Suggestion: Outcast - Make it Mandatory for Outcasts to write why they are an Outcast in discription

[Gillesbreton]

So I've seen some of the RP generated by the new 'examine' system where someone sees an outcast and tells them they are not permitted to enter or just points it out publicly- and then when they are questioned on why they think they are an outcast, they just go "You just are". It seems to force the accusing player into a 10/20 RPR level of role-playing.

This could easily be fixed if outcasts gave a little description of why they are an outcast. Or, perhaps it can be made a sub-option in the character select screen. I.e. Mass Murderer, Serial Tax Dodger, Cultist etc.

I think we would all see a marked improvement in the level of role play overall.

Edit: Scroll down to DM GrumpyCat's suggestion (Page 1) - I think this might be a better way to fix this issue.
&
Thank you all for keeping this constructive!

[Iceborn]

Outcasts can already do this by adding the hints to their own description.
The rest of the players are not at fault for making something up that should be common knowledge regarding an Outcast.

I'm uncertain if this would add or detract from the problems that we already have. Maybe the mechanical implication that 'YOU SHOULD DO THIS' would be enough to prevent the awkward of these situations.

[Ecthelion]

Agreed with the suggestion. Had, and have seen some weird RP stemming from that too.
'Making stuff up', might make sense for some characters, but it really makes none for some others, and it can be somewhat awful to the story invented by the player for their character.

[Ascended Mage]

In my opinion, this background is one of mechanically strongest background for humans(free language + portal(!)) and it should be somehow enforced characters to play... Outcasts. I agree, "examine" system not works super good but it is something and better than nothing. In past nobody was care about walking outcasts everywhere. But now characters may recognize outcasts which in my opinion improves overall experience to play outcasts characters. What to do and how to react on outcast - it is personal descision of characters in game. It shouldn't mean what someone playing bad or good if outcasts characters forced from places, it is just personal descision of character. If character thinks what he/she has false bad reputation - then character should work hard in game and prove it by actions in game.

System not best but I hope when devs will find time they will think about something else.
I see this character first time. Oh yes, I recognize him, he was avoiding taxes. Oh yes, and I remember this another hundred humans. They all outcasts, of course I know it and always keeping in my head. And I will quickly recognize another new hundred of outcasts humans.

[Sea Shanties]

Descriptions are for what you immediately see when you look at a character and nothing more. Any backstory should be suggested by appearance and gear, not written out. Descriptions tend to be way too long as it is if you ask me.

Besides that, why should those reasons be public knowledge? Surfacers who are citizens already know who's an outcast or not, they shouldn't also magically know why if it has nothing to do with them.

Maybe if there was a hidden field of data that only DMs could see when looking at a character, and outcasts had to explain it there.. That would make sense, as they'd have to justify it and DMs would know their story for when it's needed. Other characters could use it too of course, might even be nice for DM events to have some hidden notes on every character.

[xanrael]

I don't think it needs to be implemented, but if it was it should be tied to the Outcast description and not the general description as then it would show to people that don't detect their Outcast status.

I think that's more of an individual problem if you referring to something like:

Guard: "You can't come in here, you've been banished from the city."
Outcast: "Why was I banished?"

Which is such a weird question, and I wouldn't fault a guard for responding with something like:

Guard: "Doesn't much matter, but I can tell you what will cause your execution if you don't leave now."

WYSIWYG, my PC knows your PC was banished from surface settlements and at the end of the day it doesn't matter what specific crime caused it, its a drastic punishment in a world where death is reversible.

[n00bdragon]

Outcasts cause no end of RP and setting headaches for me. I really have no idea how to treat them or what should be done with them. As it is I find them dissatisfying for a number of reasons, absolutely none of which have to do with the roleplay of various outcasts I've RPd with who are generally all around great and I would really hate for any changes to make their lives harder:

1. It's confusing for underdark races
Like it or not there is definitely some faction elements at play in Arelith's surface/underdark paradigm. While not all surfacers or underdarkers are on an explicit "team" with each other there is a general inclination for outcasts to work alongside the other underdark races and generally oppose the various surface factions. So lets say you are a duergar or a gnoll or a drow or whatever and a human walks up to you in Andunor. How do you decide whether to say hello and go about your business or threaten them with mortal peril if they don't leave? Let's set aside the disingenuous notion that you should RP the same with each. That's not how it works in game and absolutely no one does that no matter how good of an RPer they are and you know it. Players need to be able to know whether this is one of those scum and villainy humans they are allowed to be buddies with or one of those hated surfacers in dire need of a collar and "If you're so evil then use this portal" gets a little awkward.

