disrespect.

The playerbase bitched.

Now, it seems, we've gone to the entire other end of the spectrum.

The playerbase still bitches.

It'd be nice to see a return toward the middle.

The playerbase will always bitch.

Nobles and Templars will still try to kill you for not bowing low enough, don't worry.

[Bast]

Id like to harp on the commoners dressing well thing. The problem is its very easy for a PC merchant to get sick rich on their own pretty quickly while nobles have to relay on their stipends and obviously don't work. Every-time I have seen someone icly bitching about commoners dressing nice its a PC noble throwing a fit because a Commoner has better clothing than they do.  Personally I think its stupid, I think if your commoner wants and can afford to wear silk great. I for one would like to see more PC muggings. Templar Talia sees your diamond earring and might ask if they are gift for her. (say no, I dare you) The other solution would be to adjust what nobles get paid. Make more noble only stuff in the merchant houses and seriously the pricing on some things is just stupid expensive.

[Malken]

Nobles obviously need to start going out and forage for salts too if they want their income to start matching the rest of the playerbase.

[Marauder Moe]

Ten years ago, templars/nobles would occasionally PK you for a wrong word, or a hint of disrespect.

Are we sure this actually ever happened or was it myth and hyperbole that, even then, was used to instill newbies with proper fear of authority?

I recall we definitely had some mean templars back then, but mostly because they roleplayed menace extremely well.  I've never actually seen a "That one over there didn't bow.  Kill him." or the like ever.

[HavokBlue]

Nobles obviously need to start going out and forage for salts too if they want their income to start matching the rest of the playerbase.

Hire some thugs to go sit around the flats collecting a "salt tax".

[Is Friday]

Nobles obviously need to start going out and forage for salts too if they want their income to start matching the rest of the playerbase.

Hire some thugs to go sit around the flats collecting a "salt tax".

Until every FITE PC in the game goes to rescue those poor grebbers.

[Narf]

Id like to harp on the commoners dressing well thing. The problem is its very easy for a PC merchant to get sick rich on their own pretty quickly while nobles have to relay on their stipends and obviously don't work. Every-time I have seen someone icly bitching about commoners dressing nice its a PC noble throwing a fit because a Commoner has better clothing than they do.  Personally I think its stupid, I think if your commoner wants and can afford to wear silk great. I for one would like to see more PC muggings. Templar Talia sees your diamond earring and might ask if they are gift for her. (say no I dare you) The other solution would be to adjust what nobles get paid. Make more noble only stuff in the merchant houses and seriously the pricing on some things is just stupid expensive.

I don't know, I think letting the nobles and Templars enforce their own arbitrary policies that shift from noble to noble and are hard to predict by the playerbase actually encourages a lot more interaction than any sort of 'behind the scenes' solution.

[BlackMagic0]

Nobles obviously need to start going out and forage for salts too if they want their income to start matching the rest of the playerbase.

Hire some thugs to go sit around the flats collecting a "salt tax".

Until every FITE PC in the game goes to rescue those poor grebbers.

Hire better thugs then.

[Narf]

Salt Flats privateers would be the very best thing that ever happened to Arm, no exceptions.

They just need their little emblem to flash when people give 'em grief saying they're robbing in the name of house so-and-so.

[HavokBlue]

I think it would be superneat if instead of policing what commoners wear, the nobility in the south actually tried to out-do each other in terms of ridiculous expensive outfits.

[Marauder Moe]

Restricting independent hunter/merchant income is a very complicated (code-wise) problem.

Restricting clothing quality through social convention and feedback requires no code changes.  It also promotes interaction and cultural awareness.

Consider:
Wealth and social standing don't always correlate in Armageddon (especially among PCs, given the aforementioned income disparities).  Clothing quality is not purely an expression of wealth; it could be considered an expression of social rank as well.  A commoner wearing more silks and bling than the average PC noble could definitely be interpreted as improperly attempting to rise about their class or worse; rubbing their unusual wealth in the faces of the upper class (which challenges the whole social caste hierarchy even!).

