Obvious magickers

[Carnage]

Why should they? They're just robes, they're as visible as any cloak or robe we wear.  From a distance if you could see someone had water hued robes on you'd be just as able to see someone having black silk robe on.  Unless you want to propose a way to vaguely tel what someone has wearing from a distance (actually isn't nessicarily an awful idea, though I'm sure it would be a coding nightmare,) I don't think the original idea itself is such a good one

To help increase the segregation between magickers and normal people. As it is now you have to look at everyone to see if they're a magicker or not and play accordingly. Or just l soandso's gem, but that can give skewed results. You could end up sitting down at a bar and getting buddy buddy with some magicker and never know they're a magicker, because you didn't look at them to reduce spam. And I like the idea of the robes serving their original purpose: making magickers stand out. Now if Joe Newb goes and buys one of the robes so it looks cool, he's seen as a magicker and well receive all sorts of flak for it. He'll learn to keep it off.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Why should they? They're just robes, they're as visible as any cloak or robe we wear.  From a distance if you could see someone had water hued robes on you'd be just as able to see someone having black silk robe on.  Unless you want to propose a way to vaguely tel what someone has wearing from a distance (actually isn't nessicarily an awful idea, though I'm sure it would be a coding nightmare,) I don't think the original idea itself is such a good one

That isn't the point at all.  If you wear a set black silk robes, then it doesn't mean shit.  If you have your hood up, people will see it, and in any other instance, they won't.  But it doesn't matter if they see it or not, since it doesn't signify anything.  On the other hand, a magicker robe DOES signify something.  The fact that its important is what makes it obvious.

[flurry]

I do kinda like the idea with the robes, but from a distance are they really that distinguishable from other robes that might be similarly colored?   I think it would be better to just change the sdesc in the same room if possible.


Also are Allanaki magickers under any obligation to wear those robes?   I didn't think so - and if not, it wouldn't eliminate the possibility of buddying up to a magicker at the Barrel or whatever.   Although, yes, it would help.    (BTW, I would say forget the spam and look at someone if you're interacting directly with them.    Looking at every single person in a crowded room is another story, but I don't think looking at a person you're talking to is unreasonable spam.   The conversation itself is far more spammy to the room.)

[UnderSeven]

No I think it is the point.  A lot of clothes signify stuff, for instance when I was talking black cloaks, I had a clan in mind that wears those as it's uniform.  The byn is another example, the militia, yet another.  The list goes on pretty endlessly.  

Why should magickers get a sdesc flag when no one else is?  The byn for instance is probably a better known outfit than magicker wear.  And who out of nak would nessicarily know what they signify?  

The bottom line, I think templars are an exception and that for everyone else, changing sdesc for a piece of equipment shouldn't be done unless we're willing to do it on a much wider scale.

[Carnage]

No I think it is the point.  A lot of clothes signify stuff, for instance when I was talking black cloaks, I had a clan in mind that wears those as it's uniform.  The byn is another example, the militia, yet another.  The list goes on pretty endlessly.  

Why should magickers get a sdesc flag when no one else is?  The byn for instance is probably a better known outfit than magicker wear.  And who out of nak would nessicarily know what they signify?  

The bottom line, I think templars are an exception and that for everyone else, changing sdesc for a piece of equipment shouldn't be done unless we're willing to do it on a much wider scale.

The examples you specify (The Byn, the Militia) are not as fearsome as magickers. Many Zalanthans would probably rather be beaten by a gang of Militia than piss off a magicker. It goes hand in hand with the discussion of making magickers more fearsome and seen as 'different' than others.

[UnderSeven]

The examples you specify (The Byn, the Militia) are not as fearsome as magickers. Many Zalanthans would probably rather be beaten by a gang of Militia than piss off a magicker.

First off this isn't very true in my experience.  While the help files talk about magickers being fearsome, for the most part your every day magicker wandering around Allanak seems to be treated more like dirt than a scary could kill you any minute.  MAYBE this is because the players on arm arn't really treating magickers with the fear they should, but this is certainly the way I've seen it.

In addition just because magickers are scary doesn't mean their cloaks are reconizable to all so much that a sdesc item needs to be added for them.  For instance a Tuluki might be able to reconize a whiran or vivaduan cloak if they saw it up close but from a distance, if it's the first time they've seen one they probably wouldn't know what was so special about what they were looking at.