2. Tolerance for one, but not the other
This sort of ties into the first point bus is also its own thing. In universe the underdark is supposed to be filled with xenophobic monsters who generally hate other races, especially humans and those on the surface, but for some reason Andunor is surprisingly tolerant of humanity. This wouldn't be so jarring if it wasn't so bloodthirsty and hateful of... humanity? Whether you're treated like a hated enemy or a neighbor depends ENTIRELY on whether you have that outcast badge. It all just feels very ooc and metagamey in most cases. Sure, I know that Vance Gravelle is a legendary cleric of Cyric and just all around bad dude to be feared or sucked up to or what not but Joe Shmoe fresh off the boat? What in-character reason do drow matrons have to direct him to go upstairs to get signed up for writ work instead of sacrificing him on the spot?

3. All this tolerance gets awfully warm and fuzzy
So the underdark is supposedly filled with the baddest of the bad villains and miscreants to grace the seedy underbelly of Arelith. It's a hive of scum and villainy and all that. So why is pretty much every race except elves allowed to walk the streets unmolested (and even those exist if they are badass enough)? Essentially, if it's SO evil, why is the straight up racism and witch hunting in surface settlements so much worse? Once again, I'm not trying to indict anyone's RP or make an argument for why drow should be able to have tea and crumpets in the Nomad, but there is an element of difficulty added to roleplaying someone on "team bad" when people on "team good" are, by all objective measurements, doing the "bad" stuff you feel should be more your bailiwick. Something something stealing my thunder.

One more time. This isn't meant to be a "this is how I believe things should be" or a "get rid of outcasts!" post. I'm just trying to express some of the complicated... issues that outcasts cause for me when I try to figure out the setting. The way things are now isn't broken per se. It works. Could it be better? I don't know. It is frustrating at times in the present, especially because I definitely see a ton of great outcast RP and most of those people certainly belong at the Legion of Doom's conference table, but it does make things more complicated.

[Mr_Rieper]

The main problem I see here is that we are attempting to establish a norm not through roleplay or lore, but through mechanics.

How are Outcasts supposed to be treated? What are the benefits and consequences of being an Outcast? Should Outcasts be easy to play for a beginner? Is it considered abusive towards the players if they are not?

These are the four questions that need answering. We're using the visible "Outcast in the description" thing because of two reasons. The first is that Outcasts were passing themselves off as surfacers and they had no way of noticing this at all. So the Outcasts were getting the best of both worlds and were accepted both on the surface and the underdark. This, of course, didn't make any sense. Why would they be "outcasts" if they could go anywhere they pleased and be accepted by everyone?

The second reason is that underdarkers couldn't identify them either. Mechanically they spoke undercommon. So underdarkers who were fed up with humans loitering around would force them to speak undercommon to prove they were outcasts. This was also grating for everybody involved. Nobody could tell who was an outcast. Should they know who was? Of course! These were people so detestable they were cast out into the underdark! They were infamous enough that they were unwelcome everywhere.

Now, should the people who recognise outcasts also know why they were cast out? Yes, in most cases. Then the question becomes what kind of behaviour gets you cast out in the first place? We need to be more specific there. What's the bare minimum? If you're going to ask people to have a reason, at least give them some guidelines on what that reason would likely be.

I, personally, think outcasts are far too common. That is just an opinion (a common one, at that) and I have no factual reason to think that other than some experience I had about a year ago. They are recommended to people who aren't sure what to play in Andunor. This is also a mistake, I feel. The problem with dealing with outcasts as a group is that the moment things become uncomfortable for the players, we see whining on the forums. There's no opportunity to establish a dominance or social norm through RP, because it involves "bullying" a group of players. You cannot give people nice things and then expect them not to complain when you deprive them of it. And outcasts being restricted further will cause bellyaching, because they expect they will not be mistreated IC.

