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

[Sea Shanties]

I’d be for removing Outcast as a starting option, perhaps expanding possibilities to start in Sibiyad and Sencliff as a shady type whether pirate or not.

Leave slave as a possibility to start in the Underdark as a surfacer and allow outcast status as a light at the end of the tunnel if slaves work their way up to earn it. Hopeful outcasts could possibly have writs like pirates to that they have to complete. I’d also say open it up to more non-humans, no reason a demented gnome couldn’t be an outcast too.

[Drowble Oh Seven]

Edit: Went back and read Grumpy's post. Should've done that first. Ignore the opinion below! Consider me convinced (if still disinclined towards mechanical pigeonholing). Grumpy's suggestion gives a way for outcasts to be identified and their crimes known by PCs who care to investigate, while not shovelling that knowledge on everyone. It creates suitable moments of revelation when you return to the city after an odd meeting; and recognise a description on the wall. 10/10, fully approve.

--

I'm way off over on the other side of this argument. I don't think there should be outcast tags in the description at all. I don't think there should be a way to visually identify an outcast (or the champion's belt, or the radiant heart, and so on).

PC reputations should be the result of that PC's actions; rather than being the result of mechanics. You want to know who's off playing nice with the drow? Go, send spies! Look! Take chances! Make mistakes! Get messy! A PC that's behaving suitably abominably should eventually build a reputation for it, with law-enforcement PCs assembling dossiers, issuing bounties, and so on (a settlement-supported bounty system, that flagged in a PC's description would be something I'd support). I feel just handing that information out cheapens things for both sides - the person who genuinely wants to play someone awful, and the PCs who want to expose them.

The downside is that; yes, you'll have people who just use Outcast to go anywhere. But I feel that's a worthy trade for creating freedom for people who do embrace the role and play it to its fullest.

It's an opinion I find myself holding whenever these debates come up; whether it be warlock, or pale master, or some other thing where we're hoping to wrestle good RP out by wrangling mechanically. I will cheerfully wade through a hundred go-anywhere outcasts for the joy of the plotline with the one who does it well - the revelation, the picking at hidden, horrific deeds. Give me intrigue, give me background, give me implication.

Don't give me a plotline on a plate.

[RedGiant]

I have a somewhat radical addition to all of this (maybe even a step further than what Sea Shanties suggests). We've all seen the grave problems with the outcast and slave systems, mostly centering on the low to no consequence, skip the light fantastic, go anywhere RP (or lack thereof). The staff has continually ratcheted down both systems to discourage this, from property ownership restrictions to tags to whatever is next.

Most old UD players would also freely admit there have been waaay too many surfacers below, so many that often times surface dwelling races seem to outnumber you in your own environs.

Here is my radical bit. Maybe its time to lock these options behind reward walls to ensure folks are committed to the concepts as the staff has articulated them? Moreover, maybe its time to make the slavery background a permanent condition? Keep the "prison collars" for temp slavery and all that RP, but if you choose life as a born slave, you are forever committing to it. These options don't have to be high on the reward list, but I think a true outcast (normal reward) should be rarer than a common slave (minor reward).

While these ideas are abit off OP, I think players have the tools already with the ability to edit character description to solve the OPs main gripe...if they so choose. (Though I like the tag and support any mechanical method of publicizing outcast crimes we might come up with.) What we need more than this, IMO, are players thoroughly invested in what it means either to be an outcast or to be a slave. These ideas are meant in that spirit.

This will also please old UD players who might welcome a tad tamping down of the surface stampede.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Assuming this is all about swarming a town and voting in a UD-race leader, this also seems like it's kind of abusing the mechanics of the election system. If a bunch of drow showed up in Cordor, mass-registered to vote with Gerald, and then elected some matron as Chancellor, I don't see why anyone, government officials included, would even comply. Whoever's counting the ballots would almost certainly be given leave to just toss out any ballots voting for the drow matron, and any other attempts to take power would be met with violence. I really don't see anything like this being anything more than a UD raid where, once the surface PCs are killed, the raiders just hang around in the settlement for a while until they get driven out.