I would be totally cool if said upper class decided to start bullying commoners into ditching their silks, and if then wealthy-but-common peoples started voluntarily adopting more modest materials and styles.

[Delirium]

I think it would be superneat if instead of policing what commoners wear, the nobility in the south actually tried to out-do each other in terms of ridiculous expensive outfits.

Ditto, but I get the sense that noble PCs are encouraged to spend their sid on plots, not outfits.

I also get the sense that a lot of PCs fall for the "fancy loot" vs "actual fashion docs" trap.

[Jenred]

Ten years ago, templars/nobles would occasionally PK you for a wrong word, or a hint of disrespect.

Are we sure this actually ever happened or was it myth and hyperbole that, even then, was used to instill newbies with proper fear of authority?

I recall we definitely had some mean templars back then, but mostly because they roleplayed menace extremely well.  I've never actually seen a "That one over there didn't bow.  Kill him." or the like ever.

This did happen, back in the day when nobles would sit in the Gaj like it was the Trader's, because the Trader's had no PCs. Eventually the Gaj got alot of echoes to really up the level of disgustingness there, and alot of the nobles stopped hanging out there so much.

[Marauder Moe]

Ten years ago, templars/nobles would occasionally PK you for a wrong word, or a hint of disrespect.

Are we sure this actually ever happened or was it myth and hyperbole that, even then, was used to instill newbies with proper fear of authority?

I recall we definitely had some mean templars back then, but mostly because they roleplayed menace extremely well.  I've never actually seen a "That one over there didn't bow.  Kill him." or the like ever.

This did happen, back in the day when nobles would sit in the Gaj like it was the Trader's, because the Trader's had no PCs. Eventually the Gaj got alot of echoes to really up the level of disgustingness there, and alot of the nobles stopped hanging out there so much.

I played during those days too, though.

Like I said, there were plenty of nasty templars and mean nobles.  They would also definitely pick on commoners for little things.  However, even back then I'm pretty sure some escalation had to occur before execution was on the table.

[Jenred]

And in terms of item values, players should 'idea' items they run across that seem overly valued, that way the staff can make adjustments.
Or if the standing methodology is request, perhaps that instead.
I've ran into items before that are worth less than what they are made of, and other items, which for no explicable reason, are worth 10 times what they are made of.

[Delirium]

I didn't mean to indicate that no escalation occurred, but the "bullshit tolerance" was a hell of a lot lower.

Hell, I'd see PCs get tossed in jail for disrespecting a merchant house family member.

I liked that. It really drove home the whole despotic post-apocalyptic wild-west feeling.

Adherence to fashion guidelines is just a part of that, but it goes a long way in helping to keep the setting alive, IMO.

[Jenred]

Unfortunately alot of things go out the window when you throw in player cliques, the desire to foster playability over realism, the lack of sustainable precedents, etc etc.

Like alot of players don't know that its ok to be stern as a noble, because they never saw one that was. So they play similarly to one they saw, and maybe figure "oh, that PC was a little nice, I can be a little nicer" and then the chain propels itself. We need a good strong raging asshole to set the standard for a new generation of nobles.

Also, the trend for playability over realism... You might say "a rinthi, an elf, a gicker, and a northerner walk into a bar" and be expecting a terrible joke, until you realize that this is the way of things. Because players are looking at these as the only other options for interaction.

Alot of the sentiments related to fashion are indicative of a lot of the stronger underlying issues in players lives... like that there is such heated discussion over the mass wearing of silk, the niceties of nobility, the lack of bite in templars, is a bit interesting.

[HavokBlue]

Once, one of my characters tried to scam a noble out of some sid for his Rinther friends. The noble took my character to the bank, gave him a pouch containing significantly less coins than requested, and then walked into the middle of the bazaar, threatening to shout for the guards and accusing me of stealing his coinpurse. It was awesome and clever and, in my opinion, a much better way of showing off the power of the ruling class than harassing merchants because of what they wear.

