Tuluk's Shadow Artists: Now With More Flavor

[janeshephard]

Yes, I'm aware of that Lizzie.

I'm not filing a player complaint.

[Patuk]

I've never quite understood what the point of subtlety concerning matters everyone would be in full agreement over is, anyway. That said, RP on, I suppose.

[Nyr]

I'm just curious- as to the outrage over not being able to kill a templar...

Has anyone ever bought a contract for a Faithful to be murdered, from another Faithful? The way the system currently stands, you -still- have to go through the Faithful to order a hit on one, so you'd have to be really assured that the templar you talked to was for it themselves or didn't care.

I mean, it doesn't seem that it's really changing.

It's safe to say it has never happened.

[hyzhenhok]

Are Shadow Artists themselves legitimate targets for contracts?  If so, how would that be handled? If not, do you try to maintain secrecy or does the templar outright inform the person why the contract they want is no good?

[Nyr]

Are Shadow Artists themselves legitimate targets for contracts?  If so, how would that be handled? If not, do you try to maintain secrecy or does the templar outright inform the person why the contract they want is no good?

I've never seen why not.  Targeting a tool is often something that has been done in the past if the tool is a visible extension of a patron.  However, hopefully this system can develop towards tactics that are more interesting.  Hire an artist to break in and scare the artist ("you should really THINK about where your loyalties lie").  If they leave the patron, they may go elsewhere...right?  Hire an artist to beat them up, if they can.  ("You have made a terrible mistake working for this person.  Think on your sins.")  Yes, killing them is possible, but leaving someone alive can create interesting roleplay.

Consider the beat-up artist.  They may well know who DID it (they see the sdesc/desc) but they know the artist has NOTHING to do with wanting to do it.  They are just a tool, too.  Retaliation against the tool MIGHT be silly.  Should they tell their patron?  Patron says "okay, I think this is who hired them, let's go after another one of THEIR tools once you recover," or "that artist doesn't seem to be a partisan of the target I think hired you for this, so leave them alone, they have nothing to do with it," or maybe the partisan just avoids telling the patron and quits because the threat works.

[Molten Heart]

For those concerned about not being able to take out an assassination contract on a templar, going outside the system is always an option.  This of course has it's own risks (but plotting against templars always do).

[Desertman]

My biggest concern with this whole system is the, "you can't turn down a contract" concept.

This makes Shadow Artists, for better or worse, basically the "stealth unit" of the Legion.

Why not just make them Legion soldiers who specialize in stealthy things, and have it be an open secret that you can pay the templarate to have these soldiers complete "contracts" for you.

Fundamentally that is exactly what you are doing anyways. If the artists have to follow "orders" the same way Legion soldiers have to follow "orders" with no flexibility, they are basically just soldiers who don't live in the barracks.

I didn't see anything about artists being able to negotiate their own prices, or anything about the templarate hiring Shadow Artists themselves.

I see an issue with Templars "hiring" (ordering) Shadow Artists to take out their own enemies repeatedly at rock bottom prices. Why? Because they can, and the Shadow Artists have to take it, or they die.

Soldiers are soldiers, no matter what fancy name you put on them.

[Riev]

I didn't see anything about artists being able to negotiate their own prices, or anything about the templarate hiring Shadow Artists themselves.

I see an issue with Templars "hiring" (ordering) Shadow Artists to take out their own enemies repeatedly at rock bottom prices. Why? Because they can, and the Shadow Artists have to take it, or they die.

Can Brokers set their own contracts? This is now concerning. Much in the "you killed an NPC. Your task now is to kill a specific southern Templat or you are never allowed back into the Ivory on pain of death"

[Kronibas]

but leaving someone alive can create interesting roleplay.

Yeah... definitely very situational, but PC authority figures/fixtures of power/established badasses will probably feel more comfortable doing this than someone without many allies/someone trying really really hard to be sneaky.

My biggest concern with this whole system is the, "you can't turn down a contract" concept.

