A suggestion about handling law in city states

[Supified]

The below is for discussion purposes only of a thought.  This isn't intended to attack anyone or anything, but to offer a suggestion to improve the game experience.  Please don't read into this beyond what is written.

There is a problem I see with the game currently where templar roles can end up making choices that will have a large impact without allowing the game world to appropriately react.  For example, executing/maiming an individual with powerful friends or backers, such as nobility or other templarate simply because those powerful friends are not online.  If the real-life limitation was removed, this wouldn't play out the way it does, but because this is just a game and we have lives, it can result in situations where permanent actions are taken, that might have played out very different depending on whom was online at the time.  This I see as a problem.

The solution in this proposal is that anyone who has a noble sponsor/patron cannot be killed or maimed without first allowing the noble the chance to allow the punishment or defend the individual.  In addition to providing additional oversight to very sensitive and stressful to play roles (the templars) it would also give nobles a greater importance on the game world and a bigger role in their cities.  I would personally put it in as a law with the caveats carved out for someone in the act of breaking a law violently or resisting arrest is excluded.  Punishments can be defined or not, maybe leave it vague to start, since the mere existence of such a rule would remind players that the game world needs a chance to respond.  Additional caveats could be carved out where as staff could play the role of the noble if the noble is unable to attend in a reasonable amount of time (say a few rl days) meanwhile the accused can rot in jail.  While this does take some power from templarate, it is mostly about ensuring that the world can react to things, than actually weakening them.  They're still allowed to execute and maim, they're just not allowed to threaten the investments of nobility without clearing it with those nobility first.  From a game standpoint, this would make sense to me that noble houses would be eager not to see their investments destroyed over the whim of blue robes.  Templarate would also still have other options to terrify, just not in ways that permanently maim or kill.  Basically nothing that threatens the investments of nobles.

[Fredd]

The below is for discussion purposes only of a thought.  This isn't intended to attack anyone or anything, but to offer a suggestion to improve the game experience.  Please don't read into this beyond what is written.

There is a problem I see with the game currently where templar roles can end up making choices that will have a large impact without allowing the game world to appropriately react.  For example, executing/maiming an individual with powerful friends or backers, such as nobility or other templarate simply because those powerful friends are not online.  If the real-life limitation was removed, this wouldn't play out the way it does, but because this is just a game and we have lives, it can result in situations where permanent actions are taken, that might have played out very different depending on whom was online at the time.  This I see as a problem.

The solution in this proposal is that anyone who has a noble sponsor/patron cannot be killed or maimed without first allowing the noble the chance to allow the punishment or defend the individual.  In addition to providing additional oversight to very sensitive and stressful to play roles (the templars) it would also give nobles a greater importance on the game world and a bigger role in their cities.  I would personally put it in as a law with the caveats carved out for someone in the act of breaking a law violently or resisting arrest is excluded.  Punishments can be defined or not, maybe leave it vague to start, since the mere existence of such a rule would remind players that the game world needs a chance to respond.  Additional caveats could be carved out where as staff could play the role of the noble if the noble is unable to attend in a reasonable amount of time (say a few rl days) meanwhile the accused can rot in jail.  While this does take some power from templarate, it is mostly about ensuring that the world can react to things, than actually weakening them.  They're still allowed to execute and maim, they're just not allowed to threaten the investments of nobility without clearing it with those nobility first.  From a game standpoint, this would make sense to me that noble houses would be eager not to see their investments destroyed over the whim of blue robes.  Templarate would also still have other options to terrify, just not in ways that permanently maim or kill.  Basically nothing that threatens the investments of nobles.

Could these powerful friends not still react once they log in?

As I understand it, Templars in Allanak are the law. These friends would need to have a fairly high rank to be able to demand a templar to stay their execution blade. It sounds to me like the person who did what the did, did not fear the clout of the persons friends.

However, i feel you. I too feel like Allanak resorts to "the laws says I can kill you, so I will" far to often for my liking these days.

What happened to the days of framing someone for fucking Sun Runners so their own employer kills them?

[Fawcett]

This doesn't make much sense, IMO.

