Conflict and the surface.

[Griefmaker]

Somehow make communication via messenger more difficult. I'd say altogether get rid of the GSF:Illusion benefit of sending a speedy on the go. The fact it is so easy and efficient to mobilize disparate forces leads to problems.

A FULL stop of this ability, or the use of speedies, would be a real shame, because they add a lot of flavor to Arelith and if we didn't have them, a lot more meta tells would become absolutely required for people to actually meet up and conduct RP with one another, given the size and variability of Arelith.

That being said, I actually do like the intent behind this idea, and I think it would be really helpful if maybe a mechanic was put in place where every illusion or speedy you send out, makes the next one have a gradually increasing delay on arrival time. That delay wears off over time, like sobriety %, for instance, but the more you send out, the more overtaxed the speedy network is or your own magic is, so the message start getting sizeable delays accruing that begin to make it so they arrive as much as ten minutes later than they were sent. This might help reduce the ease of employing the "light the beacons" response.

There definitely is something to be said about limiting the flow of information. However, I do agree that it is a wonderful mechanic to have and a great QOL feature, so I would hate to see these limited or go away. Especially since we know that the moment these IG methods are limited, the OOC methods will take even more prevalence than they already do.

An idea to float for this is perhaps give all communication like this so speedy, wisp, GSF illusion, etc. a 5 RL minute delay before it is sent. That is not much time, but it is enough so that if Group A is spotted moving or doing something by Group B and Group B wants to inform someone, it will take time for both the information to be passed and a response made. Especially if one person is speedied and acts like a dispatch to message others.

The warning fires could be lit, but it will not lead to a very sudden appearance by fully prepared armies immediately after first contact, which gives the other party a chance to evade (if they know they are caught) or perhaps do their deed and head off, or whatever. Basically, it gives options for things to happen.

[-XXX-]

Ideally, a full surface settlement (elections, services, etc.) that is attached to the others by land where people don't go and exile you for RPing in. You won't be chased after for having "evil" summons out (but you will be asked to put them away). It wouldn't be as big of an issue if these places could exist within the current settlement (i.e. Cordor and nGuldorand eventually), but there is no chance of that happening with the way things currently are (this is pretty much what SST has said above).

This.
Arelith would greatly benefit from having more Lluskans and Athkatlas rather than Neverwinters and Waterdeeps IMO

[Royal Blood]

Ideally, a full surface settlement (elections, services, etc.) that is attached to the others by land where people don't go and exile you for RPing in. You won't be chased after for having "evil" summons out (but you will be asked to put them away). It wouldn't be as big of an issue if these places could exist within the current settlement (i.e. Cordor and nGuldorand eventually), but there is no chance of that happening with the way things currently are (this is pretty much what SST has said above).

This.
Arelith would greatly benefit from having more Lluskans and Athkatlas rather than Neverwinters and Waterdeeps IMO

I don't see why any of the current settlements couldn't be that way. Players just need to decide to move beyond the comfort.box and break away from status quo.

But I think that's what this thread allllways comes back to. Players making different choices. There's a ton of tools in the game players just need to use them differently.

[Scurvy Cur]

Ideally, a full surface settlement (elections, services, etc.) that is attached to the others by land where people don't go and exile you for RPing in. You won't be chased after for having "evil" summons out (but you will be asked to put them away). It wouldn't be as big of an issue if these places could exist within the current settlement (i.e. Cordor and nGuldorand eventually), but there is no chance of that happening with the way things currently are (this is pretty much what SST has said above).

This.
Arelith would greatly benefit from having more Lluskans and Athkatlas rather than Neverwinters and Waterdeeps IMO

I don't see why any of the current settlements couldn't be that way. Players just need to decide to move beyond the comfort.box and break away from status quo.

But I think that's what this thread allllways comes back to. Players making different choices. There's a ton of tools in the game players just need to use them differently.

The big thing that adding more settlements does is reduce the critical mass of players needed to take the smallest settlement over for ideas that aren't status-quo and make it less likely that groups with substantially homogeneous ideologies will take over every settlement on the surface. More settlements = more expressive venues for minority opinions/stances.

As a rough conceptual idea:

If you have 100 players, 20 of whom at any time want to do something against the status quo, evenly divided between 2 settlements, it's unlikely that they will be able to buck the status quo for any extensive length of time.

