- An alternative way of dealing with suddenly undesirable political power for strongly lawful characters
- An overhaul of what is perceived as "paladinhood" on Arelith as opposed to FR cannon
Moderators: Active DMs, Forum Moderators, Contributors
When paladin becomes just a tool to achieve the perfect power build, unfortunately that's what you get.Sab1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:36 pmIt's been a theme for a bit ig now of some paladins who have been saying anything is fine as long as the end result is their idea of good. So with that mindset they could justify assassinating someone they felt was a evil menace and good needed to be restored. Many Arelith paladins mentality has always been a bit off cannon imo.
Sab1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:36 pmIt's been a theme for a bit ig now of some paladins who have been saying anything is fine as long as the end result is their idea of good. So with that mindset they could justify assassinating someone they felt was a evil menace and good needed to be restored. Many Arelith paladins mentality has always been a bit off cannon imo.
This is a little off-topic, but I want to lay into this a bit.clanogrady wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:40 pmEven had a paladin say, "I spit on your laws. Laws are for the weak" Or something along those lines.
UilliamNebel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:24 pmYou're right. Participating in the forums was a mistake. Won't do this again.
Anime Sword Fighter wrote: I have seen far too many miniskirt anime slave girls.
While you're right, in all seriousness the assassin system does need some more back and forth in it. As it's set up right now, if your character isn't willing to buy off the contract (Which is a very justifiable and defensible position to have), there's no way to interact with the system other than just accepting that occasionally assassins are going to pop out and try to kill you for the rest of the character's life span. The contract never times out as long as you're playing the character, and nothing stops all the assassins on the server from having a crack at it in sequence (Or multiple cracks). There's also no way to find out who placed the contract or otherwise continue the conflict with them (Presumably existing before the contract is placed).Seven Sons of Sin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:11 pmtl;dr political climate should always teeter on somewhere being a shitshow and a thing of raw Machiavellian beauty (for Cordor)
tl;dr don't take player agency away for the sake of some subjective definition on "stability" or "consistency needed for fun"
tl;dr PvP is valid method of achieving political power or disrupting political norms. Play smart if PvP freaks you out
tl;dr Assassinations are cool, paladins are LG, there always is a back and forth in apathy, modern-day out-of-place ideology, and people trying to create too much mechanical bloat
tl;dr the fact someone has to post their character alignment on the forums to dispel player commentary means a lot of people are pretty whack and lame
UilliamNebel wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:24 pmYou're right. Participating in the forums was a mistake. Won't do this again.
Anime Sword Fighter wrote: I have seen far too many miniskirt anime slave girls.
Hunter voiced my concerns to the letter. Thanks.Hunter548 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:31 pmWhile you're right, in all seriousness the assassin system does need some more back and forth in it. As it's set up right now, if your character isn't willing to buy off the contract (Which is a very justifiable and defensible position to have), there's no way to interact with the system other than just accepting that occasionally assassins are going to pop out and try to kill you for the rest of the character's life span. The contract never times out as long as you're playing the character, and nothing stops all the assassins on the server from having a crack at it in sequence (Or multiple cracks). There's also no way to find out who placed the contract or otherwise continue the conflict with them (Presumably existing before the contract is placed).Seven Sons of Sin wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:11 pmtl;dr political climate should always teeter on somewhere being a shitshow and a thing of raw Machiavellian beauty (for Cordor)
tl;dr don't take player agency away for the sake of some subjective definition on "stability" or "consistency needed for fun"
tl;dr PvP is valid method of achieving political power or disrupting political norms. Play smart if PvP freaks you out
tl;dr Assassinations are cool, paladins are LG, there always is a back and forth in apathy, modern-day out-of-place ideology, and people trying to create too much mechanical bloat
tl;dr the fact someone has to post their character alignment on the forums to dispel player commentary means a lot of people are pretty whack and lame
It's a nice system, but needs a few touchings-up to be better in my opinion. Some sort of one and done on attempts on the contract, and maybe a way to bribe the administrator to give up a description of who placed the contract or w/e, if you kill an assassin.
Maybe then an answer would be an added layer to the contract to ensure silence... when a contract is taken out, a random # is generated, and that number is multiplied by the contracting character's intimidate score or persuasion score (whichever is higher) Then that number is stored in a separate variable (nSilence) If the person who the contract is out on BUYS out the contract, they can pay an additional amount = ContractAmount * nSilence <-- if that amount is paid, then they have successfully Bribed someone at the Assassin's guild to cough up the name of who put the contract out.DM GrumpyCat wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:27 pmWorking out the 'who placed the contract' thing would have to be done carefully, if only because the main benefit of the system is really the anonymity. Remove that and there's not much reason to use the Guild. Not saying it'd be an entirely bad call, mark you, merely that if done it should be done carefully.
I wanted to chime in on your observations 1-3.DM Titania wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:36 pmI don't think the system should change just because of this, we're not going to throw permanent death on them, and there is a big risk in cases of abuse in preventing the character from running again. I think how players respond IG should change to what happens to their characters or the world around them.
1: The Chancellor should protect themselves. Not protecting themselves leads to chaos. Even if they win again, it should form into a teaching moment to them, that they learn they can begin to lose people's faith if they are not taking security seriously and it happens again. On the other hand, they can also choose not to run as a player when this happens, letting the assassination have more effect. I would not blame anyone not wanting to do that though after such a short time of three days of leading, in fairness.
2: Assassins should probably not strike so fast. Striking so soon after the election is not going to see the Chancellor's voting base crumble. They in turn, should take this as a learning opportunity to take their time unless there are certain that the election was very close and the few problem voters have been dealt with, in bribes or other ways.
3: With constant threats to security, guards may wish to investigate suspicious targets, and throw eyes upon them, because letting suspicious people walk apathetically can lead to bad things happening, as they may learn.
4: Voters do not have to start an election when it is possible. If people want longer periods they can choose not to run until an agreed upon time limit. The other Surface settlements have in the past had election periods with greater spaces than one real life month.
If I was going to change the system in general:
1: No more than three terms per elected leader (Excluding Brogendenstein for cultural reasons). Terms are divided by election challenges. No election challenge, no interruption of term. There are only so many elected leaders possible, and turnover to new hands a good thing.
2: Any assassination in the first month prevents a Chancellor from using their powers for several days. In the second month, it calls an election. In a third, removes their ability to run and starts an election, regardless of if it is the first, second, or third term.
3: Another 15 days added to the election cycle. One month is too short, but two months too long. Maybe a month and a half is that sweet spot of getting things done.