What qualifies as a Settlement Employee?

[perseid]

With the recent update I figured a thread like this would be sensible to make. There's been talk on discord about things like not having disallowed groups as guard for example and I assume it means you shouldn't have these same groups in positions like "Head of the Economy". But from a mechanical perspective what does this ruling actually mean? Settlements can freely create roles after all. Is any role that allocates mechanical authorities like shop management or eviction an employee for example? Or is it a matter of how the role is presented?

Settlements can still turn a blind eye to approved vigilantes exercising violence under the current ruling for example (to achieve the same result as far as having unwelcome groups participate in enforcement activities). And in a similar fashion, it's unclear if a leader couldn't have a role that allocates mechanical authority to an "independent" group that's simply endorsed by the present government but which has not agreed obligations to them in terms of ig roleplay.

I know this seems like hair splitting but considering the previous encouragement by staff to intermingle different tag status groups (though maybe staff would disagree this is what things like the Freeport represent) I think it would be helpful to the playerbase to have clear lines around what is/isn't an employee and what level of unemployed collaboration represents a violation of the new ruling.

[Ruzuke]

Here is my understanding.

If someone lacks citizenship, they should not be employed by that city. If they have a position, they should resign from it. (Specifically pirates and outcasts)

Areas such as Fort Friendly Fire and the guild house to Siyabad would be allowed as they are not attached to the settlement. A private faction that owns a guild house also does not seem to be an issue.

Giant Faction House is part of a private group, not a settlement.

This ruling seems to align with the monster races rule: Play a Fey'ri, Green Hag, Rakasha, Vampire, or Yuan-ti and get discovered to be one, and then you lose a lot of freedom. Using an award to play a non-evil monster race or a non-evil Pale Master, you can still not summon or mingle on the surface while being a monster or using that undead arm. If you have the tattoo and turn neutral, you still cannot work for the government.

I think the issue is that a perception for many areas is that PCs are in charge. In Guldorand, the High Sheriff works for the Founders. In Cordor, the elected official serves the royal family. In Brogstien and Bendir, I have no idea I never had a PC live in either.

[perseid]

Here is my understanding.

If someone lacks citizenship, they should not be employed by that city.

That's the core of what I'm asking though. What qualifies as 'employed' by the city per the rules? It can't just be civic roles appointed by the bureaucrat npc because one of the given examples in the announcement is guard pcs which are an rp thing rather than a mechanically specific thing. But then does this also mean government tolerated vigilante groups are now illegal since they're performing guardlike duties and are a non-mechanic rp role in the same way as guard? Similarly, does this mean people like Dread Pirates can't hold roles or mechanical powers whatsoever in settlements where they're tolerated or does it mean that the powers allocated to them should be in a fashion that they're not just "That pirate who works at the mayor's office"?

[Ruzuke]

The posted rules stated specifically pirates cannot work as city guards. A PC must give permission and generate a token to provide them access to certain areas.

Guards in Gulroand and Cordor are added to factions and are paid by the city. It is a faction they are added to. From the reading it states city employment. So, no officially working with any title or connection to the city. Not the janitor, ambassador, guard, high sheriff, low sheriff, or hired to be entertainment.

If the city is paying someone to do a position from my understanding and the wording of the post any PC which is known to be an Outcast, Dreadpirate, or other position mechanically locked out. It would seem PCs who are tolerated are only tolerated. I have had two Dread Pirates. One regretted it because they were unknown and couldn't join a settlement to vote. With the announcement it appears the PC would not be able to be an employee either.

[perseid]

If the city is paying someone to do a position from my understanding and the wording of the post any PC which is known to be an Outcast, Dreadpirate, or other position mechanically locked out.

This circles back to my point that it's not as clear as the presentation of the update implies. What about volunteers for example? Can they be allocated authority/powers or would they defacto count as employees if they were added to the bureaucrat npc roster? Can vigilantes of a contentious group be allocated powers if they're deemed beneficial (we've had state sanctioned vigilantes already after all)? It's something that would be good to have staff elaboration on as far as where specifically the rules/mechanics intersect with more general rp. At the very least it would be useful to have a clear explanation like "These are the scenarios that qualify as employment regardless of how they manifest ic".

