On the way to work I was thinking about how much time waisted by GMs when dealing with petty issues such as grave robbing, pvp and just plain harrassment from bored, immature players. So I was wonder of a way that could finally discourage players from doing such things.

Lock outs can be effective, but I was wonder what could be done in-game that could possible deter players from being . . . . well snerts. Then I thought about the Scarlett Letter. The movie where this gal disgraced her town and was forced to where a Scarlett letter on herself. The towns people were then allowed to shun and even ridule her.

What if problem people where given a sort of brand that would in effect highlight them (maybe in a bright pink). In essense giving everyone the right to say or maybe even do what we want to said person.

So let's say problem Paladin has a history of warnings and just plain enjoys killing folks. Instead of lockout (might as well make a profit with the snert and let them keep their account) make them outcast of society so folks can kill, attack and shun without repercussions. Even gaurds could harass or thug them if they wonder in town.

So Problem Paladin will always have to be on gaurd because if even shows up in town, this would in effect give everyone consent to attack him. Empaths would be hesitant to heal them. Clerics hesitant to raise them. And this person would face something worse than a 30 day lock out.

Walking.

Yup. This would put the justice system in the hands of the people and no amount of reporting this invidual would do would help. It's a free for all. That would make any person, even the highest circles themselves think twice about being "branded" for fear of folks harassing them every time they log on or even getting walked. They would have to outcast to lands where the population is either scarce or forgiving.

True, there will be individuals who would take this time to kill said person time and time again, but certain rules or guidlines can still be implented or perhaps not. If problem Paladin doesn't behave, he would face a lockout or termination anyways. Might as well let the people do it. In effect make walking him an unpunishable event. This would be justice by the people.


What you all think? To extreme to even consider?


Woodcubb of Ilithi

So true. If so and so person played evil to the point of getting branded. This would give everyone consent on that person. No matter how good one person is, they can never survive a riot attack.

Person with Scarlett Letter just arrived!

Bored Moonie: Hey, person with Scarlett Letter just came in. Let's kill him.

Bored barbarian: yeah, let's run him out of town.

<<Person with Scarlett Letter was just struck down!>>

<<Person with Scarlett Letter was just struck down!>>

<<Person with Scarlett Letter was just struck down!>>

<<Person with Scarlett Letter just walked the Starry Road!>>

That's in it's extreme. If that person was smart they'd either give them selves a lockout till the close is clear or head for the hills and stay out of civilizations way. Of course no doubt their will be those who will make it a point to hunt them down and kill them anyway.

It would be hell for that person. They'll beg to be locked out instead.

Woodcubb of Ilithi

Branding won't work. See Clerics about branding and what happens with it. It'll be abused, the person being branded will report, the GM's will have way too much on their hands, and they'll get rid of it.


K--

<<Branding won't work. See Clerics about branding and what happens with it. It'll be abused, the person being branded will report, the GM's will have way too much on their hands, and they'll get rid of it.>>

Aaah, but here's the beauty of it. It would take it to the extreme. Think about it. Perma consent. Problem mage is giving people grief. GMs realize this person is a problem and is about to terminate their account. Person doesn't want to loose their account, lock outs aren't working . . . . . but there's another way. That person would be at the mercy of the people.

Imagine everytime you log in people can taunt and kill you at will and there is NOTHING you can do about. Sure that person can still create problems, but . . . as oppose to regular branding which is just a stigma, I, you and the rest of elanthia can in effect execute him every day till he runs out of favors unless he behaves himself. And even them, just because he promises to be good, folks can still kill him unless the brand get's taken away after there time alottment.

This would make person either not log on, quit, or in effect go into hiding.

<<Who knows? Maybe it would end up populating Hara'jaal.>>

LOL!




Woodcubb of Ilithi

<<I think there'd probably be those who'd want to side with the branded person as well. >>

I doubt it. I wouldn't want to be hunted down everytime I log on. I know there will be folks who will posse together to kill that branded person until he walks. Other's would have moer fun taunting and casting at them till near death, but leaving them alive for the thrill of it.

Considering that person is close to getting terminated anyway, this could give that person one final chance of trying redeem himself and play right. In effect taking it out of the GMs hands and let the people take care of it for them. Could be fun.


Woodcubb of Ilithi

>So it's not necessarily for someone who roleplays evil, but a snert who doesn't know how to play by the rules.

There's a difference? Two of my three main characters would be instantly branded and my third after a short period of time. <shrug> They're different. This is evil in DR.

No, it wouldn't be necessarily for someone playing evil, but there's no difference in DR between and empath who charges for healing and a war mage who goes around casting fire rain at random in populated areas. There's no difference between a trader who wears 'bad' clothes and a barbarian who regularly goes through rats slaughtering all the newbies there. They're all evil. Although the former are actually more harmful to the children who play DR and more worth the extreme punishment of this sort of a brand.