Like I said once before, I think that seems like a fun little plot. Goblins raid Bendir Dale and, not being the brightest race on Faerun, start trying to run the place, only to very quickly go scurrying for their caves when it becomes apparent that the rest of the surface doesn't take kindly to monsters taking over settlements.

But as far as taking over a settlement for the long term? The only way I can imagine it working is by DM/mechanical enforcement.

You're hitting on precisely the problem, Subutai.

Why shouldn't a mass drow covert operation cripple Cordor? Why can't they orchestrate an electorate to vote for them? Why isn't this possible? Why can't we have a drow house take up the Chancellory?

The line of thinking that this mass of NPCs who somehow prop up PC action have their own biases and preferences is problematic.

The whole bureaucracy should be totally neutral. They shouldn't even ask questions.

You're imposing a view point on this unseen mass of unseen NPCs. We can't use them for our convenience. Let the DMs handle their perspectives. That's not our job. This is player-run, remember? NPCs don't decide anything on Arelith - at least, they shouldn't.

Maybe we'll disagree on this, but in general, people really like to come up with all kinds of excuses. Honestly, it's not a good sign. Everything should be an open door - and if it happens, it happens.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to not expect the masses of NPC's to revolt once they realize they're putting a drow in power. If drow somehow orchestrated this move, and anyone found out about it, the common people who use drow as monsters to scare their children with would, at bare minimum, refuse to acknowledge the election as legitimate.

Now- you have a point that it is not my purview as a player to dictate what the NPC's will do- but it is my responsibility as a player to consider the likely reactions of the NPCs around me, which is why I can't blow up the bank in Cordor without having a DM around - because it's in poor taste to ignore the likely outrage of the masses of NPC's and guards will go if I do such a thing.

Wanting most things to be on the table is fine- when you want drow to be okay in a surface city- even further, for them to execute a hostile takeover, in your example- you get Wharftown. (My personal prediction is that Sencliff is the next Wharftown, but so is Myon, and it crash-lands where Wharftown used to be )

We may disagree on whether or not this is good for the server, but that is the established setting, and while I'm all for changing the status quo and shaking things up, I don't think it should be shoe-horned into the narrative with blinders to the reactions of the masses, whom happen to include military guard forces that can be just as strong as our own characters.

[Sea Shanties]

This is a small community (big for NWN, but still pretty small) and a lot of races and/or factions are underplayed in proportion to how populous and powerful they should be in the world. Hin are a medium-popularity race for example but they could be easily displaced from Bendir if anyone could seize power and certain other much more popular factions decided they wanted to. That's not going to make people want to roll up more hin and level them to epics so they can increase the numbers and try rescue the town, if anything it's going to turn existing hin players away and steer more people to the winners.

I don't think the majority should always have the upper hand in every single case when it comes to PCs. The numbers will just never be there for anyone but the top races and factions.

[The GrumpyCat]

Small apology, this is a bit off topic. It is mostly a response to Seven's thoughts reguarding allowing monsterous races to take over surface settlments. To signify that this really isn't to do with what's being spoken about, I'll put it under a spoiler tag. Anyone interested can look, those not please flick onto the posts actually to do with the topic in question...


The thing that keeps Drow out of surface settlments, ICly, that allows us to weave actual stories out of that, is the reaciton of the npcs.

We try to be pretty relaxed about what NPCs would and would not do, but we introduce limits in extreme situations. Raids being one obvious one, and monsters being another.

Get rid of npc reactions to monsterous races? You think that'd result in 'a evil take over?' No. You'd see Drow in Cordor sure. They'd be out there snogging surface elves whilst gnoll puppies ran yipping happily down the street, and Kobolds skipped arm in arm with halflings.
Since the killscripts have been removed, I'd say we've had far, far more issues with underdarkers 'being nice' to surfacers and trying to make kissy with them than we have had of actual 'raids'.

