The Sneaky Noble?

[RogueGunslinger]

There's no one way to play a noble, or anything for that matter. I really won't begrudge anyone for trying to have fun in this game, because it's not always apparent how to do that. If your advice is to think about what your character should do realistically in a situation based on their upbringing, past, and status than all I have to say is duh-doy!

[Barzalene]

Yup. That's what I'm saying.

[Saellyn]

I'm not offended, I'm annoyed that you think you're the RP police. Staff will tell people when they're wrong. It's not your job to tell people they're wrong. If I want to use thrusting attacks with my SWORD, I will use thrusting attacks with my SWORD. If I want to use a thrusting attack with my HAMMER/MACE/CLUB, I will use a thrusting attack with my HAMMER/MACE/CLUB.

[Kismetic]

I feel like the true/false coded limitations of DIKU convinces people that sneaking thieves are skulking about like 1940s silent film burglars when they're caught on a scan.

That's so true, I can't help but laugh.  Quick, translate the following to Armageddon lingo:  "I noticed you failed your sneak check.  *cheesy grin*  I have maximized my skills, pretty cool, right?"

[Saellyn]

"You're not very good at skulking, or my eyes are just really sharp. Sucks to be you."

em offers a snarky grin.

[Incognito]

I have to 100% agree with Saellyn.....

Its in particularly bad taste for anyone to judge the RP of a person trying to engage in surreptitious skills.

Ok, if you see someone chopping logs of wood with their bare hands - yes - that IS bad RP.

But, a nobleman trying to sneak (and failing at it) coz he codedly hasn't mastered the skill yet - is an entirely different matter.

Additionally, for someone to make a call that nobles shouldn't be sneaky at all, or, not get caught being sneaky - is just unrealistic.

Yes, we've all heard the spiel about "nobles not doing anything on their own, and getting everything done by others" .... so what? Do all noble PCs have to behave like that? Is there some sekrit documentation which gives such guidelines?

Nobles often and openly train for combat, train to learn languages - so why can't they learn to tip toe and hang in the shadows, and learn to use quick sleights of hand? Maybe they want to cheat at cards, or catch their concubines unawares.....

[wizturbo]

In my opinion, Sneak/Hide covers more than just hiding in the shadows or moving quietly.  Since its the only code we have, it covers a wide range of deception and concealment.  I imagine someone who sneaks into an apartment building having successfully appeared like they were supposed to be there, be it through disguise, subterfuge or social engineering.  Skulking about in a city environment is only half of concealment IMO, a noble is fully capable of being "noble" and still gaining entry to places they aren't supposed to or concealing themselves.

For those of you who've seen the mini-series Shogun (or read the book, which are both fantastic btw), Lord Toranaga successfully sneaks out of Osaka Palace through deception and cleverness.  Definitely a noble, albeit Japanese not Zalanthian, but I would still classify his actions as "sneak/hide" if we were to classify it using Armageddon skills.  

[TheWanderer]

All nobles should be the Zalanthian equivalent of Ric Flair:



Case closed.

[Delirium]

Way to steal my character concept.

[MeTekillot]

Aren't all nobles sneaky?

[wizturbo]

Visualizing Zalanthas -  Lord Fale,  Master of Stealth and Subertfuge:

[Barzalene]

Something that's stuck with me the last few days is the response the original post got. People seem really taken aback that there there is criticism on the boards. I keep thinking about this.

I feel very strongly that we should all treat each other with respect, we should be polite and the goal of discussion should be mutual benefit, and not winning the internet. We should all try to avoid causing each other offense. And with the above in mind, I think it's good that talk about what we see in game and if it's right or wrong, or something in between. I think we all criticize other's role play. I think we all evaluate and make some subjective and ultimately objective decisions about what is good rp. I think it's important to talk about what is good rp, on the forums. It helps us to have standards, to outline those standards and hopefully collectively meet them.

