Shattered Kingdoms

I think that you can have the best of both worlds if you approach it from the stance that there are two kinds of title. One that defines how a player presents himself to the rest of the world, and one that defines how the rest of the world sees the player. Akin to what I suggested already - an assumed title versus the IC public record.

If you were to have both, you -could- restrict the latter from being used in the former, but it seems like a waste of time to me, unless you're going to make it easier on yourself and substitute staff enforcement for coding.

LOL. Right. Like I want to enforce titles. I mean. I do enforce titles but I don't want to do more than stop people from having completely annoying titles. Nonsense titles? I don't care. No title? Doesn't matter to me. If it doesn't break spirit of the game, it doesn't matter to me. Penguin lover? Sicko? Not worth my time.

I have to say, as a Union Steward, I hear this sort of (logic) on a regular basis. "If (the workforce responsible for creating the product that allows my paycheck) is up in arms with the adjustments I've made, I can choose to go extreme and make everyone's work-life miserable. Is that what you're telling me you want me to do?" It is unfortunate I have to see this sort of sophistry when involved in my recreational activities.

I have not read beyond this post yet, so I don't know if any has debated this particular idea of prerequisites or how well any has debated it. Jardek was a leader of the cabal or tribunal in Ayamao while he was knocking MC into the dirt. I was a member of MC at the time (go figure). Jardek claimed as his title 'knightlord'. This was perfectly reasonable, given the RP and PK circumstances at the time. I see no way he could've fulfilled any coded prerequisite to claim 'knightlord' in his title. With this example as a backdrop, I am adamantly opposed to any prerequisites at all for any titles whatsoever. I also bristle at any sophistry as exampled above.

I really think that changes titles from what they are now, would really hurt the game. Titles are wonderful in that can claim anything. If I want to claim "Top Warrior." I can do that. With that title alone, will spawn so much RP. I like that. I like to be able to use a title as something that can spawn RP.

I have a vet priest that has gotten more RP then some of my GM chars because I put Father in my title. I like that. Please don't take about one of the source that we can use to spawn RP.

I Like titles as they are now.

Hardcoding enforcement will only hurt the game IMO.

Oh, I do undestand. Just pointing out that on the scale of 1 to 10, trying to code against spoofing is a lot more of a pain than simply enforcing it, because ultimately, you end up having to keep an eye out for it anyway.

I'm all for the idea of specialty titles that can be earned in game, but it seems to me there needs to be a separate command for them of some kind if you want to retain their uniqueness.

I voted no because in every fantasy world there are notorious heroes and villains, but there are also really old inn keepers that few know that they fought many wars a long time ago and they always have a great axe under their bar now. If you need a rule make it so that religion/tribunal leaders have to have a title.

I like the system as it is now. Custom titles policed by the imms for extemely lame cases. If I want to claim that I am the greatest sorcerer of all times, then it won't take more that a petrification spell on me to for the pbase to laugh at me.

If someone wants a "code-certified" title, how about:

Then to use it:


In this way, a certified title (what I call a mantle) is easily distinguished from plain titles by the punctuation (only a space or comma follows plain titles). This way, there would be no change to the titles that folks can set now; same old code via -

No hard-coded nonsense, plzkthnx.