NPCs are part of the story. Should they be leading it? No, not generally, but they should exist to provide some boundries in which the story can happen.

If the underdarkers ever openly took over a settlment then Subuti is right - it would likely be due to a violent attack because it's what makes the most sense In Character anyway, and because it can be overseen and balenced by the DM team and, more importantly, by the Dev team.

Because such an action, either the creation of or the taking over of, would have to be considered in the sense of larger server balence. Sure, having Cordor taken over by Kobolds sounds awsome, but it's not so awsome if you're a brand new player to Arelith, you log on and immedatly your pc is murdered.

It doesn't mean it can never happen. But it does mean that it would need to be considered carefully before happening.

[Queen Titania]

This is almost like two topics now:

To the original post though:

I think the choice should be a mechanical thing, I.E., you pick the reason at character creation and that is put on your character for life. They can be general enough for some creative detailing, but would definitely help answer the question of "why".

If it is not going to be mechanical, then it should not be mandatory for a player to write it.

[RapidReload]

I've been under the impression that when you inspect someone it is just like looking at someone in real life. You'll see their eye color, some scars, and their basic description, but how would you be able to tell someone's life story just by looking at them?

[Ecthelion]

I've been under the impression that when you inspect someone it is just like looking at someone in real life. You'll see their eye color, some scars, and their basic description, but how would you be able to tell someone's life story just by looking at them?

That's correct. The opinion the staff voiced with the previous update [The one putting the tag in], is that by choosing an Outcast you agree that your crimes are widely known on Arelith's Isle, enough so that people know you have commited crimes. Going from that fact, it makes sense that you would know what the crimes are aswell.

Agreed with Titania. If it's not mechanical people won't do it and that'll be on DM's hands to take care of all the ones that didn't do it.

[Baseili]

I reckon the examine window covers quite a broad range of info, typically aspects of a character that can't be displayed by limits of the game itself which can include meta knowledge at times such as recognising a deity's symbol or a specific mark, usually to give information that characters would know but we as players wouldn't (unless you have a great depth of D&D knowledge of course).

It wouldn't be a case of knowing the life story of an Outcast but a case of recognising someone whose picture, name and appearance are on the town posterboard in regular view and reacting according.

[Gillesbreton]

My main concern with the current system is that it makes RP poorer on both sides of the equation and I know many has seen some awful/dreadful RP spawn from the tag in the description. I had been off Arelith during the update for a few months and when I returned I truly thought someone was meta-gaming the crap out of my outcast character and I reported it. I wont name names but even the DM said this in regards to the RP: "Was this high quality RP? Probably not, and this isn't someone we'd award a 30 to."

Which is why I think Grumpy Cat's suggestion is great, because it would require lawmen/women to do some actual police work and investigation, or remember a name from the board, something I feel has been taken away from guards. At the moment its more akin to racial profiling: "This person has a tag, I don't know what they did but they must be detained."

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

*snip*At the moment its more akin to racial profiling: "This person has a tag, I don't know what they did but they must be detained."*snip*

I'm isolating this part of the the post because I disagree that this is a negative thing. In the real world, it is, and it shouldn't be done.

This isn't the real world. A town guard that doesn't racially profile is bad at their job. No one has federally acknowledged rights or civil liberties. The right to a trial is only as real as the currently sitting government in a settlement allows it to be.

[Kuma]

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.

sweet mercy no

this is the description tag thing taken to an insane level that can do nothing but annihilate nuance.

i have no suggestion to replace this, because i don't think it needs replacing, merely policing.

edit: actually, my suggestion is, this would work great if conducted by players instead of being an automatic roll-call.

