Seasons: Nobles Update

[Halaster]

Templars can't recruit because the Byn, Raider group X, indy merchant 'y' has all the combat players ect..

I think with the game focused on the Southlands, particularly Allanak, it will help lessen the issue of being spread too thin.  That's the hope at least.  If we get to that same point of too many "combat" roles, we can always adjust things.

[Bogre]

I think that closing or shuttering some of the noble Houses was good, but again, it would have been really awesome to have that happen IN GAME. How awesome would it have been to have tenuous, fragile Houses trying to maintain their status, topple each other, and have consequences happen? As long as you had a frank conversation with players entering that they might get absolutely boot-stomped in that storyline. (Someone did tell me many Armageddoner's would not be happy to tell a losing storyline and have to be 'Winners', but I have more faith.) Unfortunately a lot of the off-screen activity seems pretty awesome, so - uh, I hope its not just boring status quo Allanaki life on screen in the actual Season.

-----------

I agree that Tor is positioned a little strangely. It's 'specialty', military tactics etc, falls very much in line with what the War Ministry does, and what other militant clans do (GMH - regulars, Byn, militia, etc). Their imagery and general look is super awesome, as is the noble-family-of-warriors flavor. It's just that they don't have much to exactly add - Tor does not get weapons, tactics, skills, or war machines that anybody else doesn't have access to. Their 'tactics' have zero coded effect and relies entirely on immortal support.

So yeah, if they're training war-wizard cadres, that's maybe new and unique (except Oash did it before, and now that's stealing their spotlight), and of course, totally what the game was trying to avoid by gating all the mage stuff in the first place.

----

Valika and Kasix- see above. I do think it would be cool to have played them as they fell or tried to salvage them. I also think it could have been nice to showcase the non-typical houses like Kasix, Sath, Rennik and Valika, since really have they had noble/play similar to Borsail/Tor/Oash/Fale?? They could have been given a chance to shine. But again, I don't think closing some of the houses is a bad thing. But now we are left with what we've always had, really, so it's not -that- much of a shakeup to have the big 4 be the ones available for play still.

-----
Rennik/Sath - I guess Rennik and Sath might have a chance to shine, now, but it doesn't seem that they've had too much baked into what they can get involved with. Like - What are these now tier 2 houses supposed to do?

-----

House Oash - Taking up a new secret project is interesting of course, and I'm going to lean on the optimistic side to hope that their 'niche' won't be taken up too much by Tor now being all cool with magick.

-----

House Borsail - OK, Borsail has a long history, but - what exactly do they do other than being 'nobles'? You can't really do much in game with the slave trade, capturing stuff for the arena is uh...I mean I guess it's happened in the past? The Wyverns are cool, sure, but they haven't been open and they mostly served as a foil for house guards.

---

Jal and Fale - I mean, these are my personal favorites, and now happily at the bottom of the pyramid.  Sorry, not the pyramid. Bottom of the tower. 

I hope Jal continues to have public work plots, and Fale's shakeup as usurer's certainly is interesting.

[Bast]

I pretty much agree with everything Bogre said and I do think cutting them down was wise just not the two houses I would have closed.

[Bast]

50 years ago an Oash sits peering out her window as she enjoys the night air and the moon roses she thinks "oh it is so nice not to have a steaming pile ash and rubble clogging up the view" she smirks a little as she stares down at the outline of the Borsails estate. Suddenly a bright flash and boom caused her to drop her glass of Azure as the roof top garden of the neighbors across the street go up in flames. 🔥 "Krath damnit"

Some questions if they are allowed. I understand you may not be able to answer. Trying to get a better handle on what went down.

In regards to Fale

I am curious how they managed the liquidity needed to scoop up debts? Or was it divided up between the surviving house and Fale just manged to sweet talk the right Red's?

Will there be "transcripts" available to nobles in the city library to let players self educate on the exact nature of what went down?

How is a bottom tier House going to be able to collect? I would assume that's exactly the thing you would have gone to Valika for. They were high enough tier and well connected enough to collect. I recall another players fale gambler concept a long time ago that went down in flames when he held a mass gambling event around a borsail games and then ended up in bad way with the guild when all the nobles over Fale's house rank out right refused to pay. Despite signed wagers ect. To quote one of parties involved at the time"it's hard for anyone to take you seriously when your family's name is a punchline. "

Is fale getting a stipend boost? To buy debts you don't normally pay the owed party the full price of what they would have but you do need funds to pay part of it. Then you have collect from the debtor which I would assume is gonna involve City ministry to confirm the transfer of debt.

Is Fale getting special permission to enforce collections or will that need to be run through His Templar? Do I need to be able to afford 40% of the debt and also a bribe to a Templar?