[Fenran]

I personally think this is one of those "understand the spirit of the rule" rather than the exact letter of it.

The way I'm interpreting it is that this doesn't mean to disallow things like "government-sponsored groups" but if someone is intentionally trying to skirt the spirit of the rules by only doing that then they might get a friendly tap on the shoulder from the team. I'd be surprised if this is meant to remove interesting things like state-sanctioned vigilantes or hiring your seedy/dubious mercenaries as guards/private forces but if someone is hiring drow or dread pirates as official city employees then I think that's when the issue starts being more evident.

Obviously a clarification from the DMs themselves would be great but that's how I'm taking it at least!

[Eyeliner]

I haven’t read everything on the subject so maybe this was answered but I don’t know where these leaves long-term pirate outcast etc infiltrators who use disguise. They aren’t going to want or be able to sign up for citizenship after all, is that off limits now?

[Drogo Gyslain]

I believe we are reaching a point, where do rules are becoming too restrictive on gameplay, and we are trying to rule lawyer situations and create mechanical barricades for things that need to be handled IC through gameplay and dm interaction, not moderator style intervention.

This kind of heavy handed, non-rp approach is making the server harder and harder to play and have fun with, by trying to narrow tailor interactions to "allowed play" only.

There are lots of ways that this situation could have been handled from an RP based standpoint, and trying to artificially set of roadblocks like this, especially for established characters, redemption, and good RP, is in bad taste.

[TheDoctor]

I believe we are reaching a point, where do rules are becoming too restrictive on gameplay, and we are trying to rule lawyer situations and create mechanical barricades for things that need to be handled IC through gameplay and dm interaction, not moderator style intervention.

This kind of heavy handed, non-rp approach is making the server harder and harder to play and have fun with, by trying to narrow tailor interactions to "allowed play" only.

There are lots of ways that this situation could have been handled from an RP based standpoint, and trying to artificially set of roadblocks like this, especially for established characters, redemption, and good RP, is in bad taste.

Gold star to you.

[woodbreeze]

I believe we are reaching a point, where do rules are becoming too restrictive on gameplay, and we are trying to rule lawyer situations and create mechanical barricades for things that need to be handled IC through gameplay and dm interaction, not moderator style intervention.

This kind of heavy handed, non-rp approach is making the server harder and harder to play and have fun with, by trying to narrow tailor interactions to "allowed play" only.

There are lots of ways that this situation could have been handled from an RP based standpoint, and trying to artificially set of roadblocks like this, especially for established characters, redemption, and good RP, is in bad taste.

I don't like posting when I don't have much to add, but I feel like these days things don't change unless there's some sort of visible response to the change.

So this comment also gets my +1. It sums up this change well.

It feels like a step back from encouraging people to challenge the narrative, or try something different. Why go against King Edward/Guldorand Council/other prominent NPC faction's decree when there's a OOC message from the DM team that people cannot do xyz? It creates a fear of OOC repercussion.

[ReverentBlade]

This should be handled ICly through the existing settlement NPCs if the situation warrants it.

[Nevirmore]

I think if we want to mechanically lock these positions to settlement citizens we should find a way to open the doors on ink/outcast removal tags, as forcing players to take a m.o.d to advance their story while simultaneously ending it seems counter productive. I don't think a goblin should be allowed to be a guard in guld no, but a viable surface race with pirate ink, being allowed a chance at a redemption arc within the game. I'm all for actions having consequences, but when those consequences end the story entirely? We can and should find a better way to address this.

Maybe instead of a m.o.d the players should be forced to lose all gear and gold earned? As well as getting a new mark only members from the previous settlement can see to tag them as a "traitor"

This would allow players to go the path they want with the story, while making it a loss to do so, and also removing them from back peddling on their decision later.