I think that's a pretty valid concern that's largely contingent on how the shadow brokers handle their business, which will probably be monitored pretty closely at the beginning, and hopefully redirected if stupid shit starts happening.

I see an issue with Templars "hiring" (ordering) Shadow Artists to take out their own enemies repeatedly at rock bottom prices. Why? Because they can, and the Shadow Artists have to take it, or they die.

 

Yeah, heh, this seems like an inevitability, kinda.  But you know, I would almost rather a templar hire some dude to try to whack my dude or fuck with him than bringing him into a locked room for "talk" and then "order soldiers kill marsellus."  I've been guilty of the latter more than once, but it would have been way cooler for me playing as Marsellus Wallace, to, you know, send out some goons like Jules and Vincent to do the light work.  If this is a step in the direction away from locked room soldier kills, cool.  There are more graceful and creative ways to skin those cats and degenerate criminal scum.

Hopefully, the brokers and overseeing staff will exercise good judgment when dealing with SAs who hesitate to accept contracts.  Sending SAs on suicide missions (political, personal, unfairly dangerous) because a templar or the hiring dude is reckless/irresponsible/blind to facts seems like it would be full of suck.

[Molten Heart]

That alone would stop me from considering such a thing.

Who knows what the Templars agenda is...what better way to get rid of a problem give them "An offer they cannot refuse".

This is how I feel too.  If contracts are mandatory, there's just too much risk involved, considering that an artist is possibly risking their own life.  And when a character becomes so accomplished they're respected for their skill (enough to pull off difficult jobs), money is usually of no consequence and not much of a reward enough to outweigh the risk.  Power and influence are the currency of Zalanthas, not coins.  Then even if there were some way to offer power and influence to shadow artists for high profile jobs, I'm still not sure that'd be enough.  Taking away someone's option to decline a job kind of makes the shadow artists slaves to the templarate.   There is also nothing stopping a templar from leaning on a shadow artist, making veiled threats in order to try to influence them to take a job, but I don't think that should be the case with every contract.

[Patuk]

I didn't see anything about artists being able to negotiate their own prices, or anything about the templarate hiring Shadow Artists themselves.

I see an issue with Templars "hiring" (ordering) Shadow Artists to take out their own enemies repeatedly at rock bottom prices. Why? Because they can, and the Shadow Artists have to take it, or they die.

Can Brokers set their own contracts? This is now concerning. Much in the "you killed an NPC. Your task now is to kill a specific southern Templat or you are never allowed back into the Ivory on pain of death"

And get forcestored in the process.

[Nyr]

My biggest concern with this whole system is the, "you can't turn down a contract" concept.

This makes Shadow Artists, for better or worse, basically the "stealth unit" of the Legion.

We're looking at some ways to reduce this necessity, but the idea behind "you can't turn down a contract" is more to ensure the OOC and IC security of such a system's existence.  The more people that know about a contract, the more likely that information about it will leak out.  If you have to take a contract given to you, then you are encouraged to actually do the contract.  The ritualized aspect of the contract system might make it so that a contract can be turned down without learning the intricate details of the specific contract, but if you want to opt out of doing this, your opportunity to opt out is generally before you get inked and after you decide you are out of the game of being a shadow artist.

Why not just make them Legion soldiers who specialize in stealthy things, and have it be an open secret that you can pay the templarate to have these soldiers complete "contracts" for you.

Because soldiers have crim-code immunity and thus would have no challenge.  Next on the agenda IS the work on Legion soldiers and what exactly they have to do, but this isn't an area that should be mixed up.

Fundamentally that is exactly what you are doing anyways. If the artists have to follow "orders" the same way Legion soldiers have to follow "orders" with no flexibility, they are basically just soldiers who don't live in the barracks.

Basically soldiers that don't ever have to kill anyone, never have to attend training, never have to wear a uniform, and never have to work directly for anyone, instead getting contract work through the templarate anonymously.  The only caveat is that when they decide to be an artist, they're all in, and actually must BE an artist and DO that work.  Just because something is mandated doesn't mean they're exactly the same as a soldier!