I think there are better ways to make Allanak seem like the shithole it is than fashion-policing commoners.

[Reiloth]

Unfortunately alot of things go out the window when you throw in player cliques, the desire to foster playability over realism, the lack of sustainable precedents, etc etc.

Like alot of players don't know that its ok to be stern as a noble, because they never saw one that was. So they play similarly to one they saw, and maybe figure "oh, that PC was a little nice, I can be a little nicer" and then the chain propels itself. We need a good strong raging asshole to set the standard for a new generation of nobles.

Also, the trend for playability over realism... You might say "a rinthi, an elf, a gicker, and a northerner walk into a bar" and be expecting a terrible joke, until you realize that this is the way of things. Because players are looking at these as the only other options for interaction.

Alot of the sentiments related to fashion are indicative of a lot of the stronger underlying issues in players lives... like that there is such heated discussion over the mass wearing of silk, the niceties of nobility, the lack of bite in templars, is a bit interesting.

There's a lot of 'A lot' in here, but I don't think it's that extreme.

If you think someone isn't playing to docs or being the 'exceptional snowflake', file a player complaint. Docs are there for a reason -- To be followed, to a T, IMHO. I don't try to bend the rules when it comes to docs, I think that's stupid.

My PC's give Gemmers shit for sitting at the bar, or even just existing. My PC's are scared of them, and rightfully so. My PC's will give Elves shit for being lazy, selfish bastards who just want my coins. My PC's will give half-elves shit for being freakazoids born of a freakish combo of elf and human, ugh.

As Delirium said, 'playerbase gonna bitch'. Templars kill too many people, bitchfest. Too few, bitchfest. (Not saying you are bitching Jenred, you aren't). I think it's interesting too. That's also another reason I just play the game instead of following GDB trends and complaints.

[Barzalene]

My feelings are as follows:
I think that dressing all in silk is something that should be restricted to the very high ranking. (Not necessarily nobility, but almost exclusively the nobility. Why? Because it's a harsh desert planet where people will kill you for a drink of water. Also, because it's a society where people should know their place. And finally because I don't think wanton conspicuous consumption adds to the game world. It may make players or their pcs feel all shiny and new, but ultimately, I think working within the confines of your place in the world is the way to go.)

Other people's feelings may differ. I can't prove that my feelings trump yours. But the above at least shares my viewpoint.

As for hairstyles, well, I could see that in Nak. Especially if they were elaborate and impractical. Enforcing it would however be problematic, especially where new players are concerned.

[Jenred]

The clothing/perception of wealth issue will not be settled unless the staff make some distinction in cost between silk and linen, gems and stones, rich and poor commodities, etc.

Generally speaking, with no regards to inflationary aspects of each city-state, supply, demand, etc:
Dyed linen and sandcloth are the same price as undyed silk.
Cotton is more expensive than linen.
Rough sandcloth is more expensive than regular sandcloth.
Armor is more expensive than silk.
Silk items have better sdescs.
Pretty stones are cheaper than uglier ones.
Wine is cheaper than water.
Ale is more expensive than hard alcohol.
Nice apartments are cheaper than tenement rooms.
Alot of practical items that PCs would wear are more expensive than their fancy counterparts, etc.

So if the intent, by way of the documentation and apparently alot of players in this thread, is that silk shouldn't be worn by commoners (as much) it should be reflected in the game world in terms of pricing and availability.

[Nyr]

There already is a distinction in cost between silk and linen, gems and stones, rich and poor commodities.  Can you be more specific?

[Patuk]

Ten years ago, templars/nobles would occasionally PK you for a wrong word, or a hint of disrespect.

Are we sure this actually ever happened or was it myth and hyperbole that, even then, was used to instill newbies with proper fear of authority?