Are we going to see a more serious branch of the fale family tree? (Not saying a well played Fale isn't extremely dangerous, because I know better. just curious if we are playing the Joker or have room to be a non-Falish Fale)

Are you still going to be required to be heavily involved in festival planning if you go the "Valika" route?  Because those are massive headache to plan and execute.

Are Kasix and Valika gone for good or does one have a chance to pull a Borsail and rise from the ashes and out of disgrace depending on player actions and in game event?

[Valkyrja]

50 years ago an Oash sits peering out her window as she enjoys the night air and the moon roses she thinks "oh it is so nice not to have a steaming pile ash and rubble clogging up the view" she smirks a little as she stares down at the outline of the Borsails estate. Suddenly a bright flash and boom caused her to drop her glass of Azure as the roof top garden of the neighbors across the street go up in flames. 🔥 "Krath damnit"

This is great imagery!

In regards to Fale

I am curious how they managed the liquidity needed to scoop up debts? Or was it divided up between the surviving house and Fale just manged to sweet talk the right Red's?

This is definitely a "find out IC" situation and we're going to support research by people to learn more about the 50 Year History update. It may even play a major part in your politics! We'll be doing our best to support this type of curiosity and allow Nobles to find out more that may be beneficial to them personally, or just scratch that need-to-know.

Will there be "transcripts" available to nobles in the city library to let players self educate on the exact nature of what went down?

Anything is possible if you can make the right connections in character.

How is a bottom tier House going to be able to collect?

Some insight for this particular situation, without spoilers: House Fale is known for being scrappy throughout history and has acquired the role of the "people's nobles" over the Ages due to their influence with the common quarter.

Is fale getting a stipend boost?

We're working on an adjustment for noble pay so that their cashflow provides jobs and/or resources to pursue plots consistently. We don't want nobles hiring crafters to make them money. They ARE the money.

Is Fale getting special permission to enforce collections or will that need to be run through His Templar? Do I need to be able to afford 40% of the debt and also a bribe to a Templar?

This is a great question and something that ought to be pursued in character.

Are we going to see a more serious branch of the fale family tree?

I'm giving it my best shot, yes. People are permitted to play their characters how they'd like within the culture and expectation of the game world, but yes, Fale in Season 1 is more serious than it was previously.

Are you still going to be required to be heavily involved in festival planning if you go the "Valika" route?

There are enough opportunities in the House and junior title structure to allow for different specialties.

Are Kasix and Valika gone for good or does one have a chance to pull a Borsail and rise from the ashes and out of disgrace depending on player actions and in game event?

Find out in character!

[Bast]

Thank you for taking the time to answer all that!

[Halaster]

How is a bottom tier House going to be able to collect?

They're still a noble house and can basically get away with murder of a commoner if they want.  A templar is still going to take their side over non-nobles.

[Valkyrja]

Oh right, that too. Murder.

[Bast]

How is a bottom tier House going to be able to collect?

They're still a noble house and can basically get away with murder of a commoner if they want.  A templar is still going to take their side over non-nobles.

Oh I wasn't referring to the filthy peasants.😘 I was thinking of how you collect from your peers 🙃I mean if Lord Jimothy can't pay his bills to a Kadius and that Kadian Merchant doesn't want to risk getting murdered over a bill, I would have assumed a former resolution would be to sell that debt to Valika (now maybe Fale). You might not get the full amount but you get some and you let Valika deal with Lord Jimothys and collecting the money owed. So how does Fale leverage a Tor, Oash or a Borsail into paying? I mean I guess murder is still an option but you miss out on the pay day

* and you know regicide is actual crime that a noble can get into trouble for.

[Valkyrja]

Oh I wasn't referring to the filthy peasants.😘 I was thinking of how you collect from your peers 🙃I mean if Lord Jimothy can't pay his bills to a Kadius and that Kadian Merchant doesn't want to risk getting murdered over a bill, I would have assumed a former resolution would be to sell that debt to Valika (now maybe Fale). You might not get the full amount but you get some and you let Valika deal with Lord Jimothys and collecting the money owed. So how does Fale leverage a Tor, Oash or a Borsail into paying? I mean I guess murder is still an option but you miss out on the pay day

* and you know regicide is actual crime that a noble can get into trouble for.

I understand your inquiry but it's very much a find out in character answer, unfortunately. A conversation a junior Noble might have with their boss for guidance about.

I have prepared some more experienced junior titled Nobles to act as the mentors and superiors to the PC Nobles. They'll be on your team and rise in ranks as you do, if you do well.