I didn't see anything about artists being able to negotiate their own prices, or anything about the templarate hiring Shadow Artists themselves.

They might need the ability to negotiate, and perhaps that is a perk that can be afforded to master artists in order to provide more incentive to become one.  The templarate has in the past hired shadow artists to do certain tasks.  It did not break the game then, and I doubt it will break the game in the future to allow them to do so as needed.  

I see an issue with Templars "hiring" (ordering) Shadow Artists to take out their own enemies repeatedly at rock bottom prices. Why? Because they can, and the Shadow Artists have to take it, or they die.

To the former point, no.  Templars going repeatedly on the warpath to kill all opposition are obviously abusing the system and utilizing the most extreme ends of it. To the latter, it hasn't been specified what the consequences are for refusal and that is what we're working on.

Can Brokers set their own contracts? This is now concerning. Much in the "you killed an NPC. Your task now is to kill a specific southern Templat or you are never allowed back into the Ivory on pain of death"

No, Faithful Lord Amos can't talk to himself in a private room, set his own price, and select his own artist and cut out the greater templarate from his own personal stash of coin.  He'll have to talk to one of his PC templar buddies (or failing that, staff via a request).

[Jherlen]

I agree with Desertman above re: shadow artists becoming effectively the "stealth arm" of the legion under this system. I get that templars (or at least, the templarate) should have Ultimate Power in the city, but I don't know if that extends to placing every single tool for wielding power/influence (soldiers, crim code, and now criminal activity) directly in their hands.

It seems like we're holding these concepts true overall in Tuluk:
- Templars, by and large, will respect and uphold the decisions of other templars at least when it comes to shadow artist contracts,
- Templars place politics and their own ambitions secondary to the city's interests/traditions, even to their own detriment,
- Templars will be exerting direct, overt influence over criminal elements much moreso than happens in Allanak

Am I wrong getting this impression? It just seems like there's a lot more assumptions of rules being followed and people getting along in the Tuluki templarate than in Allanak, which is pretty much assumed to be cutthroat and ruled by whichever templar has bigger guns. It seems like by trying to force things in Tuluk to all be controlled by templars, who are expected to act more nicely, we're losing some interesting subtlty in the system (u see wat I did thar?)

[janeshephard]

i bet you're that guy who puts 3000 coin bounties on pickpockets for stealing your dagger

Under the new system I could have the dagger stolen back, and leave a 'message' for the person who stole from me.

My point earlier is utilization of this system will remain low unless there's IC consequences for ignoring it. The consequences ought to be serious.

[Jingo]

God I hate it when Templars are in charge.

[janeshephard]

I agree with Desertman above re: shadow artists becoming effectively the "stealth arm" of the legion under this system. I get that templars (or at least, the templarate) should have Ultimate Power in the city, but I don't know if that extends to placing every single tool for wielding power/influence (soldiers, crim code, and now criminal activity) directly in their hands.

It seems like we're holding these concepts true overall in Tuluk:
- Templars, by and large, will respect and uphold the decisions of other templars at least when it comes to shadow artist contracts,
- Templars place politics and their own ambitions secondary to the city's interests/traditions, even to their own detriment,
- Templars will be exerting direct, overt influence over criminal elements much moreso than happens in Allanak

Am I wrong getting this impression?

Templars will follow tradition. Nobles will follow tradition. If they don't Tuluki populace will stop as well since they don't have role models.

EDIT:

There's something much greater at stake than the Templar's ambition when a contract is messed with.

[Norcal]

If I understand correctly a non-human shadow artist will have great difficulty in achieving the rank of master.  I think this point should be mentioned in the docs so that players can have the knowledge before they create a PC.

Also an elven tribe can serve as a patron. Where does the tribe fit into the social hierarchy? 