I recall we definitely had some mean templars back then, but mostly because they roleplayed menace extremely well.  I've never actually seen a "That one over there didn't bow.  Kill him." or the like ever.

This did happen, back in the day when nobles would sit in the Gaj like it was the Trader's, because the Trader's had no PCs. Eventually the Gaj got alot of echoes to really up the level of disgustingness there, and alot of the nobles stopped hanging out there so much.

I'd pay an arm and a leg for the sanctuary to be upped in its poshness echoes and the Tooth to be toned down.

[Nyr]

Actually, that list you provided is a little weird, so I can't tell if you're saying it should be a certain way, or is a certain way.

dyed linen and dyed sandcloth vs undyed silk -- not sure if you're saying undyed silk should cost more than dyed linen and sandcloth
cotton more expensive than linen -- can't tell what you're advocating here
rough sandcloth more expensive than regular sandcloth -- can't tell what you're advocating here
armor vs silk -- depends on the armor, depends on the silk, really too vague to tell here
silk items have better sdescs -- for the most part, they do.  If they don't, idea it and we can review it
pretty stones are cheaper than uglier ones -- aren't, shouldn't be; bug it and we can assess it
wine is cheaper than water -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
ale is more expensive than hard alcohol -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
nice apartments are cheaper than tenement rooms -- isn't, shouldn't be, no need to bug because we fixed this years ago
practical items more expensive than fancy counterparts -- shouldn't be; bug it

For the most part the gameworld is already set up this way.  If you think something is out of kilter, bug it.  It takes a bit longer to get around to those things, but we've made a point of fixing things that weigh less than their component parts for no apparent reason, crafted items that cost less than what the materials cost, etc.  Things are by no means perfect, but they aren't nearly as bad as you indicate from what I can tell.

[HavokBlue]

Actually, that list you provided is a little weird, so I can't tell if you're saying it should be a certain way, or is a certain way.

dyed linen and dyed sandcloth vs undyed silk -- not sure if you're saying undyed silk should cost more than dyed linen and sandcloth
cotton more expensive than linen -- can't tell what you're advocating here
rough sandcloth more expensive than regular sandcloth -- can't tell what you're advocating here
armor vs silk -- depends on the armor, depends on the silk, really too vague to tell here
silk items have better sdescs -- for the most part, they do.  If they don't, idea it and we can review it
pretty stones are cheaper than uglier ones -- aren't, shouldn't be; bug it and we can assess it
wine is cheaper than water -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
ale is more expensive than hard alcohol -- isn't, and probably shouldn't be in those cases where one finds that to be the case; bug it and we can compare proportions
nice apartments are cheaper than tenement rooms -- isn't, shouldn't be, no need to bug because we fixed this years ago
practical items more expensive than fancy counterparts -- shouldn't be; bug it

For the most part the gameworld is already set up this way.  If you think something is out of kilter, bug it.  It takes a bit longer to get around to those things, but we've made a point of fixing things that weigh less than their component parts for no apparent reason, crafted items that cost less than what the materials cost, etc.  Things are by no means perfect, but they aren't nearly as bad as you indicate from what I can tell.

I think that last thing about practical items was referring to things like sheaths that would be relatively commonplace costing a lot more than most luxury items due to OOC factors.

[Jenred]

I was being intentionally vague, as to not reveal actual items, prices, and so on.
As far as a few of the other things:
I was saying undyed silk is the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth. -Andl if its supposed to be as expensive as dyed linen or sandcloth, wearing silk (white) will always be cheaper than wearing linen. So from a practical standpoint as a commoner, I'd wear cheap white silk over more expensive dyed linen. Thus creating a silk-illusion of wealth.
Rough sandcloth should be cheaper than quality sandcloth.
The amors, vague on purpose... but shell and leather is more expensive than wearing silk. Players are saying commoners should be restricted from silk. Well wearing even cheap armor is more expensive. Is the point I was making there. (i.e. They are saying that a player wearing more than a silk scarf and gloves, or whatever else, is an overdisplay of wealth. A low-end piece (piece being one, singular) of armor costs more than several pieces of silk clothing in some cases... why is there a discrimination against the silk and not the armor-wearer?) - If anything, the noble should be more perturbed by the wandering dunesman in full-sets of kryl/ankheg armor than the commoner in a silk dress.