So if you cannot establish a social norm in Andunor through RP, it has to be either through mechanics or through established lore. And there isn't enough information of established outcast lore for people when they create a character. Alternatively, you could just have a testing period where Andunorians actually work to establish the status quo through RP, and go from there. Until then, this is always going to be a sore spot.

What in-character reason do drow matrons have to direct him to go upstairs to get signed up for writ work instead of sacrificing him on the spot?

I feel like this may have been intended to be an extreme example, but if your first reaction for hostile RP (that isn't yet aggressive) is to PvP, you may be Doing It Wrong™. Then again, the drow matron could be somewhere on the scale of Verbally Abusive to Mildly Dismissive and we may still see complaining about it on the forums, so I suppose if they're going to whine anyway, the drow matron may just decide to kill them? The topic of outcasts is handled with kid gloves for some reason. As if they are the newbies of the Underdark. This is only ever going to upset the tone of the place every time, all the time. Which is strange.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

*Snip* Besides that, why should those reasons be public knowledge? *Snip*

Because that's literally what you're agreeing to when you play an outcast. You performed something so heinous that your face and name inspire revulsion everywhere, and everyone that hasn't been kept isolated in a cave their entire lives has heard something about the utter atrocity you committed.

To help enforce this concept, presumably because enough outcasts had "reasons" why they didn't feel this applied to their circumstances (despite such being counter to what the desired direction of the concept is), a mechanical tag was added, supporting this logic.



Don't get me wrong- I don't expect a novel's worth of exposition from every outcast before they roll a toon, but I've been behind this sentiment for years. If the outcast weren't essentially the equivalent of playing a human monster equivalent to the boogey man Jack the Ripper Charles Manson Hannibal Lecter, I'd be on your side, but it is, and as long as that remains the case, this thought should, IMO, be a bit of your character creation process - WHY does everyone recognize your face and fear/loathe your name?

I have my own writing project for an outcast I plan to roll someday right now, and I'm suffering from how to get it from point B to point C, D, and E - but in my head I have each of those individual points planned out already, I just need to connect them. With words and things. There's a lot that a level 2 PC class character can do that the vast majority of the common populace around them can't do - you don't need to rain fiery death from the sky in swathes to generate the loathing of the common people- there are lots of ways to terrify the helpless in this world.

[Sea Shanties]

Still, that doesn't mean everyone who wouldn't have any connection to whatever their atrocities are should know their full story with a glance. They're already marked as outcasts in settlements which is much better than before.

I do think they could be pressed to have a story if DMs ask, or even have to keep it "on file" like sending it in a PM to the DM team in case it's ever needed-- eg someone getting too friendly and well known on the surface, some wanted posters appear listing their atrocities. I'd even like to see more mechanical NPC enforcement of their pariah status, don't know why so many guards just let them pass like it's no big deal. I just don't think writing a history in descriptions is the way to do it, in part because that's information that shouldn't be handed out to people who wouldn't have it and in part because I think descriptions ought to be exactly what you see physically when looking someone over and nothing else.

[xanrael]

Are Outcasts supposed to be so personally infamous that they're a household name? That any surfacer could scry them without actually having being formally introduced?

I pictured it more that while they had infamy, a lot would be exaggerated/distorted as it passed from bard to tavern. There would be a record somewhere with as close to a factual account as possible and people with first hand knowledge wouldn't likely forget. Most would just know them from a picture on a wall/signboard of "banished terrorists/criminals" with 30[00] other faces on it and know that you have to do something really awful to wind up on that board.

[Disciprine Come From Within]

Are Outcasts supposed to be so personally infamous that they're a household name? That any surfacer could scry them without actually having being formally introduced?

I pictured it more that while they had infamy, a lot would be exaggerated/distorted as it passed from bard to tavern. There would be a record somewhere with as close to a factual account as possible and people with first hand knowledge wouldn't likely forget. Most would just know them from a picture on a wall/signboard of "banished terrorists/criminals" with 30[00] other faces on it and know that you have to do something really awful to wind up on that board.

The problem is that you have to be able to explain on two fronts why people who have citizenship in settlements know they've seen you as someone who has done "terrible" things, and on the other side, the "outcast" has to somehow have a story about why they're a terrible person that doesn't belong in civilized society anymore?

