Change the Hooded Agent so that he no longer collects rings. Instead, add some kind of lock box that players can put their rings inside. This would remove the ability for the hooded agent to "detect" thralls by forcing people to give and then retrieve their ring from the Hooded Agent and thereby make detecting thralls a PC endeavor.
You don't need to go to him at all. He is there for that very reason.
What? I don't understand what you mean.
Why would the hooded agent test you every time you go to take your ring back. Wouldn't it be costly to test everyone who leaves and returns? IC reasons beside, this makes Society and Spellguard thrall tests entirely worthless.
I don't believe it was ever intended for returning rings to the SG Agent to become this routine thing that everyone always does every time they leave the Shield. I think using this as a means to detect thralls, or whatever, is perhaps a bit of an unfortunate consequence of how it presently works... I dislike it personally mostly because it cuts PCs out of the equation and uses a static NPC as a substitute for roleplay.
To return rings and retrieve them, is completely IC matter. This is an issue you folks choose to make for yourself. Why wouldn't they offer to keep rings safe, and why would they give it to someone who has just returned, from who-knows-where, and not test them? Outside that I have nothing else to say about that. This is completely in character matter, not an OOC one.
Leave ring somewhere else? Sure. Leave it to a friend. Don't leave it at all. There actually are already mechanical ways to leave, oh, I don't know. Bury things and leave them hidden somewhere?
Now, after discussing, apparently we are taking your complaints is that he is used as a thrall detector - as in that people take their suspected targets to him especially for testing as they do not have one at hand on their own.
Is this the actual issue, because if so, this is a whole other matter than leaving rings behind?
I think the issue might be that with certain IG laws which require you to leave your ring behind, it becomes virtually impossible for a PC thrall to exist undetected for any amount of time. The first time they leave the shield, drop off their ring and return they are tested again for enthrallment.
That maybe the process of looking for thralls should be more in the hands of players with the tools to do so rather than in a legal/arbitrary process of leaving/returning to Sanctuary that will automatically detect thralls (as far as we know, has been shown recently to do so in some cases at least).
For that matter, I again repeat my statement. It is never intended to be easy as it is. Otherwise the purpose of that shield, as dubious as it may seem because of gaming aspects and situations, would be very much pointless. When it comes to player interactions and player reactions, is it not these players exactly that monitor that law or rule of leaving the rings behind? And monitor whether the person coming back ever left the ring behind at all, or how and where they left it.
However, yes, I heard the basic reasoning there. I personally do not really see an issue, as I see half a dozen other readily available solutions that you could, or choose not to do. Despite that, we'll discuss it and see if we may come to some other options or changes.
I know I've used him as a Thrall detector myself recently, after a DM told me to.
Access to unrestricted and easy NPC thrall-detection is certainly problematic. I'll see if I can ponder a good solution for this, but for now certainly players should try to rely on PCs whenever possible.
One thing I would say as possible consideration is the fact that exceptions have been made by PCs Icly already in regards to using the lift which requires a ring. It's a bit of an adhoc loophole but at present I know there's been PC rulings that keeping rings for the sake of the lift/etc is a reasonable excuse.
Not perfect I know but I don't think PC thralls are overly commonplace, though I understand the concerns of people testing for such a thing via NPC conversation.