The thing that brand could do, particularly if it weren't so loud as to scream "KILL ME!" all the time, is make those who play the less spectacularly evil characters a way to play them without constantly bashing their heads on policy. Once their characters are outside of policy, they can keep playing them evil without having to worry about further repercussions for their behavior. Could be fun, actually, particularly for characters who aren't violently evil but rather quietly so.

Interesting idea Woodcubb, but if I understand the premise right its for GM branded snerts that are on the bounds of being locked out/termed & not those just playing evil characters,correct?

There are a few chars that their owners play them as evil or unfriendly & with necros on the somtime soon herizon this wouldnt be applied to them. That is if I am understanding it correctly.

Still a interesting idea to shoot past the staffers.

>Blurring the line between acceptable behavior for the player (inviolate) and acceptable behavior for the character (variable) does not serve the public community of DR well.

Um, like ... ? The rules determining acceptable behavior for our characters are a superset containing all the rules defining acceptable behavior by player in game. (We're not talking about real.life issues, here.) I mean other than vulgarity, there really isn't anything I can think of that's unacceptable to the player and not the character, although there are countless behaviors that are unacceptable for the character.

>People with the mindset to get in this situation would wear their mark as a badge of pride, not as a point of shame

I don't know that it would have to be a point of shame. Quite honestly, I think it would open up a lot of role playing that is currently unacceptable. I think it would be a good thing for DR to allow people to RP characters who are different, with the penalty of being outlaw. That way those who don't want to deal with those outlaws can stay away from them, or kill them, if they wish.

The biggest issue is in the Crossing and Haven areas, where you see most of the newbies and very young players, would be my guest. There is where the outlaws would be most hunted, too, most likely. Whereas say on the islands, where the general player age is much older, most folks have far more of a live and let live attitude about things.

Yes, I can well understand why DR must maintain a certain level of uniformity in character behavior, but not all the players want that. Some players do enjoy interacting with characters who are different. Branding people who are different as outlaws, would allow the two groups to avoid each other and probably be very good for both.

<<its for GM branded snerts that are on the bounds of being locked out/termed & not those just playing evil characters,correct?>>

>Correct.

But why? Of course most evil characters are subject to lockout at any time. I can't think of one thing that can be done/said that can be considered evil that isn't also a violation of someone else's role playing rights or at a bare minimum, disruptive because it does keep them from doing whatever they would have otherwise have been doing. That is rather the nature of the beast.

>There's a major difference between playing and evil character and being disruptive to the gaming environment.

What? I can't think of anything except maybe gross OOC behavior or random killing. I mean that literally. How can you perform anything like an evil act that isn't a disruption of the gaming environment?

>NPC characters won't interact with them

Why would you want to completely destroy oh, at least 40-60% of the characters in the realms playability? That just doesn't seem worthwhile at all. Eventually you won't have any characters if you put something like this in place. Yes, I can see putting us outside policy, but not having the NPCs interact with them ... that's going too far. As someone who's three main characters would be branded, gah.

>Guards harrassing them. Thugs beating on them. Empaths refusing to heal them. Graverobbing them would be legal. Etc.

All of this I could see and wouldn't make the characters unplayable. Especially pulling banking services, no. All that would do is make branded characters unredemably vicious because they'd have nothing to loose.

>I understand this won't work for everyone, but it could teach a few folks a lesson on playing nice.

The thing is that if you kill the puppy for making a mess on the rug, you'll never have an adult dog. There has to be some scale to punishment, even in DR. Otherwise you give people nothing to loose and they're the most dangerous of all, as proven over and over again through the centuries.

Those of us who play those disruptive characters generally stay away from folks who don't like us. Its not fun. We hang around people who do enjoy our company. Barring us from all NPC contact is just going too far. Even the most henious criminals in the world have often had access to things like banking and health services, albeit through backdoor means.

>Thus if they continue to be vicious they WILL get killed/walked and/or locked out indifinately.

I just don't see that even the majority of branded charas would be vicious. I mean take my little trader. He'd be branded in a heartbeat because of what he wears. Now, he can't stand hunting and only does it because Imaar makes him. Generally speaking, if he had his druthers, he'd never hunt at all but it's easier than finding classes. If he had no access to any NPCs, particularly those he'd need to keep being a trader, there would be nothing left for him but to turn vicious. What's the point in that except forcing more and more characters to become predators?

>Sides, it would be sweet for the branded to get a taste of their own vileness.

And this is where I see the issue lies. Cruelty doesn't teach people to be kind. Particularly cruelty to people who've never actually harmed anyone in their lives. All it does is teach them to be vicious because they have nothing to loose. Look at the story of Jean ValJean or any other felon up until fairly modern times. Even still, they often did have some contact with 'right thinking people' and had the option to change their ways.