If you take the same 100 players and divide them evenly amongst 5-7 settlements, allowing for some self-segregation into coalitions of likeminded individuals, you're likely to wind up with at least 1 and possibly as many as 2 settlement(s) at any time that's significantly different in objectives and methods than the others.

Are the players with a minority opinion still likely to be outnumbered in any effort they undertake? Absolutely they are. But in one scenario, their only option is to bounce from the settlement arrangement entirely and face possible banishment everywhere. In the other, they can take a settlement for their own and enjoy the benefits thereof.

I think in the end, it's likely that giving a stage to non status quo opinions will require either a reduction in the meaningfulness of the settlement (either by reducing settlement powers or providing some mechanism for a faction to exercise settlement-like powers without a settlement of their own), or an expansion in the number of settlements.

Also to note Cordor does have a Besheba temple, but it's rarely mentioned (good characters also just tend to look at it as a quarter and not a quarter in an evil temple).

Desirable, scry proof quarters at that.

[Bunnysmack]

Ideally, a full surface settlement (elections, services, etc.) that is attached to the others by land where people don't go and exile you for RPing in. You won't be chased after for having "evil" summons out (but you will be asked to put them away). It wouldn't be as big of an issue if these places could exist within the current settlement (i.e. Cordor and nGuldorand eventually), but there is no chance of that happening with the way things currently are (this is pretty much what SST has said above).

This.
Arelith would greatly benefit from having more Lluskans and Athkatlas rather than Neverwinters and Waterdeeps IMO

I don't see why any of the current settlements couldn't be that way. Players just need to decide to move beyond the comfort.box and break away from status quo.

But I think that's what this thread allllways comes back to. Players making different choices. There's a ton of tools in the game players just need to use them differently.

To be fair, sometimes they have! I mean, there WAS a time about a year ago when Cordor had a chancellor that was openly pushing for a magical oligarchy that made all mundane people second class citizens, and the Dread Father of Bane was the High Justice.

Those periods of dark culture shift do occur.

[Xerah]

I don't see why any of the current settlements couldn't be that way. Players just need to decide to move beyond the comfort.box and break away from status quo.

But I think that's what this thread allllways comes back to. Players making different choices. There's a ton of tools in the game players just need to use them differently.

But that's not what happens. And DMs will always adjust the world to NPCs leaving as I've personally seen them do in Wharftown and the Arcane Tower to restrict this (it's probably happened elsewhere).

It's not really asking a whole lot, just a place that can be run with a morally ambiguous NPC that allows PCs to run it.

To be fair, sometimes they have! I mean, there WAS a time about a year ago when Cordor had a chancellor that was openly pushing for a magical oligarchy that made all mundane people second class citizens, and the Dread Father of Bane was the High Justice.

Those periods of dark culture shift do occur.

Gasp! Who would do such a thing?

[Queen Titania]

NPCs leave only for the extreme situation of being welcoming to drow or monsters. We wouldn't do this for a Banite ruler or Warlock, etc.

[CorsicanDoge]

...are warlocks, blackguards and pale masters supposed to be only playable in the UD now?
Imagine making a totem druid and being told "do not summon creatures or animal companions ever" - that's the spot these classes are in right now.

Honestly? Maybe, I wouldn't play a druid in the UD with the sheer amount of outsiders in the hub, use good-aligned summons, or a paladin for that matter. I'd only play those classes on the surface if I intended to make trouble and be shunted by PC governments at every turn and I'd build accordingly. But I can foresee a scenario where a new player doesn't know any better.

[Xerah]

NPCs leave only for the extreme situation of being welcoming to drow or monsters. We wouldn't do this for a Banite ruler or Warlock, etc.

Yes, I may have been incorrect about that. I do remember the "good" drow being the reason for the issues in the Arcane Tower, and the Wharftown stuff might have been because of bombarding (but also because there were goblins there too, I believe before that).

That said, it is something that has shaped my perceptions of what would be "okay" in a high-level sense.

[-XXX-]

If you have 100 players, 20 of whom at any time want to do something against the status quo...

I always thought that the status quo was there because out of every 100 players 20 were aggressively pursuing an agenda and the rest simply conformed out of the fear of being cancelled by scheming cliques of socializers.

