AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

viewtopic.php?f=110&t=70891

Diggin' it, totally. A more dynamic system for those that make secretive bad guys? Love it!

One question: Is the checklist completely honor based or will there be a script that checks for stuff on your character sheet (ie PM arm/DD scales)? If there is a script, does it reference a database for known criminals as well?

Also, will this be effective for -all- racial gates? What if a city/town has the helmet check but doesn't care about PMs/chromatics? Will they have to have all the checks or is it malleable to what the city/town wants/needs?

Just wanted to get these out there so everyone would know, in case others have the same questions. And kudos on the change!

edit: One more concerning drow.
I'm fairly certain what the answer is but want it out there so people don't get confused. If you play a Lolthite and wear, say, Eilistreean symbols to gain access to a place where evil drow are not allowed, does that break this? I'm fairly certain the answer is 'get a DM', even if your character is a complete unknown, but want to clarify because accidents happen.

I didn't understand most of that. :[

Its honor-based! There's no script for this.

Most cities have their own sets of rules. If you're banned in a "Blanket" manner, but you're an undetected member of this ban, then you're fine.

As for Drow, because its a very physical trait, and because such things as the Cordor Signet Rings were very specific, I'd say that a Llothite simply wearing Eilistreean symbols would require you to get a DM. This is because those guards would have checked specifically for an item, rather than the appearance, even as convincing as it may have been.

And again, if you feel like you're unsure, or you think you might be pushing this "honor" system, then -please- feel free to grab a DM to double check for you.

I understand the rule was long winded, but I wanted to make sure everything was said. If it requires simpler discussion to make it understood, I'm more than willing to help.

In the absolute simplest terms I can describe it as:

"If your religion/faction ties are banned from a city, but you're an undetected member of that ban, and you're not proudly wearing symbols of it, all you have to do is pass through a checklist to get through Racial Gate guards, without having to grab a DM."

Most people, to be honest, already do this. Most people were completely unaware that they were technically metagaming guards. So this is a rule that most people won't even see a change in.

Very much this places the burden of not being a silly-ums on the player. In other words... Read that damn sign outside the city folks. Nearly every city has one! I think that the DM teams giving everyone this extra length of rope will also be treated as having extra rope to hang yourselves if that makes sense. I see it as you have extra freedoms and dont need oversight for everything but its an extra no-no if you abuse it.

I was under the assumption this was how those blanket bans were treated all along, but I'm thankful that a ruling now exists.

Does this mean that a shifter can enter without a DM if they are shifted into an approved race and they are not banned? I think that should be clarified just in case.

Yes-- as long as that person wasn't individually banned.

If you're playing a shifter who was banned individually in any of his forms (Like, "Hey yo, I banish you.") Even if you shift forms and try to come back, you're still going to need to involve DM's. In all likelihood, it'd probably be very easy for a shifter to sneak back in. But as soon as a ban targets a person specifically, a DM will have to be involved if you're going to try to get back in.

We want to trust the players with some ability to conduct sleuth RP without having to involve DM's at every entrance to a city. But we don't want to make it so that someone who was banned specifically can just ignore it and create circles of frustration.

Bini wrote:

I was under the assumption this was how those blanket bans were treated all along, but I'm thankful that a ruling now exists.

It was more or less how I had been operating. But I wasn't on the same page as everyone else.

Not that the answer isn't obvious, but you may want to put in an addendum about well-known individuals from various factions when such individuals haven't been specifically banned.

Example (using made-up factions so people don't get derailed): Bob starts Bob's Faction. Bob's Faction is banned from Cordor. Harry is a renowned figure on the Isle, but has not been banned from Cordor specifically. Harry joins Bob's Faction and his joining is well-known. Harry is a normal-looking human with no deity symbols or suspicious appearance aside from the plain features connoting his identity (face, body, etc). Harry wants to enter Cordor. What result?

Eurgiga wrote:

Not that the answer isn't obvious, but you may want to put in an addendum about well-known individuals from various factions when such individuals haven't been specifically banned.

Example (using made-up factions so people don't get derailed): Bob starts Bob's Faction. Bob's Faction is banned from Cordor. Harry is a renowned figure on the Isle, but has not been banned from Cordor specifically. Harry joins Bob's Faction and his joining is well-known. Harry is a normal-looking human with no deity symbols or suspicious appearance aside from the plain features connoting his identity (face, body, etc). Harry wants to enter Cordor. What result?

I think that might fit into the "Harry is an obvious member of Bob's faction" that could kind of fit under #1

-- They reference Criminal Records. This can be appearance sketches if they have one. Names, details, etc.
If Harry is known as part of Bob's faction, then the records of Bob's faction should include mention of Harry the well known member of Bob's faction.