I made a post in a similar vein on the forums

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=47008

I think the best way to bring about any kind of change is discussion and bringing awareness to it yes, but also coming up with a viable plan for a different action as well.

[Eira]

The update explicitly said KNOWN pirates, so that infiltrators still have a place. If you are not a KNOWN pirate, then you can still sneak your way in.

But if you have tattoos of "HEY LOOK HOW MANY SHIPS I HAVE SUNK" on full display, then the NPCs would not allow it.

[TheDoctor]

The update explicitly said KNOWN pirates, so that infiltrators still have a place. If you are not a KNOWN pirate, then you can still sneak your way in.

But if you have tattoos of "HEY LOOK HOW MANY SHIPS I HAVE SUNK" on full display, then the NPCs would not allow it.

That sounds like an IC thing though for settlement leaders to hash out and RP not really something in need of such a vibrant OOC display. Sure places like Cordor would 99.9999999% not have some famous pirate there but a place that houses a Zhentish Embassy, a Thayan one, and has the same such figures on the leading council just might.

To me this is a huge failure as it takes away from RP and adds nothing to it.

[Ruzuke]

I believe those with the ink should have the same treatment as an Outcast. With any removal of the ink one is converted to an Outcast, The IC reasoning being the person committed horrible crimes which is known to society. Their reputation carries with them. While it is possible that some adventurers may have forgiven them society at large has not.

This is D&D so lets look at our famous surface Drow outcast Drizzit Du'Urden. He is not accepted everywhere. A small location in the middle of nowhere yes. That is the price of his redemption. Finding a small place in the world. For me it is the expect opposite when every PC can be the former slave who thrived in the Undercity can run for mayor. The former pirate who is beloved by the entire world. At what point does the game shift from choices have consequences to if I have the right IC friends who won't exile me I can be the leader?

This is exactly why DMs should be here to keep some setting integrity and reinforce the game's theme. If you are a pirate you are not one of the heroes. There can be wonderful stories as an Anti-hero.

One of my favorite characters was my Hin "Blue" the sailor. Also dread pirate always in disguise. His name meant liar. He was selfish and a killer and his friends kept him from being evil (you all stopped him from calling himself Dark One). He sailed, he did "good" things to help his IC friends because it made him happy that they were happy. All he cared about was fishing. His act of redemption was retiring with more gold then he could spend (lawfully earned) and building a small farm somewhere.

In closing lets get those former pirates the outcast mark. Then they can RP seeking out redemption with the consequences from the NPCs as they work to sway the opinion of the PCs.

[Nevirmore]

Using the outcast tag as an intermediary "brand" of sorts. Could be a potential that fits into the story already.
But I'd like to see the ability to remove the outcast tag even further, with of course the work and roleplay as well as story building put in having the settlement leaders who are elected through a lot of roleplay making a decision to "pardon" an outcast could be a fun potential to play around with. All with dm supervision of course. But it would help in building a path where a player needs to work with a settlement for redemption.

[D4wN]

I think redemption stories can be amongst the greatest in the game (if people don't take the piss out of it) as I think corruption stories are great too. These stories usually involve a lot of very personal development between a small select group of players. And I think that prohibiting or strongly punishing people to have Pirate Tattoos removed or Outcast tag removed is legit bad for RP opportunities that naturally develop through long-term RP.

But here's the issue:

Like most other things, people can't have nice things. People make a pirate, use the quests to get XP faster, get other goodies only pirates get. Then "redeem" themselves because it's now mechanically inconvenient.

Or an outcast may go and grab all the portals in the UD and "redeem" themselves to then go to the Surface.

So I can see people possibly abusing this BUT! I think the benefits outweigh the risks in this regard. I think that it can be controlled by DMs to check if the redemption RP has been genuinely good and that the person removing tats or outcast tag has really turned a new leaf and to be very clear with them, they can never go back. Hell, give them some sort of traitor mark. Traitor to Sencliff, traitor to Andunor.