It's up to the Templar to decide if the consequences of killing someone who has good ties with a noble is a good idea or not.

If there is no consequences for the Templar, it's likely your character didn't matter much to the noble in question.

[Fredd]

This doesn't make much sense, IMO.

It's up to the Templar to decide if the consequences of killing someone who has good ties with a noble is a good idea or not.

If there is no consequences for the Templar, it's likely your character didn't matter much to the noble in question.

100% It is up to the noble player to make consequences for killing their commoners.

[X-D]

Do not be afraid to....

OOC I believe this is greater then any of us can deal with IC at this point, I will be quitting now and filing a report to get staff and other PCs involved as they should be.

quit ooc filing reports on this matter.


I mean, in the past, before quit OOC existed, I had somebody say They needed to get staff involved and asked if this could be taken up after that. I of course ooc'd Yup, have at it.

Now, after a couple days we resumed, things went exactly the same as they would have without the pause, but it was staff backed/watched.

Many years later I was on the other side...and did an OOC This actually has to be handled staff side I think.

We all filed reports, some things were retconned and we all went on our merry ways.

Point being, Do not be afraid to use OOC and quit OOC if you believe staff needs to involved. I mean, if you are wrong, staff can actually log your PC in without you, And deal with it that way...so, it is always a no harm, no foul situation IMO.

[Brytta Léofa]

I'm reading the original post not as a request for plot armor but as a request that both the virtual and non-virtual world be given adequate consideration.

I think would be wrong to put a hard limit on who templars can kill or maim. Everybody gets to play the exception a little bit, including templars. Nobody gets to feel completely safe, including characters with strong political backing.

It's also true that templars sometimes run amok in hard-to-understand ways. An example would be the incident quite a few RL years ago in which a blue robe tried to squeeze a merchant house so hard that he got publicly sent to his room by a red robe. To my memory the templar's player kind of ragequit and it was a weird day for everybody.

It's in everybody's interest that we avoid cases like that where there's just a huge discrepancy in people's expectations of the consequences of their actions. There's a middle ground here: there is always going to be uncertainty about who has what political backing, how hard they can be pushed, and what the consequences may be. (Note that "betrayal" is part of our game's tagline.)

Could these powerful friends not still react once they log in?

Not by resurrecting the dead PC. We all have to deal with our share of random or lame-feeling deaths in Arm, that's the game; but within reason we want to maximize the righteous-kill to lame-kill ratio.

[Krath]

Do not be afraid to....

OOC I believe this is greater then any of us can deal with IC at this point, I will be quitting now and filing a report to get staff and other PCs involved as they should be.

quit ooc filing reports on this matter.


I mean, in the past, before quit OOC existed, I had somebody say They needed to get staff involved and asked if this could be taken up after that. I of course ooc'd Yup, have at it.

Now, after a couple days we resumed, things went exactly the same as they would have without the pause, but it was staff backed/watched.

Many years later I was on the other side...and did an OOC This actually has to be handled staff side I think.

We all filed reports, some things were retconned and we all went on our merry ways.

Point being, Do not be afraid to use OOC and quit OOC if you believe staff needs to involved. I mean, if you are wrong, staff can actually log your PC in without you, And deal with it that way...so, it is always a no harm, no foul situation IMO.

This has been helpful for me when in those kinds of situations.

[Brytta Léofa]

There is a problem I see with the game currently where templar roles can end up making choices that will have a large impact without allowing the game world to appropriately react.  For example, executing/maiming an individual with powerful friends or backers, such as nobility or other templarate simply because those powerful friends are not online.  If the real-life limitation was removed, this wouldn't play out the way it does, but because this is just a game and we have lives, it can result in situations where permanent actions are taken, that might have played out very different depending on whom was online at the time.  This I see as a problem.

The solution in this proposal is that anyone who has a noble sponsor/patron cannot be killed or maimed without first allowing the noble the chance to allow the punishment or defend the individual.  In addition to providing additional oversight to very sensitive and stressful to play roles (the templars) it would also give nobles a greater importance on the game world and a bigger role in their cities.  I would personally put it in as a law with the caveats carved out for someone in the act of breaking a law violently or resisting arrest is excluded.