Though you're right... explicit inclusion would probably stop arguments later.

erroch wrote:

Though you're right... explicit inclusion would probably stop arguments later.

Smart Erroch is smart.

Considering banned people never seemed to care that they're banned, blanket or otherwise, I don't think anything will change for the better. If anything, banning is even more difficult than it already was.

Even as it is, since most of us don't have names or even descriptors of people who are banned (i.e., you look to their desc and it goes ----- RP ------) other than what they were wearing at the time of the ban (which usually can be summarized as "black"), now it just gives even greater incentive than ever before for people to come and flaunt it in people's faces.

When in doubt, DMs can instruct a player to deliver a description.

Tomato Sword wrote:

Considering banned people never seemed to care that they're banned, blanket or otherwise, I don't think anything will change for the better. If anything, banning is even more difficult than it already was.

Even as it is, since most of us don't have names or even descriptors of people who are banned (i.e., you look to their desc and it goes ----- RP ------) other than what they were wearing at the time of the ban (which usually can be summarized as "black"), now it just gives even greater incentive than ever before for people to come and flaunt it in people's faces.

Describe their physical character model and include a note that they were lacking a description in their bio.
If someone wants to use WYSIWYG or "RP for more info", then sucks to be them if they want to change it later.

Disclaimer: my bio is usually "You see what you see"
(One day I'll figure out the damned editor)
Read: my character is really an inch and a half tall, poorly rendered polygonal representation of a human.

Hackums,
In Bendir we have a ban list I'm maintaining that includes individuals and religious and racial components. We also have a longstanding law that such applies to the entirety of our township not just inside the walls as enforced by NPC guards posted near the borders. Can I assume the rules stated apply as they are ICly enforced with respect to the areas both inside and outside the walls?

It's been a source of some past IC and OOC tension and I hope to keep this clear and unambiguous for our players.

Many thanks!

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Its honor-based! There's no script for this.

I was afraid of that. Having witnessed groups immediately putting on hoods and helmets, bearing weapons, and even a goblin and a kobold inside Barak Runedar, this will not help.

But whatever the DM team says *shrugs*

maglorine wrote:

Hackums,
In Bendir we have a ban list I'm maintaining that includes individuals and religious and racial components. We also have a longstanding law that such applies to the entirety of our township not just inside the walls as enforced by NPC guards posted near the borders. Can I assume the rules stated apply as they are ICly enforced with respect to the areas both inside and outside the walls?

It's been a source of some past IC and OOC tension and I hope to keep this clear and unambiguous for our players.

Many thanks!

... So if you are banned you can't even be on the map anywhere? That's a bit overbearing if so. I thought that bans were only enforced inside certain city/town boundaries. If so, that's a bit overbearing in a game where you have to follow predetermined paths to get from A to B (ie you can't climb cliffs that aren't part of the module, etc).

exquisitelyme wrote:

I was afraid of that. Having witnessed groups immediately putting on hoods and helmets, bearing weapons, and even a goblin and a kobold inside Barak Runedar, this will not help.

But whatever the DM team says *shrugs*

Screenie, send to DMs. Problem solved.

exquisitelyme wrote:

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Its honor-based! There's no script for this.

I was afraid of that. Having witnessed groups immediately putting on hoods and helmets, bearing weapons, and even a goblin and a kobold inside Barak Runedar, this will not help.

But whatever the DM team says *shrugs*

Same in Bendir. I've seen this in Wiltun, Winya, Kohlingen, and the Shrine as well. Considering how little time I spend in some of the above mentioned cities, it's really bad that I see it at all in the short time that I'm there.

maglorine wrote:

Hackums,
In Bendir we have a ban list I'm maintaining that includes individuals and religious and racial components. We also have a longstanding law that such applies to the entirety of our township not just inside the walls as enforced by NPC guards posted near the borders. Can I assume the rules stated apply as they are ICly enforced with respect to the areas both inside and outside the walls?

It's been a source of some past IC and OOC tension and I hope to keep this clear and unambiguous for our players.

Many thanks!

I think banning people on the exterior, except for a very few, is extreme as well. Dusty has proposed this in the past and I was against it then, I'm against it now. Though I think it's equally fair game for the Dale residents to drive out anyone that's banned on the interior from the exterior as they see fit. People going "Oh well, I'm only banned from the inside so I'm just gonna sit by the gate for the next four hours because those NPC guards won't care" have been too frequent of an occurrence in which had I been getting paid for each time such commentary was made, I would be able to pay off my tuition.