The issue I see with it is that it puts more power in the mechanics than the RP. Same issue I have with most of the mechanical detectors like pirate tattoos. It's what leads to the problem of my personal saying of playing any sort of "head down" evil. It's not a matter of "if" anyone finds out, but when. Whether it be mechanics like Warlock, or Shadow Mage to again, Pirate Tattoos and Outcast tags. I feel like it takes the agency away from the RP by making the mechanical knowledge too easy to acquire and exploit and then cause issues with characters due to the social outcast system of how people feel they "should" know all these things and react negatively, lest they be in trouble with the DMs for evil hugging or something.

I'd rather see interesting characters to interact with that are these things over the tag being all people see of those characters.

[monkeywithstick]

Could just add a bunch of broad options to select after selecting outcast so that the outcast tag says "this character is outcast for mass murder/grand larceny/mass enslavement/consorting with archdemons". But it risks getting pretty fiddly and any list is not going to end up being exhaustive.

Personally I just play it as "I've seen that face on a poster and cannot remember what it was they did but I know it was bad." Sure it's awkward, but I don't think anyone needs to feel beholden to put an essay detailing their transgressions in the character description.

[Lady Astray]

The whole reason the Outcast tag was added in the first place, is because every UDer was rolling a human and then casually strolling around on the surface pretending to be a good boi. The onus should be on Outcast players to portray themselves as Outcasts imo. If your character calls out someone for being an Outcast and their response is to quiz you all like, "What did I do? How do you know? Well you're a stinky poo poo head metagamer!" then I'd say that is poor gamesmanship on their part. The wanted poster thing is a good enough excuse even if you don't remember what exactly it was they did. I think the DM's intentions have been made pretty clear that they do not want Outcasts roaming the surface freely and wandering about settlements. I'd be all for a mechanical reinforcement too though where if any Outcast or Underdweller enters or nears surface settlements that they get attacked by hostile guard or paladin NPC's. I wouldn't mind seeing the same in the Underdark when elves decide they're gonna go on a shopping spree in Anundor or go "spy" on them.

[Durvayas]

The second reason is that underdarkers couldn't identify them either. Mechanically they spoke undercommon. So underdarkers who were fed up with humans loitering around would force them to speak undercommon to prove they were outcasts. This was also grating for everybody involved. Nobody could tell who was an outcast. Should they know who was? Of course! These were people so detestable they were cast out into the underdark! They were infamous enough that they were unwelcome everywhere.

The UD still can't identify outcasts. Which I get, because outcasts are supposed to be the vector for infiltration of the UD by harpers, by human spies, etc. And if UD races could see the tag, that would be basically impossible. So using the language to try, poorly, to figure out who is a local or not is both grating, and cumbersome. Notably, outcasts are ostensibly supposed to ALSO be the vector for the UD to infiltrate the surface, but with the advent of the tag, this is no longer an option. There is, and always will be, someone with a high enough spot to break the disguise and see the tag.

It puts outcasts in an odd spot, because as N00bdragon pointed out below, there IS no good reason still to not kill or enslave a human we don't know on sight. So the monsters have to do this odd dance to figure out is the human in front of us one of ours or not, and it does make the UD far too soft on them, and there are still a LOT of them(I still think too many, but I don't want to get into that in this thread) which exascerbates the problem. With deep imaskari, we at least know "Oh yea this one is one of ours.".

I'd rather see outcasts have a visible tag in their description, visible to BOTH UD and surface PCs, and have surface PCs be able to spoof said tag in their description though some mechanical means(unlock it with 60 bluff maybe?, with a DC for UD PCs to pierce the ruse) than maintain the status quo.

Please clear up the identity crisis, establish outcasts their niche, and allow some counterplay so that the ambiguity can be done away with except for edge cases.

What in-character reason do drow matrons have to direct him to go upstairs to get signed up for writ work instead of sacrificing him on the spot?