Honestly? You punish pirates for removing their tattoos, you punish outcasts for becoming a good person. But you don't punish chainbreakers staying in Andunor hanging out with slavers and sometimes even taking slaves themselves. All this really doesn't make any sense to me since I would think it a lot worse for someone to have chainbroken and actively fought the slave master of andunor and the slave trade and then joining the very slavers they fought to break free, then a pirate who's spent months realising their actions of raiding and pillaging merchant ships is bad.

[Nevirmore]

I'm still in favor of stripping items and any coin made from a pirate and leaving them "marooned" on a sandbank for removal of the ink as a much better viable option then a m.o.d. I like the idea of a "brand" or tag that shows other pirates they are a traitor, as it builds for good story and conflict. What if a former pirate became a guard? Would the government listen to a group of pirates calling them out? How about Black Mail? Maybe murderousness revenge. Death when a character has a finite amount of lives is devastating enough, but getting a p.v.p kill that completely ends someone's story? That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

we do have a lot of redemption and corruption arc's Available already, a paladin can forsake their oath, and become an evil scourge. To eventually come back to the light. While the pirate roleplay is all about freedom to do what one wants. It doesn't mean that every player, plays a murderousness cut throat.

Seeing more options for players to live out the story they want is what Arelith is about. And I feel like we can be more creative with these choices then making it an ultimatum of either trying to work around the inked system, or ending the characters story.

I'm genuinely happy with inked life for my character, and will remain playing in Sencliff, but if another player wants to go through this storyline and change. I support it, even if in character I'll have to plot their death.

[D4wN]

I'm still in favor of stripping items and any coin made from a pirate and leaving them "marooned" on a sandbank for removal of the ink as a much better viable option then a m.o.d. I like the idea of a "brand" or tag that shows other pirates they are a traitor, as it builds for good story and conflict. What if a former pirate became a guard? Would the government listen to a group of pirates calling them out? How about Black Mail? Maybe murderousness revenge. Death when a character has a finite amount of lives is devastating enough, but getting a p.v.p kill that completely ends someone's story? That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Exactly, I think it could create a lot of opportunity.

we do have a lot of redemption and corruption arc's Available already, a paladin can forsake their oath, and become an evil scourge. To eventually come back to the light. While the pirate roleplay is all about freedom to do what one wants. It doesn't mean that every player, plays a murderousness cut throat.

I have been told several times in the past that 'Fallen Paladins' are not allowed on Arelith. But rules change frequently, so perhaps a DM can confirm this. Also, a Pirate's RP isn't just all about freedom. Pirates are the bandits of the sea. They raid, they pillage, they steal. Yes, they don't abide by laws (which is also why being in law enforcement for a Dread Pirate probably doesn't make sense) and yes, they don't care about societal structures and hierarchy. If people just want to be privateers and sailors, you don't need to take the ink and join a band of pirates.

Seeing more options for players to live out the story they want is what Arelith is about. And I feel like we can be more creative with these choices then making it an ultimatum of either trying to work around the inked system, or ending the characters story.

I'm genuinely happy with inked life for my character, and will remain playing in Sencliff, but if another player wants to go through this storyline and change. I support it, even if in character I'll have to plot their death.

Very much agree. I think there should be more freedom and encouragement in natural character development rather than halt it with mechanical hurdles and heavy punishments. We should enable RP and storytelling, not discourage it.

[Xarge VI]

I think you're allowed to fall as a paladin, but then you'll have to remake the character with a different class.

But I do think a dread (or any level) pirate as a government employee is weird. Since they are still mechanically part of the society and can access all the private places and the nice things which makes it easier for bringing in troops, spy etc.

I don't really like black and white statements but I think that should require a pretty good explanation and very good skills in roleplay beyond just a trusting and benevolent government as pirates are more or less declared Hostis Humani Generis among Arelith and relevant ally nations.

MoD seems pretty reasonable a price for redemption imo.