[FantasyWriter]

Templars can't recruit because the Byn, Raider group X, indy merchant 'y' has all the combat players ect..

I think with the game focused on the Southlands, particularly Allanak, it will help lessen the issue of being spread too thin.  That's the hope at least.  If we get to that same point of too many "combat" roles, we can always adjust things.

I feel like the problem with not being able to hire soldiers into the AoD has always been the level of restriction to the role if you didn't have an active templar doing patrols/raids. I would almost want to see with two available blue robes that one at least of of them is an out-of-the-walls focused character.

[Armaddict]

I feel like the problem with not being able to hire soldiers into the AoD has always been the level of restriction to the role if you didn't have an active templar doing patrols/raids. I would almost want to see with two available blue robes that one at least of of them is an out-of-the-walls focused character.

I do find this true, but to be fair, I find this to be less of a design problem and more of a gamestate problem.  We have super-effective crimcode, we have a generally low-conflict city life (not overall, but in comparison), and these make military arms feel like unnecessary appendages rather than necessary things.

I didn't mind playing a bodyguard, even when nothing was happening, because there was a significant enough chance that there COULD be something that happened that I felt necessary, and paid attention to security-things around me.

I didn't mind playing a soldier when patrols actually found crime in progress, when people were trying to mug npc's for money, when pc criminals were outwitting npc reactions left and right.  On one hand, we can consider those actions twinky, or we can consider them actions of 'superior' members of society that other 'superior' members of society have to deal with/watch for (i.e. we routinely have people say that the act of being a PC is already 'special').

So game design can shift to try and create natural rather than contrived circumstances for 'things to do'.  Or we can just stay in a state where only directed plots provide content, which may sound more fruitful, but ultimately makes logging in as a military member less necessary unless something is already planned.

[zealus]

Templars can't recruit because the Byn, Raider group X, indy merchant 'y' has all the combat players ect..

I think with the game focused on the Southlands, particularly Allanak, it will help lessen the issue of being spread too thin.  That's the hope at least.  If we get to that same point of too many "combat" roles, we can always adjust things.

I feel like the problem with not being able to hire soldiers into the AoD has always been the level of restriction to the role if you didn't have an active templar doing patrols/raids. I would almost want to see with two available blue robes that one at least of of them is an out-of-the-walls focused character.

I know for a fact that all three ministries have reasons to want to bring AoD out on patrol.

City ministry for the obsidian mines
Trade for securing trade routes
War for War.

I do agree that as a technically a leadership position in the AoD, a Templar has an obligation to also create fun for the AoD, if the Sergeant is in need of that. However, this does require the sergeant to be willing to play ball, as technically the player unit falls outside of the Player templar chain of command slightly.

[Pariah]

Speaking about nobles and their inability to have teeth, at least in the past.

If there was a way to arrest folks, and the crime system wasn't just, KILL EVERYONE, and the nobles could flex their weight to get folks arrested by the guards without it being guaranteed death.

Also as an offshoot of that, having the guards using more clubs would be beneficial to keeping people alive to BE arrested versus getting insta-gibbed when they don't have combat skills.

Hopefully there will be a way for AOD/Nobles to actually arrest folks without the crime system going DESTROY THEM!

[Riev]

Is there a way to give PC Nobles the ability to incriminate but only up to a certain number?
Would this be giving a PC "too much power" for not being in a Templar position?

I think it would be interesting if a noble was annoyed by someone, and decided to incriminate them for something so that they go away. But I can also see a lot of PLAYERS being annoyed by that.

[Pariah]

Is there a way to give PC Nobles the ability to incriminate but only up to a certain number?
Would this be giving a PC "too much power" for not being in a Templar position?

I think it would be interesting if a noble was annoyed by someone, and decided to incriminate them for something so that they go away. But I can also see a lot of PLAYERS being annoyed by that.

Agreed, nobles as they were in the past, were in my opinion worthless tavern sitters who you could occasionally get some money off.

I know certain players loved playing them, and with them, not trying to pee in your lemonade, but I never really viewed them as much of a benefit outside a coin generator.

If they had some coded power, some actual teeth, they would actually demand that respect they are supposed to have.

[Roon]

I feel like that should be handled through in-character connections. Any noble worth his/her salt would have a templar's ear (or a militia sergeant, or whatever) and should able to say, "will no one rid me of this meddlesome commoner?!" That sort of interaction should be what the game's whole social dynamic is built upon. It's a lot more interesting than just letting nobles double as lawmakers on top of all their other privileges. If nobles can incriminate - even with a limited number of "charges" per whatever-timeframe - they aren't much different from templars.