In addition I'd like to point out what purpose would this have? I've already stated magickers are treated like dirt rather than like fearsome monsters.  So this would what, allow them to be treated like dirt from a distance?  I don't see why the help files suggesting the magickers are scary has anything to do with how reconized their cloaks are or arn't outside Allanak.

And just as a side note, all those people who don't rp any fear for magickers, I feel this attitude is getting old.  Everyone and their brother wants to play the fearless person who fears nothing.  I'd love to see a long lived magicker, or the staff have a magicker open a serious can of whoop ass over the entire playerbase so we could be injected with a healthy dose of fear.

Needless to say, I don't think that should make them any easier to reconize from a distance.

[Lazloth]

Why should magickers get a sdesc flag when no one else is?  The byn for instance is probably a better known outfit than magicker wear.  And who out of nak would nessicarily know what they signify?

The game, and players who don't want to contribute to look spam, might benefit from city-state militia gaining a 'soldier' tag, but who cares about a generic 'mercenary'?  Are there enough [Bynners, elementalists and] militia to make this an issue?  *shrug*

[UnderSeven]

The game, and players who don't want to contribute to look spam, might benefit from city-state militia gaining a 'soldier' tag, but who cares about a generic 'mercenary'?  Are there enough elementalists and militia to make this an issue?  *shrug*

That's actually my point.

First of all, it won't lower look spam, people will still look at them, it's not like you're looking at people to tell wiether or not they are a magicker or militia or a templar . . ect.  We look at them for a myraid of information it yields.

Second, there is no point to having an sdesc added for anyone, my point was magickers SHOULDN'T get it because they're cloaks maybe fear inspiring for npcs or well played pcs, but they arn't any more reconizable than other groups and infact are much LESS reconizable than most other groups, unless you live in nak.  

And as stated before, I feel templars are really only in their descs as an exception.

[Lazloth]

I may have worded the response incohesively:  I meant to state that in my opinion, if there were new dynamic sdescs, it is the city's policemen that should receive these first.  The fact that we can swap wo/man to 'mage' is cute; stretching that to 'mercenary' I think is going a touch too far.

[Angela Christine]

Elementalists are not required to wear elementalist robes, but those that choose to wear the robe are *flaunting* the fact that they are elementalists.  The only reason to wear them is that you want people to believe you are an elementalist, a certain kind of elementalist.  It isn't like wearing them gives you 30 extra mana, 50 extra stamina, or makes you immune to poison.  If you are looking for a coded benefit there are plenty of cloaks that will do a better job.  The only thing they do is say "Hey look!  I'm a Whiran!"

There are robes that do this even better.  I remember a northern shop that had "a white Whiran's robe" in its inventory for a while after the  liberation, probably scavenged off some poor, dead magicker.  If you wore that robe with the hood up you would be "the figure in a white Whiran's robe" which would probably make people think you were a whiran.  The fact that the robes for sale in the Elementalist's quarter don't come right out and say they are mages robes in the sdesc might be significant, it might indicate that the staff want some ambiguity here.  

Putting "mage" or "krathi" in the sdesc of the robe would have nearly the same effect as having the robe change your sdesc.  It might be even better, since you wouldn't need to have "man" or "woman" in your sdesc for it to work properly.  But they didn't do it that way.

Speaking of elementalist robes, what would a Nilazi robe look like?  I'm thinking the Emperor's New Clothes.  :twisted:

AC

[Petra]

I don't like it.  First of all, the way I see it, 'magicker' is a slang word.  It would be as awkward as putting the word 'Rinther in someone's sdesc, or "mek".  They're not real words.  You don't call a swordsman swordsmaner, do you?  Some words allow an -er ending in the English language, magic(k) is not one of them for a number of grammatical reasons too lengthy and garbled to list here.  I believe magicker is a term used by the ignorant (the common), since it's improper grammar to begin with.  I wouldn't want to see the word magicker in an sdesc for the same reason I wouldn't want to see longneck or sharpear in one either.  As far as putting a similar word, such as mage or elementalist in one's sdesc, well I don't like that either for the same reason I wouldn't like one's sdesc to change to archer when carrying a bow, or warrior when carrying a sword, decked out in armor.

