Removal of Support/Subvert for the Tenebrae

[Voxumo]

The title explains it all. I would like to propose the removal of the ability to Support, or Subvert, the Tenebrae, and by extension the Sapiente. What I mean by this is not that the Tenebrae should be immune from oustings... But that such should be tied to the actual name of the Tenebrae. If you want to subvert or support them, then you better learn who they are.


This idea stems from a realization I had while talking with another... I, who plays as the Tenebrae, am absolutely terrified to do anything that crosses a certain line of "Annoyance". I am terrified of such because I know the instant I do, and I become a threat, I will be dogpiled by subversions to the point an ousting can be performed and thus removing the threat through a very manipulable system. I look at the league of entrenched and fear to cross them, not out of ic fear, but fear of a purely ooc system.

I know it is this fear that stops me as I did not hold back as Rhea, or Vicannia, both arguably some of my greatest villains, and the reason I did not hold back was because the support system meant nothing to me at that point. What would a subversion do to a character that is not a GL? Nothing.

I don't make this suggestion lightly, as the inability to support and subvert the Tenebrae makes it harder for the player of that role as well, as if you want support, you then need to risk revealing your name... But I feel that risk would be of greater rp opportunity than the irrational ooc fear of crossing an invisible line and being subverted into oblivion.

[Starstarfish]

Arguably how is this fear any more or less palpable then it is for literally any Guild leader who has to be worried that if they enforce their thematic job they might be gambited.

This concern about being subverted and Gambited is true for more than just the Tenebrae. I suppose my primary question is ... it seems to me like the desire here is to have a very dangerous position without having any danger to it.

[Voxumo]

Arguably how is this fear any more or less palpable then it is for literally any Guild leader who has to be worried that if they enforce their thematic job they might be gambited.

Because their thematic job isn't typically seen as "Bad". Arguably the Brotherhood is the villain guild. Our actions typically come with some negative side effects for others, including loss of life. Furthermore, a Earl Marshall would never be gambited for say going after mages, as that's their job and it doesn't go against the order and reeves. If the Tenebrae kidnapped and murdered someone, while still their job, it goes against the order and reeves, thus a gambit against them for such, while rude, would be thematic. Other guildleaders typically only have to fear being gambited as a result of how they go about carrying out their themeliness. If an earl marshall is arresting everyone at a scene in hopes of finding the one mage, then yeah they should be afraid being gambited.

For that matter, I'm not argueing that the tenebrae and sapiente should not be able to be ousted, just that it should require a little more substance than "Aha, I know your title, even though I've no clue your name or face."

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I would be wildly against this.

Instead, perhaps require a gambit against the Tenebrae to be generated from within the Thieve's Guild itself, so that so long as the Tenebrae retains the support of their followers that they have little to fear from the general city as a whole. Perhaps enable a gambit to circumvent this if enough IP is raised against a Hated Tenebrae.

[Taunya]

I'm leaning toward restrictions on gambiting covert leaders myself, but not an auto-gambit. I'd say it would take a freeman with a good plan to initiate a gambit against brotherhood leadership, but not necessarily only from within the thieves guild. If gentry/nobles/GLs want a Tenebrae out, they'd have to enlist the support of a freeman with means to start it. (Or, you know, do it the old fassioned way. x_x)

I like being able to support or subvert a covert GL without having to know their actual identity- I would think that would make it easier for them to drum up support, as well.

[Starstarfish]

Furthermore, a Earl Marshall would never be gambited for say going after mages, as that's their job and it doesn't go against the order and reeves.

I'd say assuming this could never happen is being generous. Arguably every player who has a character who is a mage has a recurring reason to sew discord against the Order GLs. Further, there's a Gambit that staff have commented has people posting comments and considerations that are not themely, so ... the idea it can't/won't happen is a bit off.

For that matter, I'm not argueing that the tenebrae and sapiente should not be able to be ousted, just that it should require a little more substance than "Aha, I know your title, even though I've no clue your name or face."

I'd argue the same of the major GL spots as well, so I'd say either we change how this works for the major GL spots, or we don't change it for anyone. But setting it up so the Reeve leadership can be Gambited by the Brotherhood, but not the other way around seems really one-sided and biased.

I also think personally, that this the idea we seem to be working on of changing lore/theme/code to make it easier to overcome IC failings is ... losing us something. If you wish to have support as a GL, then RP for it. Beg, barter, kill - figure it out as the Tenebrae. Giving the position OOC protection from being gambited I don't feel is the proper solution to not performing the necessary steps ICly to gain support.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

Recently, a suggestion got moved to the "Accepted Requests" forum, which locks the ability to comment on it. The suggestion was for the Tenebrae to be unable to be supported/subverted by the title (you can currently do either with 'Tenebrae' alone) but by knowing the Tenebrae's IC name. All players who offered subsequent input on the idea commented that they did not like the idea, with only the current Tenebrae suggesting it. As the discussion doesn't seem to be over, I thought to move the discussion here and maybe discuss with more words why I — and many other players seem to agree — making this change would be one for the worse.