For a really concrete response, I like most of this but would tweak the particulars:

Let's make patronage a defined thing in both city states, a recognized IC term. "Lord Templar, I have the patronage of Lady Foopsie Fale."

Let's make an OOC guideline for templars that when someone claims patronage, you're expected to jail them and file a report. It seems un-Nakki to me to create laws explicitly protecting commoners from templars; we just want to ensure that other players have reasonable time to react.

Let's warn everybody that falsely claiming patronage is a serious, better-off-dead offense.

As the OP says, this is a super useful political boost for nobles, a concrete benefit they can provide. And it makes a really functional connection between high politics and the scrappy indie crews that so many people love to play.

[Shalooonsh]

The Templarate, in either city, Are the Law.  However they handle it is how it gets handled.  Neither city state is a gentle democracy... both of them are wickedly authoritarian with flaws galore.  The Templars do not need authorization - they already have it.  If they want to take someone's anything, they can do it, the only difference is that between nobles and commoners it's the nobles who can actually push back after the fact in more ways than one.

The thing a lot of people seem to forget is that a Templar doesn't even need evidence.  They don't even technically need to have a reason.  All they need is a bad mood and they can legally extinguish whoever they want.  If they want to take a finger, or a hand, or put specific brands on someone so they have a scary interaction and a long, awesome story with their character going forward, they have that full right and coded ability to do so.  If that is too much for the now finger-or-handless character's player to deal with, they can always opt out and choose death, and that is the decision of that player.  In this instance, we assist the player with an exit from the character, note often both the character file as well as the account with all surrounding details of the execution, and let the scene move on.

Templars of today are incredibly forgiving compared to some of the red, white, and blue robes of the past, with scarification or maiming being the go-to punishment as well as the random public torture or arena.  In addition to giving people several chances after they fuck up and repeatedly fuck up, the Templars of today are also incredibly responsible - providing swift reporting on any given situation including the most important part:  what parts they are and are not reporting, but giving staff the entire story regardless.

As to soft vpower eruptions in response to someone dying:  That's for staff to decide.  Often we can trust in the Known to act as the Known should, and for those repercussions to be kept IC.

[Brokkr]

In general, Templars can move against commoners of a particular noble, at least of the ranks of nobles PCs play.  This in proxy to moving against the noble themselves, which invites serious consequences should they do openly.

When there is a perceived shift that a Templar is acting against a House (like repeatedly targeting their employees), whether Noble (or GMH at least in the South), that is typically where stuff comes into play.  Noble Houses have their own political power and interests in the Templarate.  GMHs each have at least one Red Robe that benefits directly from them in the South.  Blues looking to mess with an entire House will find they are screwing with the interests of other Templars, typically, unless they have already taken action in that regards.

[X-D]

it's the nobles who can actually push back after the fact in more ways than one.

Now, while I am in no way arguing with staff on the power of templars etc.

This here is the problem to me and why I say you should not be afraid to log out.

There should not be only "after the fact". A point that I have seen even staff sometimes forget. No PC or NPC ever leaves the game while alive. Only the player/staffer might not be available. When you log out your PC still exists, That noble, GMH family, templar etc, still there.

Somebody would always be able to contact that noble, and that noble IF they wanted to could always contact that red robe.

When you accept something happening because a player was not logged in that is something that happened for OOC reasons...and is actually against the rules.

Nothing at all against, "Hey, need staff and maybe others involved, Will do so and a time will be agreed on where we can pick up where left off."

[Dan]

I've always seen Templars as the 'Apex Predators' of a given city-state. The recipients of vast amounts of privilege and power, rarely challenged by any of non-Noble blood, and when challenged it is incredibly rare for there to be no consequences for the offender.  Their lives and concerns are leagues above that of the average and even the above-average commoner.