I feel like this may have been intended to be an extreme example, but if your first reaction for hostile RP (that isn't yet aggressive) is to PvP, you may be Doing It Wrong™. Then again, the drow matron could be somewhere on the scale of Verbally Abusive to Mildly Dismissive and we may still see complaining about it on the forums, so I suppose if they're going to whine anyway, the drow matron may just decide to kill them? The topic of outcasts is handled with kid gloves for some reason. As if they are the newbies of the Underdark. This is only ever going to upset the tone of the place every time, all the time. Which is strange.

These two have common opinions on this matter.

[Aodh Lazuli]

Rename the outcast tag to "underdark human".

Surface dwellers can tell because it looks like they're suffering a vitamin D deficiency.

Problem solved. No more "You're guilty of TOTALLY NON SPECIFIC crimes." issue.

[The GrumpyCat]

The UD still can't identify outcasts. Which I get, because outcasts are supposed to be the vector for infiltration of the UD by harpers, by human spies, etc. And if UD races could see the tag, that would be basically impossible. So using the language to try, poorly, to figure out who is a local or not is both grating, and cumbersome. Notably, outcasts are ostensibly supposed to ALSO be the vector for the UD to infiltrate the surface, but with the advent of the tag, this is no longer an option. There is, and always will be, someone with a high enough spot to break the disguise and see the tag.

Um, I'm sorry but this is definatly incorrect, in fact I'd posit that outcasts were introduced for exactly the opposite reason.

When Outcasts were first introduced, the Kill Scripts were still enforced in settlments, for all underdark races but not outcasts. This mean that, to start with at least, Outcasts were ideal to operate as spies for the underdark on the surface.

Indeed, when you look at the timeline when things were introduced, it was Undercommon that was brought in not long after and in response to the issue of Outcast humans being untrusted.

But with the removal of the Kill Script, the use of Outcasts for this very specific purpose - UD spies, became defunct. And without that Outcasts just became for people to both hang about with their UD buddies AND their surface buddies. An 'Incast' as it were. It was thought it neccesarly to enforce that outcasts on the surface arn't 'surfacers who can hang around in the UD' but 'People who have been cast out of society' People who you shouldn't trust, or entirely welcome. OK maybe not hate and loathe with the same vehemence as say, Drow, but not someone you'd neccesarly invite round to tea with your mother.

The problem is however how to enforce that on the surface when the surfacers have no way of telling who is an outcast and who isn't? We can't expect anyone to rp distrust or fear or concern about an outcast character when no one knows that your character is an outcast. So the tag was introduced.

I feel the best thing to next add is Irongron's statement on what Outcasts are, as it touches on what this thread is about and is generally an excellent outline on how Outcasts are treated.

I think there has always been a lack of clarity over what an outcast living in the Underdark is, how they are so widely known, and in what manner they should be treated by other characters, so I'll try to explain as best I can.

An outcast is an individual that for some reason is considered an 'undesirable' by the common folk living on Arelith. By modern terms the population of the isle is not far beyond that of a large town; one does not have to be a notorious world famous evil-doer to become a persona non grata in such an environment, especially on an island.

Yes, the reason for their status could be some terrible evil they commited, but it could equally be based on scandal, lineage, disfigurement, speculation, falsehood or even just outright discrimination.. In short - they are not obliged to be roleplayed as monsters, indeed their story could be a tragic one.

This update reflects that those integrated into the society of Arelith, and its common folk, will soon to come to learn of the common outlooks concerning some individuals. They are not expected to know the exact reasons why the outcast has that status, only that they are the subject of ugly rumour and are someone that has come to be, at best, shunned, or at worst, the target of pitch-fork wielding lynch mobs.

Outcasts, therefore, find themselves driven into the underworld, quite literally. They are not barred from the surface, or the Underdark, and have a largely unique status in being able to travese the two. The cost is that that they are not truly accepted in either, Underdarkers are most certainly prejudice towards surface races, while those on the surface are deeply suspicious of them.

I find the concept of an outcast a fun one to play. It requires one to build a story around the character, and to act as a bridge, in game, between the two worlds.

Overall the key point I would like to make to the players of those recognising an outcast is that you are NOT required to share the common view of an outcast. It may be you are sympathetic to their plight, or by virtue of your faith wish to minister to their community. It is, however, important to know that in doing so you go against the common will. Your neighbours might come to distrust you, NPC guards my abandon their posts in disgust, or settlement leaders petitioned to take action against the perceived threat.