I do, however, think it might be helpful for the law board's to list the banned things that's been decided over a year ago. Right now, only thing that's listed in game is drow and drow is most definitely not the only race/thing we have banned in the Dale.

Naivatkal wrote:

When in doubt, DMs can instruct a player to deliver a description.

Also, this has not been my experience. But I can't really comment given so many of the DM team is different from when I dealt with banning and lack of player cooperation.

The Dale is a bit different than the other cities on the server, in that there are significant sections of the town that lie outside the walls. Its houses, orchards, cart hub, and cemetery are all areas that Bendir Dale should have the right to legislate and protect as they see fit. Every other city I can think of either has no walls, or has no PC-accessible area outside its walls.

exquisitelyme wrote:

I was afraid of that. Having witnessed groups immediately putting on hoods and helmets, bearing weapons, and even a goblin and a kobold inside Barak Runedar, this will not help.

But whatever the DM team says *shrugs*

I'm going to respond to the remainder to the subjects as well, I just wanted to clear this up while it was on my mind:

As is noted in the topic containing the rule, that just because they may have made it into the city, they still need to be on lawful behavior-- as there are still guards inside the city (Both PC and NPC). Players still need to be mindful of this.

And in the example you've given (Presuming that goblins and kobolds are banned from Barak Runedar), that would indeed be a case of metagaming the guards-- even with this new change. So if that happens, take screenshots or call a DM's attention. Nothing's changed in that regard. The DM's can't be everywhere, and that's precisely why we're extending this liberty. To help the players that do have a valid and reasonable method of getting through undetected not have to worry about a DM having to be with them every step. Of course, "Valid and reasonable" is as defined in the rule itself.

I'm not actually certain about the Dale business. I'd need to confer with the other DM's about that. I wouldn't want to give you a big thumbs up when the others are shaking their heads behind me. I earn enough of this without any help!

So hold on tight for that answer.

Naivatkal wrote:

........That's a bit overbearing....

You have deftly illustrated the reason I asked the question. Is that your characters opinion of Bendir Dale enforcing it's borders or your OOC opinion of the inconvenience caused to players who play PC's who have been banned?

I'm not going to get into the history behind it, because that's IC information and doesn't belong in this thread. Suffice it to say the characters and players involved understand both the pros and cons of such an arrangement.

Thanks Hackums, holding tight it is!

Mr. Hackums wrote:

And in the example you've given (Presuming that goblins and kobolds are banned from Barak Runedar), that would indeed be a case of metagaming the guards-- even with this new change. So if that happens, take screenshots or call a DM's attention. Nothing's changed in that regard. The DM's can't be everywhere, and that's precisely why we're extending this liberty. To help the players that do have a valid and reasonable method of getting through undetected not have to worry about a DM having to be with them every step. Of course, "Valid and reasonable" is as defined in the rule itself.

This is equally unreasonable, in my opinion. I agree you can't expect DM to be everywhere and watching everything at all times, but players should not be put the burden to police fellow players. Whenever someone is violating a rule, it is the individual that is violating the rule that ought to be held responsible. Not up to the community who is trying to do the only thing to do in the server: RP, and be told that it's not the DM's problem if we somehow can't prove it.

I have done the above suggested method of screenshotting and reporting many times in the past and quite frankly, it's incredibly time consuming. A single screenshot usually means nothing. There are plenty of screenshots that just doesn't prove anything either. It looks perfectly innocuous because it's a still photo. So you have to be excellent screenshotter if you want to report someone who's zipping through with haste on. Combined with sorting through the screenshot, converting the screenshot formatting, uploading, writing the PM to the DMs, it literally takes an hour, if not hours, to report violations.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

exquisitelyme wrote:

I was afraid of that. Having witnessed groups immediately putting on hoods and helmets, bearing weapons, and even a goblin and a kobold inside Barak Runedar, this will not help.

But whatever the DM team says *shrugs*

I'm going to respond to the remainder to the subjects as well, I just wanted to clear this up while it was on my mind:

As is noted in the topic containing the rule, that just because they may have made it into the city, they still need to be on lawful behavior-- as there are still guards inside the city (Both PC and NPC). Players still need to be mindful of this.

And in the example you've given (Presuming that goblins and kobolds are banned from Barak Runedar), that would indeed be a case of metagaming the guards-- even with this new change. So if that happens, take screenshots or call a DM's attention. Nothing's changed in that regard. The DM's can't be everywhere, and that's precisely why we're extending this liberty. To help the players that do have a valid and reasonable method of getting through undetected not have to worry about a DM having to be with them every step. Of course, "Valid and reasonable" is as defined in the rule itself.