I (just) bugged the water vs wine, at least the most prevalent example.
I'll bug the remaining things, as I run across them.
The apartment thing is not fixed, but I'll send a request about it.

[Desertman]

In my opinion the basic pricing of silk would be beyond the means of most commoners working for common pay for a merchant or noble house.

The thing is, independents make a lot more in the way of coins generally than pc's who work for a house.

Also, pc's who work for a house "usually" make additional coins in some way, thus allowing them to afford silks as well.

It's like IRL. I go to work, I get paid, I have one job that I do, and I live off that salary.

In Armageddon with the playerbase that isn't the case. A lot of people work for themselves because IC'ly they can make a lot more than they could living off of a merchant/noble house employee base salary. Also, a lot of house employees are also doing things on the side/getting bonuses/getting rewards above and beyond the base salary.

My point is, silk and most luxuries probably ARE priced so as to be out of the reach of "most" commoners who are working commoner jobs for commoner pay.

The majority of the playerbase isn't really doing that.

Not really a complaint, just more of an explanation/something to think about really. I've always attributed it to, "The pc's aren't vnpcs, we are like the heroes, that is why we stand out."

[Maso]

Noble stipends should be way way higher than they are. Most indie merchants probably have more money than most nobles. Give nobles more money. Hike up the price of silk and gems etc. Way more. Sorted.

[Barzalene]

I've always wanted to widen the gaps between the haves and the have nots. I also always thought that the haves should be the nobles, the gmh and their employees. That the have nots should be everyone else. But I don't really see how that could be made to happen at this point.

This is also a bigger discussion than fashion.

And finally, it's not like the game is broken. The game is alive and vibrant and most people seem pretty happy playing it. But it would still be nice if the economy fell more in line with the documentation.

[Marauder Moe]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

[Jenred]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

Thats where the issue diverged a little.
Originally it was proposed to police fashion through nobles/templars expressing some sort of contempt that "commoners" would imitate their styles, wear clothing unbecoming of their station, etc etc. The divergence was in the fact that when these things are actually generally cheap (and in my thread above, cheaper than even armor pieces), what should commoners be wearing?

So you can police it ICly, through nobles becoming perturbed; police it through item cost; and then maybe also availability. Instead of "many" available, limit the overall amount of silks sold, (I dont know, just a suggestion).

[Morrolan]

Maybe, in a "be the change" way, we should react more strongly IG to the way people dress. Compliment people's clothes if they're nice. Avoid people (more) when they're smelly of dirty. Make decisions based on in-game social markers: silk, house signs, etc.

IRL, of we see people in battle-dress walking around, we don't generally cozy up to them. And here I'd distinguishing between wearing some practical leathers for hunting and wearing full silt-horror armor.

From another side, I think that laws and rules linking status-items with actual statuses would be a great addition.

A little (but not entirely) tongue in cheek:
>wear silk
You are now wanted!

P.S. Why do we always wear helms and such in lawful areas? That's a pet peeve of mine. Unless you're on duty as a soldier, it seems like an odd thing to do.

[Eurynomos]

Noble stipends should be way way higher than they are. Most indie merchants probably have more money than most nobles. Give nobles more money. Hike up the price of silk and gems etc. Way more. Sorted.

Noble stipends are not 'low' by any means. I'm not going to divulge 'what they are' but they are certainly 'more than enough'. As Delirium pointed out earlier, we also expect Nobles to fuel plots with their coins, not just expand their wardrobe (though they can, if they wish).