I don't think that I entirely agree with the rest of your assessment either. More settlements won't help IMO - Wharftown has literally been rebuilt in the shadow plane... and it's empty most of the time.
Players naturally gravitate toward places where others gather and things are happening.
It all boils down to who is controlling the spotlight, how it is being used and to what end. Problems start occurring whenever the the spotlight is used to shut down others instead of being shared.


I think that the settlements themselves are being discussed (at least for my part), because they can perfectly communicate the vibe of the setting through their NPCs and the environment in general.
Additionally, the player base shows signs of stubborn refusal of any hints that the good aligned spiritual folk should not expect to have a mandate to be calling the shots fresh off the boat by default (temple of the Triad being kicked out of Cordor, replaced by a neutral order, temple of an evil deity being added - these are just the most resounding ones off the top of my head).

I don't think that we need more settlements. In my opinion the team should double down in their efforts to have the existing ones communicate their vision of the setting more clearly.

Honestly? Maybe, I wouldn't play a druid in the UD with the sheer amount of outsiders in the hub, use good-aligned summons, or a paladin for that matter. I'd only play those classes on the surface if I intended to make trouble and be shunted by PC governments at every turn and I'd build accordingly. But I can foresee a scenario where a new player doesn't know any better.

There's an entire druidic theme built into the underdark module. It's perfectly possible (if not even encouraged) to play a druid there.
Additionally, can we list the good aligned summons please? There's the celestial stream and... that's it.
Furthermore, I bet that it'd be possible to even use those in the UD if you wanted - a "don't let my slave bother you" throwaway line comes to mind as one of the plausible explanations.

Additionally, what is so preposterous about the notion that somebody might want to play a morally questionable character without being shoved into the Underdark? That really isn't a unique character concept like... say "the paladin of Devil's Table"

[CorsicanDoge]

Yeah, it's just the celestial summon.

There's nothing wrong with a morally questionable character on the surface but warlocks, palemasters, and blackguards are unrepentantly evil characters and while they can operate on the surface, they do need to utilize the disguise feature and figure ways to skirt the law.

Maybe Andunor would let you get away with a celestial because in general there's less busybodies. There's not really that many in game bureaucrats or player guards for that matter in that city.

[-XXX-]

Yeah, it's just the celestial summon.

There's nothing wrong with a morally questionable character but warlocks, palemasters, and blackguards are unrepentantly evil characters and while they can operate on the surface, they do need to utilize the disguise feature and figure way to skirt the law.

The disguise feature is supposed to fail sooner or later by design. Often all it takes is one lost PvP encounter. Where do you go from there?

[CorsicanDoge]

Yeah, it's just the celestial summon.

There's nothing wrong with a morally questionable character but warlocks, palemasters, and blackguards are unrepentantly evil characters and while they can operate on the surface, they do need to utilize the disguise feature and figure way to skirt the law.

The disguise feature is supposed to fail sooner or later by design. Often all it takes is one lost PvP encounter. Where do you go from there?

Utilize sewers, go at odd hours, avoid the square, have enough bluff to get past the guards, compile a list of people that spot you and avoid them. I played a drow on the surface and it's pretty damn inconvenient but you're given enough tools so you can operate. Now whether or not people will talk to you or you'll get anywhere in politics I doubt.

But yes, it'd be easier to play a warlock or blackguard in the Underdark.

[Mattamue]

How many exiles and pariahs are there currently active? Historically? How many would be a problem? Is this actually a problem?

[Scurvy Cur]

If you have 100 players, 20 of whom at any time want to do something against the status quo...

I don't think that I entirely agree with the rest of your assessment either. More settlements won't help IMO - Wharftown has literally been rebuilt in the shadow plane... and it's empty most of the time.

It's also not a settlement though. To clarify, a settlement is a place with mechanical government functions. It is not enough simply to have a collection of quarters, shops, other amenities. Shadow Wharftown isn't a settlement. Neither is Sib, nor is the RH, nor is the Banite temple, despite having merchants/shops/quarters/npcs.

[Gouge Away]

How many exiles and pariahs are there currently active? Historically? How many would be a problem? Is this actually a problem?

I don't think that number really matters. It wouldn't measure the lost opportunities from those who want to try a concept that's morally dubious but don't because Arelith isn't really set up to support that kind of RP, which IMO is the real loss.

[Mattamue]

How many exiles and pariahs are there currently active? Historically? How many would be a problem? Is this actually a problem?