It's not up to the Templar to keep track of every commoners connections. It's imperative for the commoner to ensure those above them that are or could be a threat know exactly who the commoner works for/are the recipients of protection from. The onus isn't on the Templar, they don't and shouldn't care what sort of connections a commoner has, it's beneath them... unless reminded in a way that either causes a sense of fear, respect or they see some benefit in staying an otherwise wrathful hand.

I disagree with the premise of the initial post and feel that a lessening of the threat posted by Templars to the rest of the game world is anti-thematic. Death by Templar is often easily justifiable, as people try to speak truth to power, or challenge them in some way, etc. They should not have to seek out Nobility or other Templars before acting- but also should not be surprised at repercussions for their actions if they wind up being too flippant or damaging to others on the same playing field as them. If they capture someone else's pawn, they should be prepared to lose a piece of their own. Regular commoners aren't even qualified as pieces most of the time as it is... nobility and Templars are playing a whole other level of game.

[Delirium]

Why would you ever interact with a Templar or noble, as a commoner, if all it means is to become an easily disposable pawn, no matter your backing or history of cultivated favors?

Serious question-- we need to consider these things when deciding game policies and IC cultures. If the primary result of involving yourself with them is getting murdered... I imagine that gets old, and not everyone wants to play a red-shirt every time.

[Aquarelle]

Why would you ever interact with a Templar or noble, as a commoner, if all it means is to become an easily disposable pawn, no matter your backing or history of cultivated favors?

Serious question-- we need to consider these things when deciding game policies and IC cultures. If the primary result of involving yourself with them is getting murdered... I imagine that gets old, and not everyone wants to play a red-shirt every time.

This.

[Fredd]

it's the nobles who can actually push back after the fact in more ways than one.

Now, while I am in no way arguing with staff on the power of templars etc.

This here is the problem to me and why I say you should not be afraid to log out.

There should not be only "after the fact". A point that I have seen even staff sometimes forget. No PC or NPC ever leaves the game while alive. Only the player/staffer might not be available. When you log out your PC still exists, That noble, GMH family, templar etc, still there.

Somebody would always be able to contact that noble, and that noble IF they wanted to could always contact that red robe.

When you accept something happening because a player was not logged in that is something that happened for OOC reasons...and is actually against the rules.

Nothing at all against, "Hey, need staff and maybe others involved, Will do so and a time will be agreed on where we can pick up where left off."

There's very few things that can stop it during the fact.
About the only thing I can see working, is calling in a bigger templar.

Why would you ever interact with a Templar or noble, as a commoner, if all it means is to become an easily disposable pawn, no matter your backing or history of cultivated favors?

Serious question-- we need to consider these things when deciding game policies and IC cultures. If the primary result of involving yourself with them is getting murdered... I imagine that gets old, and not everyone wants to play a red-shirt every time.

Some of us like being disposable minions.

No matter how high up you are in a Noble House, you are disposable. The most beloved employee of Borsail, who is the ultimate advisor rank, who talks to the head of the family, and suggests how they do things, will be tossed under a wagon if it means the survival of the family.

i'm 100% for maiming. That's Allanaki Templar for "I'm pissed at your boss, tell them for me"

But I would like to see more steps between maiming, and killing, more often. It's a lot more fun to use killing as a last resort, generally speaking.

[Fredd]

There is a problem I see with the game currently where templar roles can end up making choices that will have a large impact without allowing the game world to appropriately react.  For example, executing/maiming an individual with powerful friends or backers, such as nobility or other templarate simply because those powerful friends are not online.  If the real-life limitation was removed, this wouldn't play out the way it does, but because this is just a game and we have lives, it can result in situations where permanent actions are taken, that might have played out very different depending on whom was online at the time.  This I see as a problem.

The solution in this proposal is that anyone who has a noble sponsor/patron cannot be killed or maimed without first allowing the noble the chance to allow the punishment or defend the individual.  In addition to providing additional oversight to very sensitive and stressful to play roles (the templars) it would also give nobles a greater importance on the game world and a bigger role in their cities.  I would personally put it in as a law with the caveats carved out for someone in the act of breaking a law violently or resisting arrest is excluded.