Nobles don't spend hours spam crafting and selling items to NPC's, because, whelp, they're Nobles. They fuel plots, not the economy.

[HavokBlue]

Commoners often look to nobility for examples in most aspects of life, and fashion is no exception. The styles of commoner clothing available, while simpler and cheaper, often imitate that of nobles.

[Marauder Moe]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

Thats where the issue diverged a little.
Originally it was proposed to police fashion through nobles/templars expressing some sort of contempt that "commoners" would imitate their styles, wear clothing unbecoming of their station, etc etc. The divergence was in the fact that when these things are actually generally cheap (and in my thread above, cheaper than even armor pieces), what should commoners be wearing?

Not silk?

Again, it's not just about cost.  Look to some other RL cultures, like ancient Rome or China.  Purple and yellow (respectively) were reserved for nobility/royalty not because those colors were expensive (though they were a bit), but because they were significant of status.  Just apply that same philosophy to materials and we're set.

[Jenred]

Not that we shouldn't re-examine the game's "economy" from time to time, but I really don't think that you can police fashion through price alone.

Thats where the issue diverged a little.
Originally it was proposed to police fashion through nobles/templars expressing some sort of contempt that "commoners" would imitate their styles, wear clothing unbecoming of their station, etc etc. The divergence was in the fact that when these things are actually generally cheap (and in my thread above, cheaper than even armor pieces), what should commoners be wearing?

Not silk?

Again, it's not just about cost.  Look to some other RL cultures, like ancient Rome or China.  Purple and yellow (respectively) were reserved for nobility/royalty not because those colors were expensive (though they were a bit), but because they were significant of status.  Just apply that same philosophy to materials and we're set.

That is a bit different. It is about cost, and availability. It was not so in Ancient Rome or China that the reserved styles were available, everywhere, and people just didn't buy them. Purple and red, in Rome, were expensive. Its is as much about cost, as availability. Silk was rare in china (at fist) as it was specifically reserved for the nobility (read: not available at the market down the street). Silk was rare in the west due to availability/cost (it was all imported).

If something is going to be distinctive of a station, or class, in the game, it should be both rare and more expensive than alternatives /or/ enforced ICly. Kadius has no qualms selling silk to whoever can pay for it. If it should not be this way, they should be pressured by the nobles/templars.

Im all for a solution to this, and distinction in class and fashion. And think it should involve a mix of cost, availability, cultural role-play enforcement by nobles and the GMHs, etc etc.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm pretty sure that, for at least some eras, those colors were downright illegal for non-nobility/royalty to wear.

That said... we seem to have rambled into some sort of agreement... I think?  To be honest I'm having some trouble parsing your points as well.

[Red Ranger]

I'm pretty sure that, for at least some eras, those colors were downright illegal for non-nobility/royalty to wear.

That said... we seem to have rambled into some sort of agreement... I think?  To be honest I'm having some trouble parsing your points as well.

They were illegal. The relevant laws were called sumptuary laws.

[Jenred]

Zalanthas is not ancient rome. Commodities that were illegal or reserved were also limited in availability.
However at the same time, a form of a sumptuary tax exists in game. Find out IC.

[Rhyden]

Someone should make a fashionista soldier who goes around judging commoners' attire and jailing anyone dressing above their station.

[Malken]

I think this started when a certain group of gemmed 'gikers were running around in silks, filthy rich and 'running the show'. People bitched about it and some Templar PCs finally did something about it.

It stuck ever since. Wearing silks and 'showing off' is never a good idea in Allanak.

[Cutthroat]

Adjusting prices for things just delays the purchase without putting it out of reach. Restricting GMH shops from selling things to certain people can cause more trouble than it's worth when code cannot adequately determine if the buyer is "qualified". Lowering the amount of items in stock in a shop - that will probably get messed up by the code that sells items to vNPCs, especially with the server's long uptimes lately, making the items even rarer than intended.