I don't think that number really matters. It wouldn't measure the lost opportunities from those who want to try a concept that's morally dubious but don't because Arelith isn't really set up to support that kind of RP, which IMO is the real loss.

I don't know if the number matter matters either. I want know just what the numbers are. Then we can have a discussion about the impact.

If you're going to argue that literally one pariah matters then I don't even know what to say. At that point take all agency away from players and give it to DMs. I wouldn't be against that.

[-XXX-]

How many exiles and pariahs are there currently active? Historically? How many would be a problem? Is this actually a problem?

I don't think that number really matters. It wouldn't measure the lost opportunities from those who want to try a concept that's morally dubious but don't because Arelith isn't really set up to support that kind of RP, which IMO is the real loss.

I don't know if the number matter matters either. I want know just what the numbers are. Then we can have a discussion about the impact.

If you're going to argue that literally one pariah matters then I don't even know what to say. At that point take all agency away from players and give it to DMs. I wouldn't be against that.

Most settlements don't even bother singling out individuals with pariahs anymore, they just put up blanket markers stating that "we don't want X here", then proceed to kick out or killbash anyone who's been identified/painted as such. For the most part the exile's used only scarcely as it costs resources.
That pretty much means that you could find the numbers you are asking for somewhere here - viewtopic.php?f=23&p=248556#p248556

Utilize sewers, go at odd hours, avoid the square, have enough bluff to get past the guards, compile a list of people that spot you and avoid them. I played a drow on the surface and it's pretty damn inconvenient but you're given enough tools so you can operate. Now whether or not people will talk to you or you'll get anywhere in politics I doubt.

But yes, it'd be easier to play a warlock or blackguard in the Underdark.

People not talking to your character on an RP server can be seen as a big deal. And that was my point - you can't expect to have meaningful conflict while shoving all the characters who don't fit the mould into the Underdark, on some pile that's out of sight.

[Mattamue]

That pretty much means that you could find the numbers you are asking for somewhere here - viewtopic.php?f=23&p=248556#p248556

No, the numbers for exile and pariah are not in the last player counts.

[-XXX-]

That pretty much means that you could find the numbers you are asking for somewhere here - viewtopic.php?f=23&p=248556#p248556

No, the numbers for exile and pariah are not in the last player counts.

Yes, they are - they list all warlocks, blackguards and pale masters and those are considered pariah in every surface settlement. You wanted data, there's your data.

[mirvv]

(due the reclosing of the Suggestion part i cannot add there my idea there)

1, So i think the exile/pariah system (with the whole resource system) should be reworked. I think citizens should get buffs within the district in the rate of the resource spending to show the support and exiled-pariahs should get negates in the same rate which shown the unseen mass of citizenry hostile actions (dung thrown, no service etc) THO, removing them from a district is not a solution, the players should block and remove them with rp (aaand pvp if needs). Also i think DMs should have the power (as Hub master) to evict player property not other players, after players presented the details of the conflict.

2, Also raids, conflict in a major scale i think need a DM supervision more than it is now, as a absolute judge in the end resolution of the conflict. I do love Stellaris war system which allow you to set goals for your campaign, (just an example a very well made war system), humilitaion (triggering election), loot (for city resources), lands to take...etc. I think in these conflicts and most conflict the objective side is missing, who can oversee both side actions and states what is happend, since as stated before both side decide victory from an event is not improving the conflict. i know its hard and cannot put mechnical points in the rp or the actions of players, tho some frame system as guidance would be nice to be on the same board when conflict arise. Guidlines for players to conflicts.

3, the stagnation is purely can be seen in Andunor too. (i wont go into the cultural changes of humans around in mass) Tho you wont be making mess in the Only City Is Around too much, especially not making mess with the districts, which kinda act mostly as on surface, coordinated together to ban+exile those elements who arent really plays the current Andunor's alignement of LE/TN. And i dont have the magic solution for this one. And as I cna see this is killing the most conflicts becase not many mess up things there, since the risk and reward is not worth it, and the "rp" is short lived "fame" in the city. So everyone is nice to everyone in an underdark trade city. Band up when surfacers come, or making raids to surface but there are no huge goals to reach.