Another thing I think is important is that the game world is constant. Not static, but that tradition is maintained. So, that we don't just have a big mess, we have something that we can recognize each time we log in. It's important to talk about nobles and what they should and shouldn't do. Maybe it's too broad to say they should not sneak or do sneaky things. I think that's a valid point, but if that's a valid point, then we should talk about how to and how not to use those skills, so that the standard of noble play is clearly defined.

So, I think one place to start that conversation is that there should be ic consequences for sneaking and hiding ic and failing. But that response should be tempered with the understanding that many of us sometime forget to stop sneaking or sheathe their sword. Maybe give someone an out before calling them an elf? 

Probably other people have thoughts.

[Barzalene]

Visualizing Zalanthas -  Lord Fale,  Master of Stealth and Subertfuge:

This made me laugh at my desk at work. That's not really allowed.

[HavokBlue]

Something that's stuck with me the last few days is the response the original post got. People seem really taken aback that there there is criticism on the boards. I keep thinking about this.

I feel very strongly that we should all treat each other with respect, we should be polite and the goal of discussion should be mutual benefit, and not winning the internet. We should all try to avoid causing each other offense. And with the above in mind, I think it's good that talk about what we see in game and if it's right or wrong, or something in between. I think we all criticize other's role play. I think we all evaluate and make some subjective and ultimately objective decisions about what is good rp. I think it's important to talk about what is good rp, on the forums. It helps us to have standards, to outline those standards and hopefully collectively meet them.

Another thing I think is important is that the game world is constant. Not static, but that tradition is maintained. So, that we don't just have a big mess, we have something that we can recognize each time we log in. It's important to talk about nobles and what they should and shouldn't do. Maybe it's too broad to say they should not sneak or do sneaky things. I think that's a valid point, but if that's a valid point, then we should talk about how to and how not to use those skills, so that the standard of noble play is clearly defined.

So, I think one place to start that conversation is that there should be ic consequences for sneaking and hiding ic and failing. But that response should be tempered with the understanding that many of us sometime forget to stop sneaking or sheathe their sword. Maybe give someone an out before calling them an elf? 

Probably other people have thoughts.

Sneaking and hiding are not creeping around like a cartoon villain.
Sneaking and hiding are not creeping around like a cartoon villain.
Sneaking and hiding are not creeping around like a cartoon villain.

People were taken aback by the OP because it is a complaint directed at a very small subset of PCs currently in game. There are what... Less than ten noble PCs? And fewer than half of them probably utilize hide and sneak?

So those 2-3 players probably feel personally targeted by a public complaint thread about how they choose to play.

[Barzalene]

I assumed she referred to the larger set of people who have done so since she's played.

Also, I certainly don't want those two or three people to feel insulted or attacked. I have no idea who they are. I'm not playing enough to see them, these last few months. But if they are playing in a way that can be improved (if) maybe this is an opportunity to consider. They may consider and decide they're doing great. They may consider and realize they're not the target. They may consider and realize OP referred to a moment when they'd forgotten to stop sneaking and that the criticism doesn't really apply to them. They may consider and decide that they could do better.

[CodeMaster]

And with the above in mind, I think it's good that talk about what we see in game and if it's right or wrong, or something in between. I think we all criticize other's role play. I think we all evaluate and make some subjective and ultimately objective decisions about what is good rp. I think it's important to talk about what is good rp, on the forums. It helps us to have standards, to outline those standards and hopefully collectively meet them.

There's healthy criticism on the boards all the time (and sometimes unhealthy criticism).  For a visceral example, here's a helpful set of critiques by Nyr that I refer to sometimes, http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,47035.0.html -- check out his reproach of publicly bashing figures of authority, for instance, which I think is related to what's being discussed in this thread.

So my impression is that this brand of content is worth discussing and having on the GDB... and is maybe even what this particular subforum is for.