Let's make an OOC guideline for templars that when someone claims patronage, you're expected to jail them and file a report. It seems un-Nakki to me to create laws explicitly protecting commoners from templars; we just want to ensure that other players have reasonable time to react.

As someone who plays like 1/3rd his chars as House Employees/aides. I will say that this does happen. And is, generally speaking, the default.

In my experienc,e if a templar is doling out a punishment to me, and I'm heavilly associated, then there's something going on behind the fact.
some examples I have seen:
The templar contacted a Senior NPC of the House before hand and got the nod that it was fine.
The Noble I was working for had really fucked over the templars plans, and I was the punishment
I had been caught making fun of a noble house by one of the employees, and the house wanted me dead to make a point to everyone that heard the joke.

[Hestia]

Lord Templar I'm an employee of Lady Fale.

(except that's a lie, you're not, you're just trying to play the waiting game because you know, from previous play on previous characters, that this templar and Lady Fale's player never log in at the same time).

Lord Templar, I'm Lady Fale's employee.
(true, but you also know that Fale and the templar never log in at the same time, so good luck getting your lady and the templar together to discuss your existence)

Lord Templar, I'm Lady Fale's employee.
(true, but you were never told that Lord Templar HATES Lady Fale, and is killing your character on purpose to hurt her, and wouldn't contact her whether she was in game or not)

Lord Templar, I'm Lady Fale's employee.
(yup, true. And Lady Fale paid the templar an extra 5000 sids yesterday to make sure you never left the jail cell alive).

SO many possible reasons why a templar would not want, or need, to have a discussion with the person you want to vouch for you.

[The Lonely Hunter]

I think people are not really grasping the relationships.

Commoners are just commoners. Nobles are simply better, almost to a mystical degree. Commoners to nobles are more like animals are to humans in our world. We may be very fond of some, some may be work animals, others are just animals. Still - they will never compare to an actual person.

Some random junior noble contacting a Red Robe to complain that a Blue is going to kill their commoner employee isn't going to go favorably. That random junior noble may end up in the same position that commoner was in. A proper average gift just to get the attention of a Red is going to be somewhere in the area of 10,000 obsidian - as a starting point.

I can't even imagine that a senior noble is going to care much about a junior noble's 3 year personal aide. They might care a little if that aide has been with the house for a long time (the house, not just that junior noble), if the junior noble has done very well, or if that junior noble gave the proper gift (see bribe).

Zalanthas is a harsh and horrible place. It doesn't need to change. This is the game world that we have made and enjoyed for years. It has already softened up considerably over the last decade as we allow more and more RL things to bleed over into the game. This doesn't need to be another softened up point. Commoners don't really matter...to their betters. It is harsh. Zalanthas is harsh. Welcome to Armageddon.

[Shalooonsh]

We will not be putting a pause button into the game just because the right people aren't logged on. 

As to the point of more stages between being a criminal and death, I will sum up:

For almost 15 years, the process went much like this - and I am using Allanak as a reference point.

Be a criminal, do crime stuff, get caught
Get dragged to the cells
A: pay enough of a bribe or convince the templar to not kill you
B: get killed
--- In some cities you don't even get to this point.  You get caught, you get the axe.

Somewhere about a dozen years ago, we started putting in more and more ways for people to be dealt with.  One of them is more open use of The Arena.  The Cuddler is also a popular method.  The Nursery is a bit more final, but it's also nice and public and gives some interaction than a jail cell slaying. 

Within the last 3 years, I put in an additional set of fixtures in Allanak to allow Templars to have coded backup for maimings and brandings.  This exact structure actually gives 1 or 2 levels of potential "warnings" to the criminal PC, with these warnings being kept on the criminal's body as well as passing word between templars in case that criminal messes up again.

So if a templar wants to invoke all these steps, we have the following:

Be a criminal, get caught
Get hauled to jail, bail or bribe your way out
Get hauled to jail again, obviously you didn't learn, get beaten
Get hauled to jail again, still not learning, first level branding mark
Get hauled to jail again, lose a limb
Get hauled to jail again, get tossed in the cuddler or arena - either spill enough info or fight hard enough to stay alive
Get hauled to jail again, get your 'last warning' branding mark
Get hauled to jail again, get beheaded.