In summary i would like to see more DM / Story driven events, than player made stories mostly weightless. (yes... Wharftown was destroyed due player driven actions, i know). For example a group/settlement discuss a goal with DMs and they set the conditions which need to reach that goal, and if they succeed than that could - would change the server. Right now i dont see point to wage war due the stagnation and events effects which i dont really see after. Personally i would not mind, like in talbetop, some more DM involvement into the actions, story ark of the server. (talking from an Underdark perspective where i (!) did not see, sadly, major DM led events in my timezone/play times).

[CNS]

A suggestion looking for feedback.

I'm using Cordor as an example here, not trying to specifically single it out; just because most people are likely most familier with it.

On one hand we have dev created methods of dealing with unwanted individuals in a settlement, pariah and exile. They have rules around them updated and enforced by the DM team and, exile at least, has a cost.

On the other we have a player run system of auto-pariah and 'persona non-grata (PNG)' where a confusing version of the above is applied to whole groups of players based on their class or diety outside of the rules above and without cost.

Now, its not exactly the same, obviously the NPC's wont care a whit about PNG because its a player creation and not coded. There's also some wording around how it only means the laws of cordor wont be used to protect you, but in reality it means you can be killed on sight if the guards feel like it and no one will suffer any IC consequences. All three are basically varying levels of 'don't come here we don't want you'.

So what we've in effect ended up with is a player enforced system of pariah and exile that has no cost to a settlement, requires no (but being fair, doesn't perclude) interesting RP with someone, and exists as a blanket pariah applied to not only whole groups of characters but also characters that haven't even been created yet.

The suggestion would be to do away with things like that, we have a system for this that exists and players should use it and DM's should disallow creative ways to circumvent it. I'd probably also follow it up with watch on the length of settlement pariah lists after a change like this and add a (smaller than exile) cost if they start getting long.

Being an exclusive city should come with a cost, you're turning away people and that comes with a cost to the running of a city. There's a reason cities in lore don't just send around a paladin squad detecting evil on everyone and turf out anyone that doesn't pass the test, cities care about functioning, feeding their people, making money through trade and taxes and so on far more than being purer than pure. It should be a difficult balancing act, citites across the realms struggle with where exactly the draw the line.

Secondly, we I feel we have an issue of reach.

If we have a goodly government of Cordor and a necromancer starts to raise undead and bring them into the city or its farmlands or the necromancer starts raiding Cordorian graves then the government and guard acting agaisnt that person is fair game. I think most people would agree with that.

Compare this with a necromancer who is raising some undead on a different island hundreds of miles away in an orc filled desert but who respects the laws of a city when he enters it.

Should they be treated exactly the same? They currently are, give or take.

Should the second necromancer, even if observed by someone the city trusts, be barred from the city? Barred from every other surface city? To me it feels like over-reach. Shunned, disliked and watched, sure. Hated and maybe even hunted by certain Paladins while out in those Orc infested deserts, maybe. But shut out of all society? To me it seems a bit much.

Why does Cordor the city care what happens in a desert 100's of miles away when the person follows the cities rules, keeps out of trouble in its borders and spends his gold as good as the next person.

It sometimes currently feels like there is a massive big-brother style spy and safety net over the islands, or 'Team Axehold World Police' to put a monkier on it.

To be clear I'm not blaming any individual, group, (IC or OOC) Dm or Dev for us being where we are. I think the situation has arisen from a whole bunch of small things over the years and has created a bit of a systemic issue.

[-XXX-]

I hinted at the same few pages back.

Just because a faction can effortlessly PvP selected individuals out of a settlement, doesn't mean that they should be allowed to conserve resources as a result.

Being forced to use the mechanics designed for this and being subjected to the upkeep costs attached to them makes sure that the players who wield them periodically review the list of unwanted names, all while providing objective reasons for the bad guys to be given additional chances at redemption ...or more nefarious plots (srsly, why not?!).


By opting for the "let's just RP them being kicked out and PvP them whenever they show up" route, the effective exile can be maintained indeffinitely without anyone having to pay any real attention to those characters ever again.
Under these conditions the players are forced to invent excuses why individual cases need to be reviewed and... the suspicions of OOC favouritism playing into this (as has also been outlined in this thread) are not such a big leap going from there.

[torugor]

Before posting let me start saying it is not complaint...it is a suggestion.

My personal experience shows that its not only the pariah/exile system that is problematic. Because even if you are not pariah or exile, players will ask you to leave a place if they consider you a threat. And they wont stop on asking...they will go to the last consequence.