[Red Ropes]

I think instead if settlements had IG populating "WANTED" boards somewhere that casually, randomly updated IG with people's real, base names they could probably get rid of the tag. You could maybe combine this with some illicit deed that is chosen from a list at creation or set up IG when you naturally become one. Outcasts should wear a 'mark of shame' of reputation that does not end and there should always be a reason to distrust them - otherwise they are the same as any other human or horc in the UD.

(Plus the non-player start outcasts in uncommon races could use some nice Arelith specific ones.)

WANTED DAVE BADMEN
FOR: CHILD SACRIFICE

The other thing too is they need to set up surface NPCs to not react violently, but, react to outcasts and monstrous races with dialogue that shuts down interaction. While tedious it is very easy to create race / class / whatever checks.

It can be simple as;

"I d-don't serve your kind!"

"Help, guards!"

"Dark elves, aaaa!"

"Wait, I know you.. you're that bad man!"

This combined with a need to /disguise properly/ creates an inherent sort of low key function while maintaining atmosphere. It gets rid of tourism and "cute and cuddly monsters" hanging out places, without a need for the return of murder scripts. You can even set up NPCs that 'spot' players of particular races / notoriety start outing them, shouting and hooting.

While it might make sense that some NPCs like guards might go hostile - I think stuff like that should be left to DMs and settlement leaders / factions to deal with as NPCs are boring and prone to mistakes. Also it'd probably result in gentle and new folk going on mass killings and nobody got time for that.

[Might-N-Magic]

I don't understand why they're not the same as everything else. Slaves have (slave) by their name, why wouldn't outcasts be the same? As a player of multiple underdarkers, it's extremely irritating to see these random surfacers around and not be able to tell if they belong in your community or if they're spies.

Outcasts and exiles typically get branded or tattooed for their crimes. You don't do something egregeious enough to be punted from society without some sort of permanent record to tell everybody else.

[Ebonstar]

I don't understand why they're not the same as everything else. Slaves have (slave) by their name, why wouldn't outcasts be the same? As a player of multiple underdarkers, it's extremely irritating to see these random surfacers around and not be able to tell if they belong in your community or if they're spies.

Outcasts and exiles typically get branded or tattooed for their crimes. You don't do something egregeious enough to be punted from society without some sort of permanent record to tell everybody else.

they are all spies

[Might-N-Magic]

they are all spies

(starts killing them all and gets reported within minutes, rants again how this Underdark sucks)

[Beard Master Flex]

I don't mind the Outcast tag. Before it I'd put something in the description (That went ignored 99% of the time) alluding to the character as an outcast.

Now the Outcast tag is probably ignored 90% of the time. (How many characters are actually in the settlement system anyway? I've entirely ignored that mechanic in my decade here heh)

When its not ignored it goes into two directions usually:

1. Players subtly or overtly recognizing my character through deed, inferred, literal -or my favorite, completely improved on their own!- and acting with general distrust or hostility that escalates or redirects whatever else was going on before. (Good, fun; why I play an Outcast!)

2. The poorer outcome is to be involved in RP and someone comes zooming over to you because they happened to examine you from across the map and then say something along the lines of "I recognize your tattoos Underdarker, we fight now!" and then that's kind of that. None of that has ever resulted in any actual conflict though, beyond characters I've already been RPing with awkwardly ignoring it until it goes away because its not really interesting.

I guess I don't really have any constructive feedback other then to say its the best we can probably do maybe? Before the tag outcome 2 absolutely never happened, which was great, but at the same time option 1 never happened either, which is boring and kind of made it seem like the Outcast wasn't even a thing, which was lame.

TLDR; I echo Irongron and Grumpy Cat's stance. I do really wish that the "Outcast" and "Underdarker" were more separate in association in a meta sense. It really kind of rains on a lot of potentially cool and diverse Outcast backgrounds and I enjoy Irongron's notion of Outcasts not just being criminals but lepers, the disgraced (like some researcher who famously chose his life's work over the life of his colleagues on some public stage everyone remembers and hates him for), people of hated families etc... its just more interesting then ~Human Underdarker~