That's why I was a little taken aback by how people were taken aback on this particular issue.  I mean, I can speculate: maybe someone in particular was being put on the spot, like RogueGunSlinger suggested?  Lizzie also pointed out that nobles are perhaps too specific a group of people to target with these kinds of critiques -- maybe we should be talking about affluential public figures as a whole?  I also think the players of nobles are really 'giving' a lot to the game in terms of leadership and coordinating with staff, so maybe there is this inclination to treat them with a bit of extra respect and not poopoo their roleplay the way you would a karmaless pickpocket's -- that might have been part of it too.

So, I think one place to start that conversation is that there should be ic consequences for sneaking and hiding ic and failing. But that response should be tempered with the understanding that many of us sometime forget to stop sneaking or sheathe their sword. Maybe give someone an out before calling them an elf?  

I mean, they're a noble, so unless you're a family member of a noble house that outranks this noble, what can you possibly say to them IC?

I'd be disinclined to give them an OOCly-motivated "out" though.  The nature of this game is that it is ICly unforgiving.  How many people have died from unintentionally triggering the crim-code?  Falling down a hole?  Attacking their mount?  Running out of stamina because they went the wrong direction?  Eating a hot pepper?  You done goof, you done goofed.

[Barzalene]

I'd be disinclined to give them an OOCly-motivated "out" though.  The nature of this game is that it is ICly unforgiving.  How many people have died from unintentionally triggering the crim-code?  Falling down a hole?  Attacking their mount?  Running out of stamina because they went the wrong direction?  Eating a hot pepper?  You done goof, you done goofed.

I see both sides of this. You're right.

And yet... sometimes it's hard for me not to give some leeway when I can. On the other hand, I've been the person who made a newbie quit because I didn't realize they were a newbie and I treated them as I found them. (I felt shitty about that though.) I've also had pc's thrown in the arena for forgetting to sheathe weapons and wished I'd been given some leeway.

All that said, you're still right.

[Patuk]

I'm going to post this again, just because I like Barz's post.

So I've been noticing this trend where lots of people are having their elves ride mounts and I think-

STOP TELLING PEOPLE HOW TO RP ASSHOLE GOSH WHAT IF THEY FEEL BAD

Sometimes the gdb is going to.be critical of people. Sometimes people will talk about you, other times they'll talk about things you've never seen happen. Sometimes the criticism is right, sometimes it is wrong. You can engage in and debate with criticism just fine, and that's okay, but going 'dude they gonna feel bad' or 'bro wtf you can't tell me how to rp' doesn't foster good discussions, it stifles them.

[MeTekillot]

As the direct target of a recent GDB complaint/posts, I literally didn't care what anyone complaining had to say. I cannot, however, speak for others in this case.

[Patuk]

Wait, so you were the elf dude riding that sunback?

GODDAMMIT METEKILLOT SON OF A BITCH

[Nergal]

It's well within the rules of the GDB to constructively criticize RP, otherwise there wouldn't be a "Roleplaying Discussion" forum. The only time this becomes an issue is when the criticism crosses the line into vague complaining about a PC's actions, in which case a player complaint is the better option.

This thread is really toeing that line. The only reason this thread is still open is that people have spoken for and against the OP, and created a discussion around it. This doesn't constitute dogpiling on a small handful of PCs... yet. Hopefully it will remain that way.

That being said, please stay on topic. If you wish to discuss the nature of criticism of other players on the GDB, feel free to make a new thread for it, and I will move what's here into that thread.

[Incognito]

Taking lead from Nergal's post - I'm thinking this thread has met it's natural end....

However, the OP's topic is definitely something to think about.

If someone starts a Player Collaboration topic about - An OOC guide to playing a Noble PC - we could all contribute and come up with ideas.

