Obvious magickers

[Carnage]

I think adding a (naked) flag to char's sdesc when they are not wearing things flagged to cover up certain parts of the body would be cool. Then you'd have a choice of whether or not to look at them further and get more detail, instead of having to look at them directly to find out if they are naked.
After all, someone standing around naked in public would be pretty obvious without having to stare directly at them.

This, posted by a guest in another thread, game me an idea: what if the magicker's black gem changed their sdesc from the soandso man to the soandso magicker? No more having to look to find out if you're being buddy buddy with a magicker and so on.

I think it'd go over pretty well.

[Malifaxis]

I would agree with this save for one problem.

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.

Overall I think it's a good basis... I mean, I don't think the Nazi's saw anything other than the emblazoning they gave the Jews.  You see that symbol, the rest is just superfluous.

[Seeker]

I think the trappings of a magicker are as noticeable to the general population as that of a templar.  People -do- look for that right off the bat, and are trained from childhood to recognize it, fear it and avoid it.

Why not? (edit: Except for what Malifaxis typed 30 seconds before me, that is)


Seeker

[Dan]

This would prevent anyone from ever rp'ing that they have a scarf around their throat, covering it up. I hate this idea.

[Marauder Moe]

Also tulukis and tribals don't neccesarily know what the gem means or looks like.

[Anonymous]

I was ambivalent about this until someone pointed out the fact it would be viewable rooms away.  Dull black gems don't stick out like a blue templar robe.

[Rindan]

This would prevent anyone from ever rp'ing that they have a scarf around their throat, covering it up. I hate this idea.

RPing putting a scarf around your throat and covering it up is fine, so long as you are ready to have a templar do something mean to you for breaking the law.  I would probably avoid doing such a thing inside of Allanak, as if anyone notices, you are in trouble.  That gem always has to be visable or else templars get stabby.

[Dan]

It still prevents roleplay.

Also Marauder, don't be so sure. Tuluki's do know what that little gem is. Not your normal everyday commoner, but a Chosen or Faithful surely will.

[Callisto]

Also tulukis and tribals don't neccesarily know what the gem means or looks like.

Nonsense.

Every Tuluki PC is able to spot a "magicker robe"  or "magicker jewelry" with 100% certainty, so it is reasonable to assume every Tuluki PC will know that a dull black gem is a magicker collar with the same absolute certainty. I suppose it isn't fair to say every Tuluki PC, since this is a problem with people from every location, but with Tuluk and its anti-magicker and anti-southerner themes, it seems exceptionally lame for such blatantly OOC information to be abused.

In a perfect world where everyone can be trusted not to cut OOC corners to get ahead ICly, I would support such an idea, for the reason of not having to gawk-look every single person in order to avoid chumming up to a filthbag magicker by mistake, but it would just give more justification to people who plain and simple abuse the OOC information.

[flurry]

Well I was going to do it the cool kids way and just respond with "No.", but that would be kinda rude.

I don't like it, mainly for the seeing people from a distance thing.  If it only affected the way people in the same room see you, that would be lovely.  

And incidentally I kinda like that naked flag thing too.

[Marauder Moe]

I didn't say 'every' did I?  Well anyway, I've met Tuluki PCs who did not know what the gem looked like.  It may be common knowledge that Allanakki magickers wear a gem on their necks, but without traveling to Allanak you might never know exactly what it looks like.  That goes more for tribals who could know nothing of cities at all.

[EvilRoeSlade]

The difference between a blue templar robe and a dull black gem is that a templar's robe covers the entire upper half of the templars body, and is brightly colored in a color that commoners are superstitious against wearing (blue, the color of death).  On the other hand, a dull black gem is a fleck of obsidian the size of a fingernail worn around your neck.  I'm sorry, but even if you're trained from birth to notice a dull black gem, they are still going to be incredibly hard to spot.  In a dimly lit tavern, or outside during a sandstorm, I wouldn't count on being able to spot them at a range farther than maybe ten feet.  Right now the code is a perfect interpertation for this.  You don't notice it unless you study the person.  Works for me.

[Angela Christine]

The gem isn't significant enough to warrent and sdesc change.  However, the elementalist robes might not be.  If you are wearing the firey coloured robe it might put Krathi into your sdesc, because a Krathi robe is big, colourful, and would be instantly recognisable, at least in Allanak.  