I understand, and as I said, if its the DMs rule, I will follow, even hating it extremely. I agree with Tomato on the trouble being caused ONLY to those who are RPing the gates correctly. Whoever is breaching the engine limitations is free to roam and zip around, while folks who have a permanent base for their characters, and spend hours and hours there, defending it, will have to stop their enjoyment and RP to take a screenshot, convert, upload, and write the PM, and as Tomato said, that is if you were lucky enough to capture it on a shot.

When I first made Oaru almost a permanent guard of Barak's grounds, I would have to go thru the "Oy, hey you, who JUST removed the helm to cross the gate, REMOVE IT AGAIN" and the "Hey you, who had been warned about carrying weapons in the Hold, for the 100th time, DONT DO IT" literally several times a DAY.

I think the DM is really giving rope for folks to either climb or hang themselves, but being mainly a Bossmia player, I just cant bother to policy folks who do not show any courtesy or respect for the time I invested in my RP. Most likely I will choose to "not see" or "be afk" when it happens and there are no other players around. Saves me time and trouble.

On a side note, just curious, will the restrictions be removed from the Citadel's (not the Grand Hall's) door?

There aren't any physical changes to the module occurring from this. So your citadel gate will be as is.

Again, you're likely not going to notice a change at all with this change to the rules. What this rule -does-, however, is free about... 15-20 cases of people playing VERY well hidden evil characters from being charged with metagaming the guards every time they enter a city. I would name them, but that would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

And I'm not trying to sound harsh, but I did just address those concerns you just shared. If they enter the gate using the checklist used, but then decide to revert back to running around throwing down evil idols, or breaking city rules (By brandishing weapons or wearing hoods, in your case), that's metagaming the guards. Now, truthfully I think putting a hood back on to be a far different severity than say, killing someone in front of a guard-- but that's beside the point--- By changing this rule, this isn't giving anyone an excuse to do these things. And if they stay disguised as lawful travelers just as they were when they entered the city, then you wouldn't really be able to tell that they're not supposed to be there either. And if you -did- decide to inquire further, that's of your own prerogative, and your authority as a guard of that city.

This rule is NOT excusing people to metagame the guards inside cities right after they've passed the gates.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

There aren't any physical changes to the module occurring from this. So your citadel gate will be as is.

Again, you're likely not going to notice a change at all with this change to the rules. What this rule -does-, however, is free about... 15-20 cases of people playing VERY well hidden evil characters from being charged with metagaming the guards every time they enter a city. I would name them, but that would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

And I'm not trying to sound harsh, but I did just address those concerns you just shared. If they enter the gate using the checklist used, but then decide to revert back to running around throwing down evil idols, or breaking city rules (By brandishing weapons or wearing hoods, in your case), that's metagaming the guards. Now, truthfully I think putting a hood back on to be a far different severity than say, killing someone in front of a guard-- but that's beside the point--- By changing this rule, this isn't giving anyone an excuse to do these things. And if they stay disguised as lawful travelers just as they were when they entered the city, then you wouldn't really be able to tell that they're not supposed to be there either. And if you -did- decide to inquire further, that's of your own prerogative, and your authority as a guard of that city.

This rule is NOT excusing people to metagame the guards inside cities right after they've passed the gates.

Hackums, I may have expressed myself badly. But anyways, I didnt find your reply harsh at all. What I said was that, imagine a person abusing the new gates. Another player is with their PC inside, who is a resident. They see the PC that shouldnt be there, and takes a screenshot. Lets say its a perfect screenshot. Then the person leaves the game, converts, and uploads, to send to you guys. Meanwhile, the offending player already finished their boss hunt.

I dont purport to understand everything behind the DMs decisions, so as I said, I am rolling with this one. I just dont think I will bother to screenshot offenses, thats all.

Wearing or putting a hood or helmet back on is absolutely different than killing a guard. But you see, the time consumed to report BOTH offenses is the same. It is now also open to interpretation. The goblin and kobold example I gave, it was OBVIOUS someone held the gate open for them, because otherwise they wouldnt have been able to pass. Now I see the goblin or kobold and I have to worry about shifters, how they entered, when they entered... And if I do bother to take a screenie, who knows what result that will bring other than my time being used converting/uploading/posting instead of RPing.

I see the issue with the deep undercover folks, but IMHO it would be easier to hand them VIP access (I am sure those folks are known by the DMs, who trust their RP and conduct). This is a reward for their effort in covering their PCs intentions, and again IMHO giving anyone the same status doesnt.

Edit: Not to say I didnt find ANYTHING in yourpost that sounded snarky, the part about MY gate did =) And my main worry was access to the mines, which is, afaik, currently given only to dwarves and invited/escorted allies.