[DM Nixie]

Let's talk about the spirit of the ruling:

We do not want to see people who are obviously not eligible for citizenship in a settlement acting with authority for that settlement. While the case that pushed the issue was Dread Pirates, this would also apply to outcasts in Guldorand or Radiant Heart members in the Sharps. We don't want to completely remove the possibility for infiltration roleplay or for vigilantes (the archetype, not necessarily the class) working off-book, but there needs to be at least some modicum of subterfuge employed.

[D4wN]

I don't really like black and white statements but I think that should require a pretty good explanation and very good skills in roleplay beyond just a trusting and benevolent government as pirates are more or less declared Hostis Humani Generis among Arelith and relevant ally nations.

I 100% agree. It shouldn't be a matter of "I'm bored and everyone's mean to me because I'm a Pirate, so now I'm going to redeem myself so I can still RP with whoever I want". However.. This stuff has been an issue now for a long time and I see the server more and more changing to push tolerance towards this stuff:

1) Warlocks, Cyricists, Sharrans, Abyssalists, Infernalists etc. being welcomed in Cordor
2) Dread Pirates being welcome in Guld beyond the Free Port and working in local establishments
3) Minmir Keep getting Undead Guards and working with Andunor without any approval for the good guys to try and do something to change this.
4) Former Abyssalists/Animators being allowed to remake and change their alignment then taking a ring at the RH to absolve themselves of any past "sins".
5) Hosts of Animators and Devil/Demon summoners not only being welcomed at the Arcane Tower but protected and defended
6) And the icing on the cake: Fey'ri being welcome in Guldorand as long as they cover up their wings

All of those things and more has just turned the Surface more and more into a place where evil tolerance is being forced on players. I honestly do not enjoy playing my good aligned character rn because it seems there are 0 consequences for being evil and these characters will be defended and protected by both DMs and other players.

So if you're going to enable and encourage this "open mind" thinking or pushing the enforcement of tolerating these people in your settlements etc. then I can also understand why Governments welcome such people to work for them. If the setting direction isn't clear and expectations aren't communicated or appear conflicting, you get situations like this.

[Subtext]

So if you're going to enable and encourage this "open mind" thinking or pushing the enforcement of tolerating these people in your settlements etc. then I can also understand why Governments welcome such people to work for them. If the setting direction isn't clear and expectations aren't communicated or appear conflicting, you get situations like this.

I overall agree with what you wrote - I personally find that Team Evil gets coddled rather substantially. I found the most egregious example to not even be listed - namely how one certain settlement government was forced to approach a situation that would in any civilized state until the 19th century have resulted in hanging everyone of the offending party with...negotiations and apologies.
In a broader stance, you have the supposed "Team Good" often acting in a really shady or outright malevolent manner...but it was cool because they played Paladins.

However, I absolutely understand being mindful about how far you want to exclude people and in so far, applying moral and lawful standards of times bygone isn't exactly the best way to go on about it. After all, this is still an RP server where people collaboratively write stories rather than constantly compete against each other. That does mean that certain amendments have to be made in order to make the server a less cliquey and exclusive place. I remember when the king forced the tolerance of certain faiths and professions (like Warlocks) upon Cordor. At that time there was a pillar at the settlement entrance outlining everyone who may not enter...and that was a really long list. I absolutely understood DMs stepping in at that point and still think it was the right call to make.
The Founder's Charter in Guldorand reeks of the same thinking - the setup of the Freeport, forced tolerance of pirates, jobs and faith and so on. I do not disapprove of that at all! In many regards, Arelith needs more nuance and setting such limits make it easier for nuanced characters to exist. Characters may start out as a pirate and over time realize how they really vibe in a more lawful and liberal setting and start being decent people. That's absolutely valid character development and not even a far cry from things that really happened. (Likewise, the distinction between pirate and privateer is in practice pretty damn dim)