If a noble is sufficiently pissed off, they can (and always could) just attack a commoner, who will then immediately be branded a criminal for having been in a fight with a noble. But then said noble has shown the city that they aren't rich or influential enough to go through the more dignified channels and use their self-evident superiority to get others to fuck that commoner over without getting their own hands dirty, and that will (or should) be regarded as low-brow by everyone, especially other nobles. Yet it remains an option, as it was in real-life history. An interesting option, I think, which will have ramifications for the noble who must always weigh their actions against the optics.

Templars and militia PCs have lacked things to do, too. Most of all, they have lacked real reasons to represent the oppressive nature of Zalanthan society. Nobles should need them. There should be people who become soldiers because they want to push people around, and nobles can give them that excuse if the right element of conflict is there. And then there can be people who conspire to strike back against the oppression, in dark alleys and ramshackle dive bars where decent people won't go.

When it comes to nobles and their teeth, I have faith in the idea that if seasons are good enough to get people to play in whatever sphere a given season revolves around, nobles will have the necessary clout. It has been lacking in recent years, but that's largely because three quarters of the playerbase was fucking around in the desert, ignoring cities, due to the fact that there was no reason to care about what went on there.

If seasons bring a reason to play in and care about the cities, nobles will naturally have the teeth they need, provided the players actually acknowledge the realities of the setting. If they don't, either they're bad players or there was a failure to manifest the setting into tangible in-game reality. Personally, I find that players have generally been good about acknowledging the status of nobility, but nobility has floundered in empty cities that offered them no outlet for their status and privileges - and, in turn, no opportunities for soldiers to be their underhanded lackeys, or anyone to oppose that entire social dynamic.

The game is set up in such a way that it requires a pyramid of social dynamics. It needs the oppressors, it needs the opportunistic lackeys, and it needs the downtrodden masses who may do something that compels the previous two to care. If ever one of these three elements are missing, the whole thing falls apart. It's my hope that smushing everyone into one sphere can make it so that each tier of the pyramid is filled out. That would be really fucking interesting. We had it once, a long time ago, but it got lost. Maybe it can be rebuilt. That would be neat.

[Bast]

I wish the NPC guards of highborn could like brawl/subdue or something sometimes. Like you mouth off I can order my guard to kick your ass.  Then I don't have to murder you or engage in awkward pure emoting situation where I am purely using my order command to have the guard emote at you.

[Tuannon]

Those guards are supposed to be a dissuasion not a prevention for commoner on noble violence. If the populations of House paramilitaries come back the guard NPCs will be back to their old degree of usefulness.

[Valkyrja]

Blurb about nobles & power.

Just wanted to say that this is a really excellent post.

My thoughts: it's up to the player (and/or their character) if they choose to respect nobles. Commoners who do not respect nobles will find out what the cost of that is. The noble most likely will not let on that they care, even if they do, because that indicates that they are of a similar social strata and need the approval of those beneath them in the social ladder. It might also imply that they need to be respected by the commoners to enact their will.

Nobles will generally continue to be moisturized and unbothered until their life is at stake in any given conflict.

Where it gets interesting is that there are many people who are very eager to get on a noble's good side, and will in turn, ruin the life of a commoner who does not respect that noble. Be it a Templar who wants a favor, a soldier who wants a reward, a loyal Allanaki citizen doing it because they believe in the social structure, an assassin that wants a payday, etc.

We don't want a ton of templar-esque people running amok in Allanak. It's bad enough with the PC Templars and those NPCs, as is.

Don't get me wrong: Nobles are villains to the common people from a storytelling perspective and how we might view them in modern society. They are wealthy, uphold systems of oppression, and advance the wants of their family over all others' needs. The average commoner's perspective or opinion may vary, however, depending on their loyalty, experience, or personality.

[dumbstruck]

If a noble is sufficiently pissed off, they can (and always could) just attack a commoner, who will then immediately be branded a criminal for having been in a fight with a noble.

Just to be clear, you're not endorsing using 'kill soandso' to exploit if the player doesn't know to turn off autocombat to keep from auto attacking your character and getting hauled off for you using a code exploit, right?

Like, the rest of it I get and it makes sense. But it seems really metagamey and exploitative if that is the genuine intent of this advice which is how it reads.

[Roon]

If a noble is sufficiently pissed off, they can (and always could) just attack a commoner, who will then immediately be branded a criminal for having been in a fight with a noble.

Just to be clear, you're not endorsing using 'kill soandso' to exploit if the player doesn't know to turn off autocombat to keep from auto attacking your character and getting hauled off for you using a code exploit, right?

Like, the rest of it I get and it makes sense. But it seems really metagamey and exploitative if that is the genuine intent of this advice which is how it reads.