For a long time now we have seen outcasts happily mingling outside the Nomad in one moment, while doing the same in the Underdark the next. It should not take me to say that is clearly against the founding concept of having selected the status of 'outcast'.

For myself this was a choice between mechanically limiting outcasts further by restricting portal and NPC access, or putting in the hands of the players to roleplay according to their own judgement and character concept.

Whether it is pirates, knights, harpers or outcasts, the description tag is not an ideal mechanism, but in all cases it exists to foster appropriate roleplay.

It should of course be clear from the very term 'Outcast' that a character is generally recognised as such.

Finally the point of 'losing' the outcast status. The problem here is that no matter what proof one produces, what great deeds are accomplished, it can be hard to shift public opinion. I would tentatively suggest that if a player earns the Epic Reputation Feat, and has a track record of heroism they should be able to petition the DMs for that status to be removed. Conversely DMS have it in their toolbag to place the outcast status on a surface PC whose misdeeds have reach the point where they find themselves universally reviled.

[Ecthelion]

The issue is as simple as the following :
It doesn't make any sense to know someone's exact appearance and physical feature and being able to identify him on first sight as being an outcast, without knowing somewhat of what he did, and potentially in half cases I would go as far as to knowing this person's name.

If you can identify said person so well it is either because you have seen the facts happening or the that said person is advised against, described and hunted. In both cases you would know what the outcast did. Not his exact motives or motivations, of course, but what his crimes are yes you would.

If you want an RL example it is basically as knowing Staline's face, daily clothes, walk pattern, and voice, but having no idea who he is what he does or did or what his name is. It may eventually happen, due to specific circumstances, but it is ridiculous to say that it would always be the case.

Thus, if the solution chosen is to expose Outcast by people knowing them, their base crimes should be common knowledge as such. I won't approach a mass-murderer is the same way thay I approach someone that just didn't wanted to pay taxes.

The example taken is of course meant to be extreme, but it applies to most criminals nowadays, I think. Either you don't know them at all either you know what they did. It's probably even more plausible to know what they did and their names than their appareances.

[The GrumpyCat]

Yeah, and that's a pretty valid point. The main counter argument to the current suggestion is simply that 'catagorizing' outcasts is perhaps a bit unfair and narrows a concept too much.

Ok here's a small suggestion of my own.

When a player first makes an outcast, before entering the game world they have to fill out a small area of text stating why their character is an outcast. They can only do this once and it is mandatory for playing an outcast. DMs can edit/remove it if it's obviously silly and abusive.

In every settlment there is a large board, or an npc - who has a list of active current outcasts. (Maybe outcast names get deleted after say, one OOC month of inactivity to save it getting too cluttered). This has the name of the outcast, and the paragraph of their crimes. It also has a 'picture' of them. (in an ideal would this would be their character description, but as that can be changed so much and so easily, or abused, this would probably be the one place on the server where *description of Joe Bob* would be a legit thing to use.)

Maybe this would replace the outcast tag? Or maybe it would work in addition to it. IDK. But it would allow a certain amount of cutomisation of the Outcast character, whilst also being a way for players to know whta said character did. The main drawback (other than scripting, I've no idea how hard this would be to do) is that it might put a bit more work on the shoulders of us DMs, to monitor such 'crime' descriptors for suitability.

[Ecthelion]

Yes, I think something like that would help and make sense.

And yeah, totally right, thus why it probably needs to be something very generic, and it might also be only one of their crimes amongst others that are kept more quiet. It should be the one thing that has made them actual outcast that is known, probably. There's plenty of room afterwards to discuss why they did so, what was the context and so forth.

Also I'm completly putting myself in the line of thinking that the staff said the issue of 'But I'm a good human boy' would be handled by making Outcasts known. There are probably others way are fixing the problem but since it seems to be the line taken I'm doing with it.

[Mr_Rieper]

Yeah, and that's a pretty valid point. The main counter argument to the current suggestion is simply that 'catagorizing' outcasts is perhaps a bit unfair and narrows a concept too much.

Ok here's a small suggestion of my own.