Think of the real world. You see a man hobbo in the streets. you dont like his presence there because he stinks and he might give you a desease and you can smell him, he might want to rob you.... You want him GONE.

In a real world scenario you would ask a guard to send him to either a prision or a homeless shelter. And there the hobbo will have a conversation with a public agent to solve his situation. Neither the guard or you will go and just kill the hobbo. Because killing the hobbo is a much more offensive thing. Killing is supposed to be a real bad thing and have real bad consequences. Heck even there is policies against the capital punishment. My country dont allow it. I know some states in US and other countries have it..but it is not done lightly.

By going ingame and seeing that a character can be killed for being in the wrong place instead of being sent to the authorities to solve any issue...it gives a sence that the game is like far west. Its a no man's land. Anyone can make justisce with his own hands. And it goes to the idea that if they can do it...i can do it as well. So any pitty conflict is solved with death. Because death itself has not the meaning we have in real world. Death is not permanent is no great loss...its just a mild punishment.

So it all ended with the game mechanics really dictating how the ingame relashionship is. And here is the great problem. There is not a real rule to rp death. It is loose each character can rp it the way they want. People have spoken to me to get the Mark of Despair if i want to rp death. This is not right. Because if i get the mark of dispair to rp it as severe as i want...and the other guy dont have it...he will have an advantage ingame to me. He dont care about killing people. For him death means nothing. Ending my life is meaningless because death has no great consequence. He is what we call in the real world as a psycopath but with the fact that no-one will punish him. The social structure of the game will rewards psycopathy, people will call him a hero. But for me it will end a long investment in role-play and character development.

But if i have the mark on me and escape near death..go back and kill my aggressor him, it has not the same weight because he will just come back...pehaps interested to kill me and end my life for good. The mark of dispair only gives power to those who dont rp death over those who rp it. That being said here is my answer to those who told me i should get a mark of dispair: "I will gladly accept a mark of dispair IF it is only triggered by other characters with mark of dispair" because that would make the game mechanics equal to both. fair game.

Death has to have the same consequence for all. And if death has the same meaning ingame as it is in our real world....killing someone...even if you dont like it...must have consequences as well. I mean it by law. I could give good and bad examples but better to just say that if someone kills other person inside a settlement...the killer should be punished severelly and the killed should receive conpensation. The game gives the option to subdue and to send to the prision which has space for really good rp...why kill inside a city?

It is up to the settlement leaders to make sure the law of their cities count. And not always they count. And if they dont count by the settlement leaders i think the DMs should enforce the laws. Its up for DMs to roleplay the npcs and they should have a say when the laws of their cities are not followed. When laws are broken constantly it brings revolts to people.

[Ninjimmy]

^
The only problem I see with prison RP, and also the only reason I've never bothered doing anything worth getting jailed for, is either you get IRL bored stuck in a room and log until the end of your sentence (which is pretty much the exact same punishment as death only with LESS agency so it's arguably worse) or you can escape. Escape sounds more fun (ranks in OL and Stealth are even more interesting!) but again, trivialises the punishment a bit since any Rogue passed lvl 15 is probably going to be unrestrainable.

I can't see a way for it to be fun unless there's a more robust jail system than I'm aware of.

And, of course, talking about killing being a big deal IG, the other side of the punishment coin is that in the real world very few of us have killed large number of sentient lifeforms and I don't think there's an adventurer at this point who hasn't ended at least one life. Really, it's a testement to the power of law that MORE things aren't solved by murder.

(Actually, sidebar of that, can Necromancers use actual player corpses to bring back Undead?
That would be a pretty awesome ESF to animate a "PlayerName Undead" but I can also see it being majorly problematic for griefing and would only lead to Necromancers being brutalised with greater frequency)

Having said that... maybe better detainment and jail options would be good? Maybe an item that teleports an accused to a "Prison" location, like Maze. I mean, we already have Dis, Shadow Wharftown, Skal and Sibayad operating under what I would call "Prison Rules", may as well have an actual prison to do it in too.

What with the Underdark's "sacrifice" thing and the recent event with Ikarus, they really highlighted that capture/detainment RP can lead to great managed conflicts (plus, I have at least one toon that would definitely try and break out of a superjail just to show he can)