Which leads us to the current situation. Guldorand specifically has readopted a culture that existed about two years ago in the city, trying to be welcoming and also giving more dubious characters a chance. This in fact led also to two pirates becoming part of the Watch.
Looks silly from the outside, definitely. However, that wasn't done lightheartedly like "Oh nice, two more warm bodies for the Watch!". There were actual considerations and discussions behind that and the turnout was actually surprisingly good. One character being pretty much a model watchman, the other...just not playing that much really but also not messing up.
Sure, you could say "So remove the ink and get the MoD!" Sure. But...why? Why should one character be penalized for actual growth and development - either in being forcibly removed from a place they have done work to establish themselves in or by putting a timer on their character? We have so many characters around that really neither act their class (Paladin is prone to that...) or circumvent such restrictions by...for example being a de facto pirate but never getting inked. I feel like that achieves the opposite of what is intended.

Tldr;

• I agree, Team Evil really gets coddled too much and genuinely good-aligned RP has very little room outside of closed-off groups.
• Wholesale excluding people is bad though. One should try to find a balance between being inclusive without becoming a silly zoo
• I simply disagree with penalizing characters because of a mechanical choice they made early on. Other characters do not face such restrictions and I feel all it leads to is encouraging people to circumvent the mechanics in place in order to keep as many options as possible

[Xerah]

Let's talk about the spirit of the ruling:

We do not want to see people who are obviously not eligible for citizenship in a settlement acting with authority for that settlement. While the case that pushed the issue was Dread Pirates, this would also apply to outcasts in Guldorand or Radiant Heart members in the Sharps. We don't want to completely remove the possibility for infiltration roleplay or for vigilantes (the archetype, not necessarily the class) working off-book, but there needs to be at least some modicum of subterfuge employed.

This was 100% what I got from the initial ruling. There's no need to write all possible situations about what's allowed and what's not. You know if you're doing something weird.

[Drogo Gyslain]

Let's talk about the spirit of the ruling:

You know... I really dislike this.

Whenever people bring up objections or concerns with a rule, or a law, and people start saying "oh, it's not in following of the spirit of the rules" it very often feels like a hand-wavey attempt to obfuscate the argument and sidestep the issue.

The Spirit of the rules was never at question, the actual rule and law set down is, and what was said was overly vague and applicable to situations it probably did not intend to be applied to, which makes it a bad call.

Too often, is roleplay curtailed due to heavy handed approaches like a ruling of this broad magnitude and vague scope, and it weakens the relationship between players and DMs.

While I do agree, that not every scenario needs to be needlessly plotted out and a giant spreadsheet of every possible allowable or disallowed conduct would be unnecessary, so to, are overly-broad statements like what was made on the discord.

Instead of a "Hey, you know who you are, stop doing that", use it as an opportunity to create RP.

Instead of making a confusing statement that needs to be over-explained due to vagueness, bring about a minor plot to deal with the situation IC using one of the literal hundreds of NPCs that feel like nothing more than cardboard cutouts.

We are told, as players, time and time again "Keep it IC. Keep it IC."

So when we have opportunities like this, with 15+ active DM's, Admins and staff, why are we continuing to fall back on "Don't do that, or you'll get a talking to". Because we all know where this goes when handled OOC: RPR reductions, suspensions and banning for the offenders in question, which then lead to hurt feelings, and ultimately causing what could be a good RP made better through compassionate interaction, to a bad experience, and losing good RPers due to trying to handle this like a traffic stop instead.

Its not hard, to address these things in game, and a clever DM can use the Fruit Vendor in Cordor to point out a character who's violated one of these rules, file a petition and drive a narrative to have that character arrested. If a Pirate has overstepped their bounds, use the in game 'guard'rails to put them to justice, and make a public event out of it.

You DMs, you have so, so many tools at your disposal. Why must everything be handled by just making rulings and making it a discipline of the player thing? Because what is the recourse beyond that? How does this help the server.

Are there some magical 5% of the entire server doing this? Or is it 1 or 2 people and you've just layered another rule atop the entire playerbase, because of the actions of 2 people?

My whole point, is there was a better way to handle this. It should have been handled IC, not made an OOC/Ruling issue.