The answer to your question is in the literal next sentence that you omitted from the quote. No, I'm not endorsing it. I'm saying that it has always been a possibility, therefore allowing nobles to codedly incriminate commoners (as per the actual command that simply makes the target crimeflagged) is not necessary. If a noble - who can be assumed to be a trusted and responsible player, knock on wood - really has a legitimate reason to fuck over a commoner, they have the nuclear option to just attack them in public and claim that the commoner started it, which is effectively what happens when the commoner becomes wanted as a result.

The optics for that noble will be terrible, and they'll have to weigh that against how much they really need to ruin some commoner's life. But it isn't fundamentally any different from just giving them the ability to 'incriminate amos' at will. At least with the traditional method, they have to do something unpalatable that people can use against them, as opposed to simply making them another brand of templar. Nobles should not be able to incriminate, but they have the ability to frame someone by attacking them and telling the templars - who should nearly always take their side - that the commoner is to blame.

And that noble also has to hope that the commoner doesn't kill them in the process. You never know if Amos is unexpectedly badass. That's another deterrent. Nobles don't usually have very good combat skills, presumably by design, and that's another reason they won't go around wantonly attacking people who might be lifelong mercenaries or secret assassins for the Guild. But if the noble in question has enough of a chip on their shoulder to pull that desperate lever and do whatever it takes to get someone sent to a cell, well...

These are the kinds of social dynamics I want out of the game. Not hard lines and hierarchies that are wholly segregated by code, but soft lines and consequential options to break them. For all the same reasons that a commoner should be able to attempt to assassinate a noble, a noble should be able to ruin a commoner's life by doing what has probably happened repeatedly throughout medieval history: starting some shit with them and then using one's privileges to get them in trouble for it. It's more interesting than typing >incriminate amos.

[dumbstruck]

These are the kinds of social dynamics I want out of the game. Not hard lines and hierarchies that are wholly segregated by code, but soft lines and consequential options to break them. For all the same reasons that a commoner should be able to attempt to assassinate a noble, a noble should be able to ruin a commoner's life by doing what has probably happened repeatedly throughout medieval history: starting some shit with them and then using one's privileges to get them in trouble for it. It's more interesting than typing >incriminate amos.

I mean, it is definitely different from typing >incriminate Amos. One of them is using your coded power as intended. The other is exploiting the idea that most PCs aren't walking around with 'nosave combat' activated so you force them to attack you by exploiting code. One is using the code as it's intended. The other is exploiting  the code at best but also possibly exploiting a genuinely new player who is ignorant of ANY nosave option. I hope that people know to turn on 'nosave combat' to avoid being exploited in this fashion.

[Roon]

I don't see it as an exploit. That whole notion hinges on the concept that striking back is what invokes the crimecode. If we immerse ourselves (by proxy, via these posts) in the game's setting, a noble would be able to start beating on a commoner and simply claim that it was self-defense. That sounds very realistic. That kind of injustice is baked into the system.

I'm not aware that there has ever been some widespread problem with nobles attacking commoners in order to make them wanted. I also have faith that, barring extreme outliers who would be dealt with very quickly, players who are allowed to play nobles would not do that willy-nilly. It feels like your argument comes from the perspective of assuming that nobles will just zoom around the city, wantonly attacking people for the sake of setting them wanted and getting them killed by soldiers. I've never personally seen that happen.

And most of all, I would rather have that be the only way that a noble can directly cause a commoner to be arrested than give them the ability to just charge random people with crimes directly. That's what the whole point was all along. If a noble must attack someone in order to frame them, they both subject themselves to potentially lethal combat and show the city that they're an asshole who hasn't got the wealth and/or clout to draw others into their conniving plots and thereby create meaningful conflict.

In short, this "exploit" you talk of is not something I believe really takes place with enough regularity to be so concerned about it. Meanwhile, giving nobles the 'incriminate' feature would completely redefine the way Allanak (or Tuluk, for that matter) functions as a roleplaying sphere. The latter sounds more pernicious to me.

[Riev]

As I've been playing a lot of Star Wars: Old Republic lately:

Would it be accurate to say that Allanak is akin to the Imperials/Sith?

Much of the lore revolves around a cast of "Lords" of the sith, who have more of a 'pure bloodline' than others (nobles vs commoners). These Lords often fight among one another, plot against themselves, in an attempt to become part of The Dark Council (Red/Black Robes?).

So when I think of Allanaki nobility, I am thinking of someone whose bloodline makes them "better" than a commoner, and thus they may do anything from poisoning a group of slaves "just to see what this new poison does" to hoarding a magickal artifact they think will give them an edge against their superiors.