Now there are a multitude of reasons why a PC Templar may not want to follow all these steps and that is completely 100% within their right to do.  If a PC Templar walks into a jail cell (or honestly any part of Allanak) and decides they do not have the time to deal with whatever it is, then death is an option for them to hand out. 

If a PC templar is able to be convinced by someone under threat of punishment that it is wise for them, or profitable enough for them, to put that person in a jail cell until they can deal with all the various connections that person has, then they are perfectly welcome to let us know what's going on via wish and report that Person X will need to be placed in jail until that's all wrapped up.

Seriously - there are a lot of potential outcomes for any templar interaction.  If someone dies from a templar interaction, there's a reason for it.

[Fredd]

I think people are not really grasping the relationships.

Commoners are just commoners. Nobles are simply better, almost to a mystical degree. Commoners to nobles are more like animals are to humans in our world. We may be very fond of some, some may be work animals, others are just animals. Still - they will never compare to an actual person.

Some random junior noble contacting a Red Robe to complain that a Blue is going to kill their commoner employee isn't going to go favorably. That random junior noble may end up in the same position that commoner was in. A proper average gift just to get the attention of a Red is going to be somewhere in the area of 10,000 obsidian - as a starting point.

I can't even imagine that a senior noble is going to care much about a junior noble's 3 year personal aide. They might care a little if that aide has been with the house for a long time (the house, not just that junior noble), if the junior noble has done very well, or if that junior noble gave the proper gift (see bribe).

Zalanthas is a harsh and horrible place. It doesn't need to change. This is the game world that we have made and enjoyed for years. It has already softened up considerably over the last decade as we allow more and more RL things to bleed over into the game. This doesn't need to be another softened up point. Commoners don't really matter...to their betters. It is harsh. Zalanthas is harsh. Welcome to Armageddon.

All this. You know how you make any of that a possibility?

You don't get in trouble for several years and the Noble player spends ic years building up the favors to call down that sort of wrath.

I've seen it. It can happen. I've Seen a High ranked Borsail Aide saved via their employers influence. I've seen it happen for a Tenneshi aide (me in that situation)

But this isn't a normal occurance. This "get out of Jail" card is not free. Your employer just called in big favors to save you. It happens again, the Senior is going to ask why this commoner keeps getting into trouble.

edit: BTW i wasn't an Aide, I was an Advisor, the highest rank a commoner could hope to achieve in House Tenneshi.

[Bogre]

Why would you ever interact with a Templar or noble, as a commoner, if all it means is to become an easily disposable pawn, no matter your backing or history of cultivated favors?

Serious question-- we need to consider these things when deciding game policies and IC cultures. If the primary result of involving yourself with them is getting murdered... I imagine that gets old, and not everyone wants to play a red-shirt every time.

^

[Patuk]

Why would you ever interact with a Templar or noble, as a commoner, if all it means is to become an easily disposable pawn, no matter your backing or history of cultivated favors?

Serious question-- we need to consider these things when deciding game policies and IC cultures. If the primary result of involving yourself with them is getting murdered... I imagine that gets old, and not everyone wants to play a red-shirt every time.

We don't. People don't. This question is all the answer you need to 'why does Allanak feel so empty', imo.

But sure, I also agree policy shouldn't change. That really isn't the issue at hand.

[Fredd]

Why would you ever interact with a Templar or noble, as a commoner, if all it means is to become an easily disposable pawn, no matter your backing or history of cultivated favors?

Serious question-- we need to consider these things when deciding game policies and IC cultures. If the primary result of involving yourself with them is getting murdered... I imagine that gets old, and not everyone wants to play a red-shirt every time.

We don't. People don't. This question is all the answer you need to 'why does Allanak feel so empty', imo.

But sure, I also agree policy shouldn't change. That really isn't the issue at hand.

I've been pretty loud about how we, as a playerbase, have resorted to killing more then we should.

But like you I don't want a coded change or a rules change I just want us, as players, to adjust slightly.