Could a merchant house approach the tribe about getting rid of someone? Or perhaps a noble house use the tribe to arrange the contract?

Do I understand correctly that contracts between a patron and a partisan are not really double blind? 

Is there anyway a patron can refuse to let the Templarate use his partisan if the partisan is journeyman or lower? Otherwise the investment made by the patron is put in great risk and without any reward to the one who trained the artist.

Given that two artists are equally talented, how does  system ensure that the Templarate will distribute contracts equally?

[Ouroboros]

Yes, killing them is possible, but leaving someone alive can create interesting roleplay.

Just earned my much-coveted sig spot, big guy.

[ShaLeah]

Yes, killing them is possible, but leaving someone alive can create interesting roleplay.

Just earned my much-coveted sig spot, big guy.

Maybe we should change the tagline to Betrayal, Corruption and interesting roleplay.

[Jherlen]

Yes, killing them is possible, but leaving someone alive can create interesting roleplay.

Just earned my much-coveted sig spot, big guy.

Maybe we should change the tagline to Betrayal, Corruption and interesting roleplay.

Armageddon: Murder Interesting roleplay, Corruption (to an extent but not when defying Traditions), and Betrayal

[Nyr]

If I understand correctly a non-human shadow artist will have great difficulty in achieving the rank of master.  I think this point should be mentioned in the docs so that players can have the knowledge before they create a PC.

Also an elven tribe can serve as a patron. Where does the tribe fit into the social hierarchy?

Elven tribes are like merchant houses.

Wait...no, I'm thinking of indie human groups with actual "people" in them. 

Elven tribes are elven tribes.  They do not have a place on the social ranking system except as citizen commoners and possibly whatever rank they can get by being a bard or a shadow artist.  Even then, it would be exceptionally rare for an elf that is actively part of a tribe to ever rise to the ranks of bard-dom and shadow artistry that require loyalty to a different power than their tribe.  At the level of Master (and the level of "Bard"), the tribe becomes "the city's interests" or "Rusarla".  I'd go so far as to say elves would be the most prone to give this system lip service and then the finger at the same time, using it when it suits them and illegally doing whatever they want when they can get away with it, because they're elves.

Could a merchant house approach the tribe about getting rid of someone? Or perhaps a noble house use the tribe to arrange the contract?

Find out IC, and suffer the consequences/reap the benefits in that way.

Do I understand correctly that contracts between a patron and a partisan are not really double blind? 

Patron still goes to the templar, templar still gives the task to the partisan artist, but since the patron and partisan can talk about the job, it may as well not be double blind except "on paper."

Is there anyway a patron can refuse to let the Templarate use his partisan if the partisan is journeyman or lower? Otherwise the investment made by the patron is put in great risk and without any reward to the one who trained the artist.

I'll correct that for you:  no, a patron can't refuse to let the city use his or her partisan.  It's not about the templarate, it's about having artists available to do work for the city, whatever that work may be.  Locking away partisan artists into exclusive relationships with their patrons = the antithesis of what partisan/patronage relationships SHOULD be in general.  We haven't backed that up over the years that well, and this begins the process of making that more clear.  Partisan/patronage relationships are about give and take.  There are different kinds of these sorts of relationships, but two of them are

Bardic partisans -- sure, you can keep them exclusively if you both want to, but once they hit the rank of Bard, they won't be staying on as your permanent partisan anymore (except in very rare exceptions for one Circle, find out in-Circle).  After that point they're doing work on behalf of the Circles, and their work from you turns into temp contracts.
Artist partisans -- sure, you can keep them as your partisan artist and you can use them for your own jobs, but the city-state needs them more than you do, so you'll be forced to rent their services out anonymously (though never against your own organization unless they are a Master).

Given that two artists are equally talented, how does  system ensure that the Templarate will distribute contracts equally?

Using their player noggins.  If there's two equally talented artists, then flip a coin and give one to one guy and then the next one requiring an artist to the other gal.  Or maybe whichever one is online when the templar is going through the artist rolls.