When a player first makes an outcast, before entering the game world they have to fill out a small area of text stating why their character is an outcast. They can only do this once and it is mandatory for playing an outcast. DMs can edit/remove it if it's obviously silly and abusive.

In every settlment there is a large board, or an npc - who has a list of active current outcasts. (Maybe outcast names get deleted after say, one OOC month of inactivity to save it getting too cluttered). This has the name of the outcast, and the paragraph of their crimes. It also has a 'picture' of them. (in an ideal would this would be their character description, but as that can be changed so much and so easily, or abused, this would probably be the one place on the server where *description of Joe Bob* would be a legit thing to use.)

Maybe this would replace the outcast tag? Or maybe it would work in addition to it. IDK. But it would allow a certain amount of cutomisation of the Outcast character, whilst also being a way for players to know whta said character did. The main drawback (other than scripting, I've no idea how hard this would be to do) is that it might put a bit more work on the shoulders of us DMs, to monitor such 'crime' descriptors for suitability.

Sounds complicated but would be a great way to make the Outcast function more of an in-character thing while still allowing surfacers to recognise them IF they pay enough attention. I like it.

Also the outcast would have a far lesser change of being recognised when away from populated areas, which makes sense. Or does it? Not sure. They were forced to live in the Underdark, after all. Not be a hermit somewhere in a remote region.

[Gillesbreton]

Yeah, and that's a pretty valid point. The main counter argument to the current suggestion is simply that 'catagorizing' outcasts is perhaps a bit unfair and narrows a concept too much.

Ok here's a small suggestion of my own.

When a player first makes an outcast, before entering the game world they have to fill out a small area of text stating why their character is an outcast. They can only do this once and it is mandatory for playing an outcast. DMs can edit/remove it if it's obviously silly and abusive.

In every settlment there is a large board, or an npc - who has a list of active current outcasts. (Maybe outcast names get deleted after say, one OOC month of inactivity to save it getting too cluttered). This has the name of the outcast, and the paragraph of their crimes. It also has a 'picture' of them. (in an ideal would this would be their character description, but as that can be changed so much and so easily, or abused, this would probably be the one place on the server where *description of Joe Bob* would be a legit thing to use.)

Maybe this would replace the outcast tag? Or maybe it would work in addition to it. IDK. But it would allow a certain amount of cutomisation of the Outcast character, whilst also being a way for players to know whta said character did. The main drawback (other than scripting, I've no idea how hard this would be to do) is that it might put a bit more work on the shoulders of us DMs, to monitor such 'crime' descriptors for suitability.

Grumpy Cat, I like this idea! It would act a bit like wanted posters in westerns/the old west, like cattle rustlers etc, with a $ bounty to their head. Not everyone would know every criminal on the street by just looking at them unless they were a lawman or had recently seen a wanted poster.

As for monitoring crime descriptors I'm 99% sure that the player-base will point out the unsuitable/non PG13 descriptors to the DM team for review if they see something out of order.

[Polokko]

I really like GrumpyCat's suggestion too. It puts a bit more work on settlement guards, having to check the board and remember people, and some of the less notable outcasts might be able to pass by as normal people unless a guard is really attentive or the character starts to make some noise.
It also fixes the issue of the underdarkers having no way of knowing for certain if someone is the criminal they claim to be, other than to use the hub portal or speak undercommon. There is the potential to ask for spies to go up and make copies of the list, and such.
One thing that I think would be even better, if towns could make additions to their own board. So if there is a character who is a bit of a criminal, but not exiled or an outcast of all surface society, they could still be an outcast of that town.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I am super super super skeptical and hesitant but any sort of regulation or codification of characters on creation.

I don't like the idea that there's impervious and omnipotent knowledge of just about anyone.

I would be very frightful of the precedent set by DM GrumpyCat's suggestion.

I don't like rules and boundaries on characters. This strikes me as yet another panic about a lack of Underdark identity, a longing for Udos Drox'un, and just a general sense that players can't really agree on what they want.

I think this problem could be solved if non-Outcast Underdarkers could take over Surface settlements. Which I think they should be able to, to be frank.

[Mr_Rieper]

I think this problem could be solved if non-Outcast Underdarkers could take over Surface settlements. Which I think they should be able to, to be frank.

... How, exactly?