Of particular note:
For those noble PCs who haven't opted for any skill bumps, and have (as is the case in most cases) a mundane Guild and Sub or Ext - and assuming that they aren't one of the few who take to the sands and start killing scrabs/raptors/tembos - how would they go about using/raising their starting level skills. How would they portray that they aren't newbies (despite not having mastered their skill sets). How would they come across while using a skill that they probably should not use or should not have to use (i.e. get someone else to do it for them), just because they need to branch it to get the next skill? How should the noble PC behave when s/he wants to spar with you, and he's supposed to be a Warlord or a Commander of the XYZ Unit - but his/her skills are too low to begin with? How should observers behave/react in such situations?

We can add in suggestions / ideas about all sorts of sub-topics. Interacting with other nobles, templars, NPC slaves/guards, shopkeepers, in public areas etc.

When would it be worth your while to use your skill bump points, and for which skills would this be appropriately suited.

If we can come up with some constructive answers - I'm sure such jarring incidences will be few and far in between.

[Semper]

The root of this problem probably lies in the fact that the role play guide on how to play a noble (or fancy character) in either city-state was not converted to the new armageddon.org website? I looked every where and couldn't find it, so if someone knows where that is, that would be an awesome place to start.

I think for players who have been playing Armageddon for a while, they would remember there being a set of documentation that helped guide players in how to play these kinds of roles, whether you were a Chosen Noble in Tuluk, or a Noble in Allanak. There were topics of  how to play a servant, proper etiquette, etc, and so when I (and probably the OP and others) were addressing how "things were done two years ago" or so, most likely they were referring to a culture of players who had a pretty good guide on this kind of stuff already available to them on the website.

I had been writing all my posts assuming that documentation was available to players already. I think that makes a huuuuge difference in how nobles are perceived to be played. IF the staff actually left those out on purpose (and so these kinds of boundaries in noble role play for each city state were dropped intentionally), then it makes perfect sense that some of our posts sound like we're being RP police. But I'm of the opinion that those documents should have been transferred?

That makes me want to pull me hair out... I think one of the greatest strengths of Armageddon and the reason which pulled me into the game in the first place was richness of the details in the world, and the fact that there were unique societies in which you could really play a deep, believable character. I think we really need to pull together and try to clean up the new armageddon website? I still get lost trying to find certain information, or reference a particular help file.

[Semper]

Of particular note:
For those noble PCs who haven't opted for any skill bumps, and have (as is the case in most cases) a mundane Guild and Sub or Ext - and assuming that they aren't one of the few who take to the sands and start killing scrabs/raptors/tembos - how would they go about using/raising their starting level skills. How would they portray that they aren't newbies (despite not having mastered their skill sets). How would they come across while using a skill that they probably should not use or should not have to use (i.e. get someone else to do it for them), just because they need to branch it to get the next skill? How should the noble PC behave when s/he wants to spar with you, and he's supposed to be a Warlord or a Commander of the XYZ Unit - but his/her skills are too low to begin with? How should observers behave/react in such situations?

The reason why the old documentation on playing a Noble character would help is because it answers all these questions pretty much. In those documents, the role of a noble is portrayed as a social role. As a leader, you were to rely on your minions to do your dirty work, or gather information, or entertain your guests, etc. In this way, a good noble could really brighten up and engage all kinds of players. One good noble could probably keep a few PCs busy, but having several nobles around would generate all kinds of plots if they ended up using the same group of social PCs. A great post to read is Vanth's role play guide to playing a Noble Character. Not once (I think?) does she ever refer to a noble as someone who is shaping their coded skills up, because coded skills were not necessary to play one.

I had a strong reaction to some of the posts on this thread because it seemed the idea of a noble character that I had from the past was being forgotten. An Allanaki noble sneaking around and doing mundane things which a servant should have been doing for them defeats the purpose of having minions. If the Noble can handle mundane things on their own, the value of a minion diminishes. And I realize sometimes good minions are very lacking, and so this is probably why some slack was given in these regards, but if every new player considers this the new norm, then what difference is there between a noble and a commoner PC besides greater social standing?

[underlined for emphasis since this is my main concern]

[Delusion]

You mean this?

http://old.armageddon.org/general/noble.html

Just replace www with old when navigating around.