Just recently, Kinaed posted a note asking people to solve IC issues ICly, not going to OOC methods to solve problems. This seems in direct contrast to that — if the Tenebrae is finding it difficult to earn support through IC means, they might consider changing their approach or being more mindful how they talk to others, whether it be through kindness, promises, appropriate threats, etc. That the Tenebrae is making this suggestion when they are sitting at "Neutral" support smells fishy at best. When Farra dipped into 'Hated' (or was it 'Disliked'?) territory as Grand Inquisitor (a dip which was never really explained, and almost immediately resolved once Staff briefly put support through an approval queue; strange!) I embraced the hate in both personal RP and in the notes written from that position, something that I found very rewarding as it forced Farra to grit her teeth and make (or reinforce) alliances she wasn't entirely delighted to make. Thus is the game of politics: you find beds with enemies in times of necessity or convenience.

Further, this Tenebrae is making the suggestion while their title is being used ICly against another GL in a gambit. If the Tenebrae wants to use their influence to try to expell another Guildleader (a GL of the Brotherhood's natural rival, at that), enabling them to hide being OOC constraints is doggy at best and openly OOCly unfair at worst, I feel like.

This Tenebrae is certainly not anywhere near as "bad" as others have been in the past, and those Tenebrae's have managed to continue without being gambited. Also, they argue that the Tenebrae role is the "only" role in the game that suggests it would have a large portion of the playerbase aligned against them, which is also untrue. Orderites face the reality that about 50% of the game's population at any time are mages, and those mages have a built-in reason to not support the Holy Order. A GI or Earl Marshall who adopt even the "thematic" extents of their power in being bullies and oppressive risk backlash if they cannot garner the support of elsewhere.

The Original Poster argues that this will "make getting support on the Tenebrae more difficult" but this is a laughably wrong argument. As someone playing a character who operates under an alias, I know precisely how easy it is to limit the amount of people who know my character's coded name. As Tenebrae, you merely need to ensure that you give out your coded name only to those who have promised beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are loyal to you and you never have to worry about subversion. In fact, if I understand the system correctly, you could in fact never give out your name at all and bypass the Support system — and thusly the gambit system — entirely.

If the fear is that a Tenebrae loved by the Brotherhood and Freemen can get ousted by the nobles and Guild Leaders that the Tenebrae is naturally aligned against, then the proper response would be to limit the method by which the Tenebrae can be gambited. Raspberry argued that gambits should only be initiated by freemen, and I'd go a step further to suggest that, should the Tenebrae be gambited, that ONLY freemen and Thieves Guild Members be able to vote on it, further protecting the Tenebrae from the kind of "backlash" they say they fear. You might even extend the ability to start a gambit from within the Thieve's Guild itself, as I suggested.

[Tasker]

I don't usually post, but here we go.

I think it makes substantially less sense to have to subvert the person behind the mask to have any affect, title or name it makes no difference; same person. If you levy infulence to work against the Tenebrae, and try to subvert their actions, that infulence will still head towards that role no matter if you know the person behind it or not. If you're going around southside saying bad things and spreading dung about the Tenebrae, that's still going to have an affect if you know their name or not. So, I disagree with having to know the name of the person, as it makes little sense to me.

HOWEVER!

I don't agree with anyone being able to start a gambit against a covert role, the city council could not oust a criminal role as they fuction outside of the law. However (x2), a gambit from within the guild should still be possible, with only those within the guild and possible freemen being able to vote. Maybe the Tenebro gets a little boost in the votes too to make it a bit fairer for blocking out a chunk of the playerbase.

In essense, I feel as though the Tenebrae should want to be dispised in the support list, it means they're doing something right. It's a hard thing to balance, for there are a lot of pros and cons to the support list which at times can make it stressful for certain guildleaders when they see negative values, so I understand the pressure Vox is anticipating, but just preventing any sort of subvert and enabling a measure of OOC protection is not, in my eyes a suitable correction.

[Rothgar]

I'll be frank, this is a conversation we've had before. One we've had since Support went into place. One that I didn't agree with then, and I don't agree with now. Obviously, the Tenebrae is in the same position as other Urthly GL's - s/he is beholden to the cruelty of the true populist democratic system that we hold so dear on TI. It's always been that way, I can't recall a Tenebrae who's ever been ousted before, and I've got no doubt it won't happen now.

I've got my own feelings about ousting people and the support system, it can be summed up in two words : it's stupid. That's for a wholly different thread, though. Fact of the matter is that we haven't had a problem with it yet, and since the Tenebrae can enter and exit the role without literally anyone seeing their face or knowing their name, I'd say that it's a total non-issue. Nothing risked, nothing gained. We can go on and on in this thread about it all day long, but at the end of it, it's just people getting skittish because they can't manage the Support system IC'ly.

This is a tale as old as TI, a tune as old as song. Support and the People.

[Taunya]

I don't feel that strongly on it, and I did agree that it should be harder for lawful types to gambit out lawless types.

Just because it was moved to accepted doesn't mean it'll be implemented exactly how it was proposed (they very rarely do). Let's not jump to conclusions.