[bricklayer]

What exactly is a patron's incentive to hire a thief?

If they know they must go to the templarate for anything shady, why would they feed, clothe, and pay to have their own thief, who can't even tell them about jobs they've pulled?

If I play a thief of some sort, do I then have to sit around in bars and barracks until a templar gets on and can meet with me to tell me about a job?

If I play a patron, and I have (for some reason) employed a person perfect for a job, do I then have to wait around to find a templar, explain the job, haggle over prices, wait for the templar to meet with your employee, just for something simple?

It has always been possible for people to go to the templarate to broker jobs, but now it's required.  I guess I'm just trying to see how adding more restrictions on a role would make it more fun.

[Desertman]

We're looking at some ways to reduce this necessity, but the idea behind "you can't turn down a contract" is more to ensure the OOC and IC security of such a system's existence.  The more people that know about a contract, the more likely that information about it will leak out.  If you have to take a contract given to you, then you are encouraged to actually do the contract.  The ritualized aspect of the contract system might make it so that a contract can be turned down without learning the intricate details of the specific contract, but if you want to opt out of doing this, your opportunity to opt out is generally before you get inked and after you decide you are out of the game of being a shadow artist.

It seems like the best fix to this would be to have a single individual, a "Shadow Broker", for example, that is in charge of maintaining these secrets and making sure they don't get out. Instead of having a Templar who has a lot of other responsibilities and possible conflicts-of-interest going on behind the scenes. Have a single role kind of like a "Dealer", who has one concern and one concern only. Cultivating and managing Tuluk's base of Shadow Artists, and receiving, negotiating, and delivering contracts between clients and Shadow Artists. He would be a public figure, a "face", where as his Shadow Artists would be unknown.

Because soldiers have crim-code immunity and thus would have no challenge.  Next on the agenda IS the work on Legion soldiers and what exactly they have to do, but this isn't an area that should be mixed up.

That makes sense, and I'm glad that clan is getting some love. It needs it.

Basically soldiers that don't ever have to kill anyone, never have to attend training, never have to wear a uniform, and never have to work directly for anyone, instead getting contract work through the templarate anonymously.  The only caveat is that when they decide to be an artist, they're all in, and actually must BE an artist and DO that work.  Just because something is mandated doesn't mean they're exactly the same as a soldier!

They work directly for the templarate without question/negotiation. They do work for someone directly. They have a different duty, but the same governing guideline. It's the final governing guideline which makes them basically soldiers. Not where they eat, what they wear, and how they train. Same basic concept as special ops soldiers and grunt foot soldiers IRL.

They might need the ability to negotiate, and perhaps that is a perk that can be afforded to master artists in order to provide more incentive to become one.  The templarate has in the past hired shadow artists to do certain tasks.  It did not break the game then, and I doubt it will break the game in the future to allow them to do so as needed.  

Who decides when they become a master artist? The Templars in charge of giving them the contracts they can't negotiate? I wonder how many Templars will be knocking down the door to give these Shadow Artists the power to tell them no? I also wonder if "Master Shadow Artist" will be basically the same thing as "Master Bard" or "High Templar". Those roles/ranks that exist, but not on a level that the player base can actually attain.

To the former point, no.  Templars going repeatedly on the warpath to kill all opposition are obviously abusing the system and utilizing the most extreme ends of it. To the latter, it hasn't been specified what the consequences are for refusal and that is what we're working on.

I would feel better about this if there was a solid rule against it. Saying "We'll punish anyone caught doing this.", is a lot like shutting the gate once the horse is already out.

No, Faithful Lord Amos can't talk to himself in a private room, set his own price, and select his own artist and cut out the greater templarate from his own personal stash of coin.  He'll have to talk to one of his PC templar buddies (or failing that, staff via a request).

I like the idea of making them confirm with staff and thus, "Higher up NPC's". Having two PC Templars sitting in a room governing their own abilities to hire their own Shadow Artists to kill their own enemies is a lot like the wolf picking between saint and sinner rabbits.  