Maybe the brand would only work in the heartland areas, insofar as the NPCs not dealing with the character. In the more outlying areas, eh, well, they might be a bit more lenient. I mean really. On M'Riss? They'd probably welcome someone who was branded as one of their own.

>Branding would just make it fun for them if the naughty players get visciously killed and walked without GM intervention.

I think it would be fun if they had a chance, simply because I play those naughty characters. <g> No, I don't get complaints from the people I play with, but that doesn't mean my characters conform to policy because they don't ... ever.

Quit feeding the troll please. It's bad enough when s/he wanders around looking for a reaction without someone actively encouraging it.

They did it cause it was you. CONSPIRACY!!!


K--

>They did it cause it was you.

No, it was because I play evil characters. No big deal. However, I love Woodcubb's idea to expand that to a far broader range, as long as branded characters are still playable.

There are huge advantages to pulling policy protection from evil characters and making them outlaw. The biggest goes both ways ... it opens up evil to being playable because the biggest problem with playing evil is that it disrupts the gaming environment. Well, duh. That is the point of an evil character ... to disrupt the environment. If they aren't protected by policy, then it totally wrecks the whole idiotic policy playing nonsense around it. No one, no matter how noble, is going to want their character branded unless they're willing to stand out there without taking up GM time over it.

That's the huge advantage of the branding system. It removes the whole GM part of the equation, on both sides. Someone who is killed or offended or disturbed by a branded chara, well, tough. They have a choice, they can kill them, run away, get together a possee, whatever they want to do, but they can't report.

Sounds like fun on both sides to me, actually.

In areas of high newbie concentration, there are also lots of defenders. Elsewhere, people are more likely to leave the branded alone and/or maybe find out why they're branded.

I think all around it would be a lot of fun. Tough on some people and definately a risk, particularly if you go into Crossing/Haven where there are lots of good charas, but that's a game for some of us and why I don't report when someone attacks one of my charas for disrupting the environment. To me its all part of the game of DR.

However, if you remove all NPC support, then there is no difference between branding and being locked out except how long it takes. That's no fun for anyone, really.

>The posse idea sounds fun. I can see folks who see themselves as bounty hunters who would get a band together and "hunt down" the branded.

Yup, and the branded if they're clever enough could try to talk their way out of it. "Don't hurt me. I'm just a poor innocent Empath/Paladin/Cleric/whatever who wouldn't harm anyone!" See if you can get folks drawn into the whole game rather than just pure killing. Oh, sure, you'd get that around Crossing and Haven, but how many folks would hold their hand to be healed by a branded empath or raised by a branded cleric? Who would defend someone who'd been branded? It's not real role playing, but it still could be fun.

>That's why I stress having the branded being given a special highlight of somesorts. A color that can't be changed so folks will know who this person is.

Hmmm, I think the ideal way to do this would be fairly complex, but ...

Have it be a literal brand, such as a mark on the forehead that is covered by feature covering clothes. However, anyone except another branded could try to 'expose <so-and-so>' if they think they might be branded. There is no way to resist this and if the person has been branded, their name goes to monsterbold and they become a 'mob' for all intents and purposes. Lets say this effect lasts for a certain length of time dependant on the circle of the person who did the exposing. If some big war mage exposes a little empath, well, the empath'll be out in the open for maybe a few hours. If a big barb gets exposed by a little trader, it might only last a few minutes. That way there's some challenge to it. The branded are only counted as mobs when their brand is exposed. That makes it real simple. <g> If its highlighted as a critter, its killiable and comes under critter rules. Critters can't report, nor can they be reported against.

It could actually be a rather interesting stystem replacing a lot of bloodlust.

I could also see tying the standard IG justice system in with this. At a certain point, allow criminals to choose outlawry for a certain period of time instead of a fine. This could be a blast. Thieves who steal from shops and leave the goodies for folks and so are very popular could get off with all their crimes totally free but ones (guilded or non) who harass people, won't stop stealing when told to, or otherwise are public nuisances would be hunted. Maybe thieves or other regular criminals would have it slightly different in that the brand would only last through one death.

Ultimately, a lot of it would depend on your ideal focus. Is it on punishing people who misbehave and only incidentally providing some entertainment to the good people or is it on providing entertainment to as many people as possible and as a side effect punishing wrongdoers?

Of course the ultimate thing that's the most fun about such a system is that it isn't fair. The most powerful characters in game couldn't stand against a fullup possie like that which went after Archrost.

The biggest downside is that it would give a way for people to keep flaunting policy year after year. You see that's the big problem with giving someone say six months of outlawry. What's to stop them from just stopping their account and waiting it out? Its a way to get around the true justice system of DR which is the whole warning/lockout process.