It's awesome our templars have so many more options these days too.

But it aint just Templars killing players the first moment a plot against them is sniffed out.

[Armaddict]

I think people are not really grasping the relationships.

Commoners are just commoners. Nobles are simply better, almost to a mystical degree. Commoners to nobles are more like animals are to humans in our world. We may be very fond of some, some may be work animals, others are just animals. Still - they will never compare to an actual person.

Some random junior noble contacting a Red Robe to complain that a Blue is going to kill their commoner employee isn't going to go favorably. That random junior noble may end up in the same position that commoner was in. A proper average gift just to get the attention of a Red is going to be somewhere in the area of 10,000 obsidian - as a starting point.

I can't even imagine that a senior noble is going to care much about a junior noble's 3 year personal aide. They might care a little if that aide has been with the house for a long time (the house, not just that junior noble), if the junior noble has done very well, or if that junior noble gave the proper gift (see bribe).

Zalanthas is a harsh and horrible place. It doesn't need to change. This is the game world that we have made and enjoyed for years. It has already softened up considerably over the last decade as we allow more and more RL things to bleed over into the game. This doesn't need to be another softened up point. Commoners don't really matter...to their betters. It is harsh. Zalanthas is harsh. Welcome to Armageddon.

While this is true, it's also...shallow, which is a large problem I have with a lot of the documentation.  It's not wrong, it's actually exactly right.  But sticking hard to it eliminates nuance.

As a junior noble, I would never recommend contacting a red robe (unless you have cultivated a relationship with said red robe, which is, again, unlikely).  However.  Contacting a Senior Noble in your own house can be, has been, and should remain an option, insofar as you are in good standing with your House and working to further the goals of the Family.  If you are family fuckboy who just throws parties, they're going to scoff at you.

The reason I say 'without nuance' is because it's not allowed other influences to happen through npc's.  I have had npc seniors who have a vendetta against a house.  I've had them talk to me about their own plots, while they were were simultaneously giving me direction (noble quests!) for how I could be helpful to the family.  They may not give a single tiny shit about your 3 year aide...but they might LOVE the opportunity to score a point against someone else.

This comes down to ye olde templar problem; it's stated that templars NEED the backing of nobles, but mechanically, economically, and objectively speaking...this is entirely untrue.  The behavior of nobles and templars is based off of a dynamic that is enforced exactly nowhere, and templars, in particular, have a serious issue in that fear of consequences are not as prevalent as they should be for a templar.  Even if it's something as simple as making a templar the social pariah of their colleagues in the templarate, there needs to be more weight to these than the simple dismissal of 'why would they care?'  Such dismissals are what make Allanak a less interesting place, not more interesting, while doing absolutely nothing to change the brutality.  All it does is extend the brutality upwards into the societal ranks, the way it needs to be.

I am also a proponent of the quit ooc when things are going in a certain direction.  A commoner who is involved with nobles and templars does so specifically for the weight that it carries.  It doesn't make them suddenly important, but it does make them a harder target...due to consequences.  I have used quit ooc exactly once, because of a shady-seeming scenario where brand new special apps appeared to have more of a problem with my character's story arc and where it led them than anything else.  I put in a report.  Everything faded away...the brand new characters were not seen again.  If I'd waited to complain while letting the death happen, great, same thing happens...but I still die when I shouldn't have.

This is a constant problem that drives people away from what is, imo, the zenith of armageddon roleplay.  It's all because we've decided, by and large, to dismiss rather than examine the state of Templar dynamics as they relate to consequences, noble relationships, and templarate expectations upon their Blues.  Fuckups are not to be tolerated.

[Gentleboy]

Y'all ever look at NPC blue robes and red robes and see how many fingers they're missing?

How about PC Templars. A few notable ones from a year back were missing fingers due to being foolish! Or costing coin.

What about that one Templar that was PUT ON FIRE IN THE ARENA. Or the other public executions in the Arena?

Templars are in as much shit sand as the rest of us. I can imagine that they don't get as many IC consequences due to not having a PC superior. But, staff are strict, as are documents.

No one gets breathing room.