Also, if PCs are displaying wealth that should be beyond their station, I think that can be played with by pretty much everyone, not just GMH and noble/templar characters (I think at least some of those characters already enforce cultural/societal norms to some extent... that's a big part of the reason why they are there, anyway). It's still IC for a typical character to brawl with them in the Gaj, mug them, make fun of them, etc.

[Narf]

Noble stipends should be way way higher than they are. Most indie merchants probably have more money than most nobles. Give nobles more money. Hike up the price of silk and gems etc. Way more. Sorted.

I often OOCly feel guilty taking money from nobles for anything.

[Nyr]

I had a chance to look at a few of these.  Some are related to the topic, some are a bit of a derail, but I'll cover them here since they were brought up here.

I was saying undyed silk is the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth. -Andl if its supposed to be as expensive as dyed linen or sandcloth, wearing silk (white) will always be cheaper than wearing linen. So from a practical standpoint as a commoner, I'd wear cheap white silk over more expensive dyed linen. Thus creating a silk-illusion of wealth.

Okay.  Well, I'm going to go ahead and tell you that this isn't true.  Undyed silk is not the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth.  I checked every shop that sold undyed silk.

Rough sandcloth should be cheaper than quality sandcloth.

Looks like it is.

The amors, vague on purpose... but shell and leather is more expensive than wearing silk. Players are saying commoners should be restricted from silk. Well wearing even cheap armor is more expensive. Is the point I was making there. (i.e. They are saying that a player wearing more than a silk scarf and gloves, or whatever else, is an overdisplay of wealth. A low-end piece (piece being one, singular) of armor costs more than several pieces of silk clothing in some cases... why is there a discrimination against the silk and not the armor-wearer?) - If anything, the noble should be more perturbed by the wandering dunesman in full-sets of kryl/ankheg armor than the commoner in a silk dress.

On the front end of this one, I just don't see it.  A full set of cheap armor is not more expensive than a full set of silk.  A full set of expensive armor might get more expensive, however.  There's a whole set of documents on materials and their subsequent markups for Salarris.

I (just) bugged the water vs wine, at least the most prevalent example.

I mentioned earlier that it might be a bug but it would depend on proportion.  In this case that is exactly true.  A relatively meager amount of water in a desert world costs a single coin more than a more generous amount of wine in a wineglass...at a bar...where they want to sell wine, have already sunk the 'sid into it, and wish to have it sold.  It's not as though you can sell water back to a bartender.  I don't think this is indicative of a game-wide problem, and I'm not sure this should be altered unless it is more confusing than not.

The apartment thing is not fixed, but I'll send a request about it.

Yep, nothing broken in what you mentioned from what I saw.  Hearsay isn't anything to base prices from.  We have a utility--we're able to actually see all of the apartments at once, who rents them, how many they have, what they cost, etc.  There may be a room you think should cost more (or less) here or there, but room size, quality of room, and quality of the lock is all already taken into account with apartments.

That's not to say we won't review that in the future for some other changes (we do have other things we want to do here), but we did a pretty extensive look at apartments about three years ago. 

At this time, all of those things look like either a matter of proportion and specificity (where at the margins in some pretty specific cases, you might see the results you are talking about here), or a matter of a single thing here or there having an issue (where typoing it/bugging it would be appropriate).  It does not appear to be a prevalent issue.

[Twilight]

And here I thought this thread would be about Fale templars.

Without the value skill, it is impossible to compare prices.  Too many factors for taxes, material, specific shop discount, etc., creating intentional imbalances between locations.

[Maso]

Noble stipends should be way way higher than they are. Most indie merchants probably have more money than most nobles. Give nobles more money. Hike up the price of silk and gems etc. Way more. Sorted.

Noble stipends are not 'low' by any means. I'm not going to divulge 'what they are' but they are certainly 'more than enough'. As Delirium pointed out earlier, we also expect Nobles to fuel plots with their coins, not just expand their wardrobe (though they can, if they wish).