Bini wrote:

I was under the assumption this was how those blanket bans were treated all along, but I'm thankful that a ruling now exists.

It should also be noted that in addition to this "change", the DMs of each settlement will be working with any player guard forces, etc. to work up a public ban list, posted in plain sight, for each settlement.

Some of you might be thinking, "Hey, what if we want to set a trap for someone and we don't want them to know they're banned?" That's still perfectly within the realm of possibility, but look at it this way; if you won't want them to know, handing out mugshots "secretly" to every guard in the settlement probably isn't the best route to take... so the guards at the gates aren't going to know not to let those folks in (no public ban of that specific person, no need to get a DM to enter) so it's kosher. If you want to try to set a trap for someone in such a manner, simply contact a DM and they'll work with you to tend to that.

I also wanted to mention that even though Hackum's rule post primarily references evil characters / factions, etc getting into settlements, this rule does indeed apply to any and all characters. If you're playing a "goodie" that's banned from a place, the exact same rules apply. I felt it important to note this.

Glim. You can't slim the ruling down a bit? It's really a massive wall of text... it's disheartening to read.

Regarding Bendir: there certainly shouldn't be NPC enforcement on the main road going through the island. It's not their road. Policing it is unjustified both IC and OOC. It falls in the same category as Nexus Falls, Amia Forest, Brogendenstein wilderness, etc: if you want to claim authority, handle it as PCs. NPC guard presence should be kept to an absolute minimum, because it does nothing to provoke further RP. It's lazy and cheap - and leaves nothing for PC guards to do. It is well beyond the scope of reasonable, and what you could reasonably expect the average player to know and observe, to police the entire area and the cart routes.

Besides, people are way too interested in what other players do. So what if they enter an area you don't think they should, or even break rules doing it? That's between them and the DMs. I'm not saying it's OK, but I'm saying it's not your problem. You can report them if you feel like it, but that's your choice. You have little grounds to complain it's too much work or won't help anyway. Ignore them, then.

Very_Svensk wrote:

Glim. You can't slim the ruling down a bit? It's really a massive wall of text... it's disheartening to read.

Quote:

As you approach the gates, the guards react as such:
1.) They reference Criminal Records. This can be appearance sketches if they have one. Names, details, etc.
2.) Perform an on-the-spot checks of any evil deity symbols, markings, etc. A simple but thorough appearance check.
3.) In the case of a banned Race, they inspect more thoroughly, searching for markings of approval, references, etc. Same goes for those bearing signs of evident evil/oddities (Pale Master skin discoloration, Chromatic/Metallic Dragon Disciple scales).

If your character is able to pass these checks, he doesn't require DM oversight to get into a city where a blanket ban is placed against him.

Seems like a pretty tight, easy-to-read rule to me.

Iron's got it. If you can read that portion and understand it, you're good to go. I think I've got a way to make it a bit easier to read.

My aim, admittedly, was to make sure it was understood. But I can happily make it easier on the eyes.

I quite like how it's been laid out and it might actually improve inspire some more roleplay in areas - albeit not the best kind but at least it'll make some things a little more exciting.

So what if my character wasn't to enter via the gates and instead somewhere, like, say... the sewers? I'm presuming this would fall under DM supervision and I'd have to take my helmet off to not metagame the guards or is that only when you come up to the gates and then you may have to take off your helmet? Though that would fall under the town or city itself and its laws.

Nevermind! Found it.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Iron's got it. If you can read that portion and understand it, you're good to go. I think I've got a way to make it a bit easier to read.

My aim, admittedly, was to make sure it was understood. But I can happily make it easier on the eyes.

Please. Please do.
All i saw was a wall of text. Even my friend who sat next to me, and happens to study journalism, thought it was a bit difficult to understand.

<3

IronAngel wrote:

Besides, people are way too interested in what other players do. So what if they enter an area you don't think they should, or even break rules doing it? That's between them and the DMs. I'm not saying it's OK, but I'm saying it's not your problem. You can report them if you feel like it, but that's your choice. You have little grounds to complain it's too much work or won't help anyway. Ignore them, then.

Fair enough, I was planning to anyway. I was mostly under the impression the DM team wanted us to understand it is our problem, and we should try and help them solve it with and for us, instead of letting NPCs handling it (a.k.a. not our problem).

But I seriously dont think my being vocal about it is helping me at all, so I wil leave it at that:

DM team, thank you for thinking of ways of improving our game, even tho I may not like some, I appreciate them all and I will do my best to have my fun while inside the boundaries created by your rules and plot.

Dat dere is a new rule

Who is online