I think the naked flag would be good too, perhaps simply appended in brackets after the sdesc.

the manly man (naked)
The manly man (naked) is standing here.

It should only show up if the torso, legs, waist and about body locations are all empty.  Torso can be a dress or aba that covers the most of the body.  Legs are usually pants or skirts, and topless isn't necessarily as noteable.  There are some loincloths and wraps that are worn in the waist location, and wearing a loincloth is different from being naked.  Large cloaks, abas and robes worn in the about body location are often capable of concealing the fact that there is nothing underneath.

AC

[Delirium]

I like the idea of the elementalists robes changing your sdesc.

Maybe that would help keep n00bs from wearing them, too.

The fiery-eyed, fiery-haired woman is standing here.

The fiery-eyed, fiery-haired woman wears a flaming robe of Krathiness that n00bs still buy despite the fact that it's in the Magicker's Quarter and it has 'look at me, I'm a magicker' written all over it.

The fiery-eyed, fiery-haired krathi is standing here.

Or instead of element, just 'The fiery-eyed, fiery-haired magicker'.

[Lazloth]

I like gems better than witch robes for affecting sdesc.
Not excited about the (naked) flag.

[Angela Christine]

Or instead of element, just 'The fiery-eyed, fiery-haired magicker'.

In this instance I don't like magicker, because it feels like a slightly derogatory slang word.  Elementalist would be ok, it is just that elementalist is a really long word, which would contribute to spammy sdesc syndrome.  Mage would work, according to the docs mage is a common use word that refers to anyone who uses magick.  

AC

[Dakkon Black]

Ohh please! Make those robes change the Sdesc! I'd think to mage would be the best.

[Delirium]

Yeah, mage works, if you don't want to detail element.

In fact, that's probably better. Not everyone knows which element correlates with which robe, but the robes themselves are generally distinctive enough to mark someone as a mage.

[Tamarin]

Is there some change to make the code so that they only get the magicker tag if they are in the room with you (i.e. withing reasonable viewing distance)?

[Wintermute]

Are we going to start doing militia/soldier, too?

What about Byn?  Everyone knows that brown aba, don't they?

Where do we stop?  Personally, I don't like the templar sdesc change.  I suppose the justification is that these people are so absolutely freaky-deaky that upon catching sight of a person in that outfit you'd immediately notice and freak in your mind.  And I bet the whole playability trumpet will be played too.  Blah.  I don't know - it just doesn't conform for me.  I think nobles are almost, if not just as, important and immediately noticeable for the pauper population, but how do we notice them?  Well, you notice them by looking at them, seeing fancy shit like silver signet rings, or when people bow to them, or their entourage.  I just don't see why this isn't the same for templars.  I mean, a noble can basically order you to be put to death just the same, right?

[spawnloser]

I mean, a noble can basically order you to be put to death just the same, right?

Wrong.  They can only order a death under certain circumstances if they wish no repurcussions.  Their employees, of course, are the ones that risk jail time, but the templarate may have a nice talk to the noble...and the noble may wish they hadn't.

[UnderSeven]

I dunno if the question of wiether or not a noble can put you to death should even be touched here. Why? Because from the point of view of a normal Allanaki commoner, a noble is a person whom you probably fear and are seriously jealous of.  Imagine the rumors people would toss back and fourth between each other in taverns about nobles doing this or nobles doing that.  On a rp sense the power of nobles and what commoners believe it to be would be widely different stories.  And while I'm at it, a noble's power really isn't anything so well defined as that anyway.  It's not like a templar with a militia unit, a noble's power is extremely variable based widely on the politics they run.  If a noble has the right templar friends, whose to say they couldn't just kill a commoner on a whim? Probably isn't something they should make a habit of, but your average everyday commoner doesn't know that and I doubt if any noble or templar is going to be in a big hurry to set that point straight.  

Clearly this doesn't apply to the north the same.

[Lazloth]

I dunno if the question of wiether or not a noble can put you to death should even be touched here. Why? Because from the point of view of a normal Allanaki commoner...

No, because this is a thread about sdescs and cloaks.. and obvious elementalists.

[Carnage]

Ohh please! Make those robes change the Sdesc! I'd think to mage would be the best.

Actually, I think I like this better than the original idea.

[UnderSeven]

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