Nobles don't spend hours spam crafting and selling items to NPC's, because, whelp, they're Nobles. They fuel plots, not the economy.

I have played a couple in the past, albiet a long time ago so things may have changed...and they were Junior! However, that's kind of the point (of this thread at least), nobles should have enough coin to be fueling plots...and be better than dressed than any commoner can even dream of being able to afford - having an extensive wardrobe of the most luxurious clothes in the Known should be an expenditure that doesn't even require a second thought to budgeting.

Aside from that, commoners who choose to dress head to toe in silk should be ready to face the consequences of the attention that will attract. However, commoners who work for GMH and Noble Houses should be at the mercy of their superiors. If Lord Fancy Pants wants his Aide to look like a Borsail Lady...then that's his choice...

[Jenred]

I had a chance to look at a few of these.  Some are related to the topic, some are a bit of a derail, but I'll cover them here since they were brought up here.

I was saying undyed silk is the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth. -Andl if its supposed to be as expensive as dyed linen or sandcloth, wearing silk (white) will always be cheaper than wearing linen. So from a practical standpoint as a commoner, I'd wear cheap white silk over more expensive dyed linen. Thus creating a silk-illusion of wealth.

Okay.  Well, I'm going to go ahead and tell you that this isn't true.  Undyed silk is not the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth.  I checked every shop that sold undyed silk.

Bugged it in game

At this time, all of those things look like either a matter of proportion and specificity (where at the margins in some pretty specific cases, you might see the results you are talking about here), or a matter of a single thing here or there having an issue (where typoing it/bugging it would be appropriate).  It does not appear to be a prevalent issue.

Well, its more of a wealth inconsistency issue in general, but since its not tied to the fashion police argument anymore, I'll just drop it.

[Nyr]

I had a chance to look at a few of these.  Some are related to the topic, some are a bit of a derail, but I'll cover them here since they were brought up here.

I was saying undyed silk is the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth. -Andl if its supposed to be as expensive as dyed linen or sandcloth, wearing silk (white) will always be cheaper than wearing linen. So from a practical standpoint as a commoner, I'd wear cheap white silk over more expensive dyed linen. Thus creating a silk-illusion of wealth.

Okay.  Well, I'm going to go ahead and tell you that this isn't true.  Undyed silk is not the same price as dyed linen or sandcloth.  I checked every shop that sold undyed silk.

Bugged it in game

Easily fixed, and done.

Well, its more of a wealth inconsistency issue in general, but since its not tied to the fashion police argument anymore, I'll just drop it.

So far you've provided two examples and both were exactly as I indicated--issues at the margin.  In one case you could potentially buy water that is 1 coin more expensive than wine, and that actually made sense in that scenario.  In another case you could buy undyed silk at one place for a few coins cheaper than dyed linen at another place.  Yes, if you were a merchant and exploited this thing you could potentially find it easier and cheaper (in some cases) to outfit yourself in white silk instead of something that is more along the lines of what you should be wearing.

But that's fixed, and it's what we'd call a bug or a typo, not a wealth inconsistency issue in general.

[Nyr]

As an additional bit of derail, we definitely appreciate these typos, bugs, and ideas in-game for the little fixes like these (or others!).  There are a handful of things like these that I've noticed over the years that are really irksome once you have a grasp of what's going on there.  The biggest one I had an issue with recently was The Case of the Half-Rolled Tube of Spice (seriously, why would I not roll up a big ol' tube if I had the spice for it?).   

If you find more cases like these, use those commands--if you need to elaborate on one (or it's too lengthy to detail), you can always pop in a request.

[James de Monet]

The biggest one I had an issue with recently was The Case of the Half-Rolled Tube of Spice (seriously, why would I not roll up a big ol' tube if I had the spice for it?).   

This is fixed?! Oh man, where was I?