[Nyr]

Yes, killing them is possible, but leaving someone alive can create interesting roleplay.

Just earned my much-coveted sig spot, big guy.

Maybe we should change the tagline to Betrayal, Corruption and interesting roleplay.

Armageddon: Murder Interesting roleplay, Corruption (to an extent but not when defying Traditions), and Betrayal

I could easily go the other way on it.

Armageddon:  Murder*, Corruption**, Betrayal***

*except when I'm being forced to murder someone when I chose to be in a role that may occasionally have to murder people!

**except when templars are in control of the system, because it should be pristine!

***except when there's a .01% chance that I'll have to betray someone I don't want to betray--in order to kill them because I chose to be an artist that may occasionally have to murder people!



But anyway, no, I'm not saying don't murder people with this thing.  I'm saying that everyone is focused on murdering people with this thing when it is only 1/3 of the things you can do with it.  If you're concerned about templars not corrupting the system because "man it sucks to force templars to not be corrupt in one single area," you don't have a problem now because of a new system--you always had a problem with the old system and just never knew it.  At least now you do, eh?  For the record, even soldiers have restrictions on what they should be doing with the powers they have.  We don't generally allow completely open-ended corruption across the board in all areas of the game in areas where it impacts playability for other players...and again, it's easier to loosen restrictions with guidelines than it is to tighten restrictions from guidelines.

[Nyr]

What exactly is a patron's incentive to hire a thief?

Went over this before earlier in the thread with regards to all artists.  Essentially, does the patron want direct control over guiding the actions of their particular artist with regards to their own personal jobs?  If so, then that is their incentive to have one.

If they know they must go to the templarate for anything shady, why would they feed, clothe, and pay to have their own thief, who can't even tell them about jobs they've pulled?

Went over this before earlier in the thread with regard to all artists.  For starters, partisan relationships do not require providing food, clothing, shelter, or even pay.  In this particular case, it could be that the patron offers the potential for training in exchange for the ability to use that particular artist in jobs.  Why would they do it?  Because they'd have the ability to go over stuff directly with them for jobs and also get a cut of earnings from the artist if that's part of the agreement.

If I play a thief of some sort, do I then have to sit around in bars and barracks until a templar gets on and can meet with me to tell me about a job?

If you play a registered shadow artist and want to work on contract work, yes.  You may feel free to skirt the law and break and enter at your own peril (or steal stuff directly from people) like every other thief in Allanak does without a licensed system; you can then find out IC whether punishment for being caught doing so is any worse than in Allanak.  Hopefully you're not just interested in codedly stealing stuff and codedly breaking and entering, and are instead also interested in the more tricky aspects of the other sorts of work you can get into (again, all without killing people).  Things that require RP and even coordination with staff if you so choose...

If I play a patron, and I have (for some reason) employed a person perfect for a job, do I then have to wait around to find a templar, explain the job, haggle over prices, wait for the templar to meet with your employee, just for something simple?

Yes, because the templarate wants a cut of your contract.  Mentioned before, but we're looking into alternatives for this while we're discussing it staff-side (maybe allowing after-the-fact notification for some work).  However, let's say you've found the perfect person to kill someone else.  What if you don't have the clout to do it and what if the fee is higher than you can pay?  You're skirting the whole system.  At worst, it means adding a bit of delay between your plan's start and its eventual execution by your artist.

It has always been possible for people to go to the templarate to broker jobs, but now it's required.  I guess I'm just trying to see how adding more restrictions on a role would make it more fun.

For starters, you'd get more work.  It also makes it easier for staff to freely pass on contracts via animation to templars, and then have the PC templars forward work along to PCs...thereby driving more plots.  (We could do that before, but with a structured system, it makes it easier to initiate the process for us.)  As mentioned before, we're not done with things in Tuluk, and some of those things could use some artist participation.