That said, I also don't believe a dull black gem (I mean it's DULL for crying out loud!) is anywhere near as noticable as a templar's robe.  Its an object some players choose not to notice upon first inspection -- it could easily be overlooked.  What's more, I believe elementalists sporting the mage's gem already suffer enough prejudicy as it is.  In fact, the consequences of the gem are such that, personally, I cannot understand why anyone would want to play one (though we all have our own personal tastes, I realize).

[UnderSeven]

I couldn't agree more with that post.  But I'd like to add something on to it.  When people see stuff in short descs, it's very hard not to use that exact same word when describing said thing.  Example, if someone asks you to describe someone, you might very well take a word right out of his short desc.

Okay, so the more experienced players may know better, but what's my point?  If we get a bunch of newbies, which we frequently do, and they see the wind ravaged mage is standing here.  What is going to happen? They will start calling elementalists/magckers/witches mages instead.  Why is this bad?  Two reasons:

One, it coins a new phrase in a completely ooc way, two, magickers is a slang term yes, but it makes sense for a widely uneducated, susperstious population to use it.  This term might find itself being replaced to at least a degree by the word 'mage'.  Personally I don't like that, I think that would be very bad and I have a feeling it's exactly what would happen.

[Petra]

Mage and surprisingly even wizard are words both found in various help files.  The former is also mentioned in the elementalist district in various rooms even.  I don't see what's wrong with the word mage, myself.  It's one of the many words used to describe a spellcaster, and it is an IC word -- though perhaps one less favorable than "magicker".

Regardless, for all the reasons stated previously, I don't like the idea of having every single elementalist in Allanak spam the same word (regardless of what word that is) in their sdesc.  I prefer variety.

In addition to this, the code for a templar's robe is such that it requires the word man or woman exclusively to appear at the end of one's sdesc in order for the alteration to 'templar' to be successful.  If you are 'the tall, frail redhead' and you wear a templar's robe, you won't become the tall, frail templar.  Implementing a dull black gem or robe to alter to the word 'magicker' in one's sdesc would also require battling all the variables found in each race.  I don't want to see the pudgy, rock-hued dwarf become the pudgy, rock-hued magicker, thereby eliminating what race he is.  In order for this sort of function to work, each sdesc would have to be approved in character generation to ensure it matches with the code of an sdesc-altering item.  So what's the solution?  Have the added keyword appear at the end of an sdesc so we can spam people with unnecessary strings, like: the pudgy, rock-hued dwarf wearing a dull black gem.  No thanks!  How about instead we just keep things the way they are?

[Bogre]

-ANYONE- can physically wear a magicker gem.

You kill off the Krathi thats sneaking in the rinth.
Boom. Instant magickerness, without even having to change clothes. This sounds a bit ridiculous to me.

Templar robes do the same, but they are a bulky, visible, covering cloak. At first glance people would see it and think 'Templar!' A small gem won't evoke notice as much as a bright blue robe, no matter what you are trained to look for.

I can imagine this: The green-inked, red-eyed mul magicker is here.

...Scary. Especially should that mul be a 30d warrior, and some dwarf with the focus of destroy magic sees him and suicides to his blades.

[UnderSeven]

I don't see any reason why that makes a difference.  That's really an ooc problem with the idea.  Granted I even think it's a bad idea, but even so, that's the dead wrong reason why.  What should the code instead check to make sure you're really a magicker before you can wear it?  Think Tek cares if you put it on?  No, he probably doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, anyone can wear a gem.  My first PK'ed PC found out the hard way that a dull, black gem is not just a pretty little thing to wear.

[Anarchy]

Gemmers would be 'spot'able from a few rooms away.  Those gems aren't big... I don't think.  I've always imagined them being no more than the size of a quarter, probably more like a nickel.

But you will notice them when the crowds part around them as they walk I dont think any commoner would want to rub shoulders, or touch a magicker. Even in the city so would go out of their way to keep clear.

[UnderSeven]

It's funny, but while the game and helpfiles says one thing, the way PCs actually act and even the very posts in this thread say otherwise.

Case in point the mention of a dwarf who maybe has a focus to kill magickers.  I have yet to for quite a while see anyone actually rp being affraid of one.  More likely they'd get tripped everywhere they go. . Heh.

Vivi from FFIX