Magic and Gods Revisited

Anything to say about roleplay? Want to share a story? This is the right place.

Moderator: Wizards

Message
Author
User avatar
Cuetlachtli
Veteran
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:12 am

Magic and Gods Revisited

#1 Post by Cuetlachtli » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:35 am

Regarding magic and gods:

I don't remember reading an official explanation, but I am fairly sure that magic isn't literally stealing power directly from the gods.

If that were the case then no magic user could maintain a religion.

I think it's closer to tapping into the same source that the gods also use, although much more clumsily.

I could be completely wrong there though.

Drayn
Hero
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Making clerics more fun

#2 Post by Drayn » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:23 am

^^^ What he said ^^^

IC I've played my concern as the Gods know how to use these powers as they created the world etc. Mages are like kids getting into dads tool box, likely to hurt themselves and/or others.

On a side note, would one of our fabulous forum mods perform a thread split from a few posts back when the threa veered into talking about the mages, just to keep the forum neat. We're a bit removed from the original discussion.

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Making clerics more fun

#3 Post by luminier » Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:52 am

I think the Gods would still have to be classed differently though. If Magic is just kids getting into to dads toolbox, it would be theoretically possible that a person could study long enough (in the case of an elf time is unlimited) to become godlike. And if a person gets the power of gods, why aren't they a god?

Is the difference between a god and a person that the gods are just able to wield more magic?

I thought magic was just tapping into latent energy that was available in varying levels around Forostar.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
muzharab
Experienced
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:52 am

Making clerics more fun

#4 Post by muzharab » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:16 am

My comment on the topic of "where does the magic come from?" is why is this discussion happening OOC instead of in the game?

It is a perfectly good opportunity to have philosophical debates, differences of opinion, conflicts leading to great stories and the possibility to affect the world as a whole. Something that seems to be happening too little recently.

Why should that be ruined by fixing a "correct answer" either by the Godly Words of a Wizard or by coming to some "official" conclusion in an OOC discussion?

There are plenty of topics in the Lore of Geas where proper debates aren't really possible. For example the teachings of the clergies have been too thin to allow anyone to really play a heretic within the church; preaching something with some conviction has the tendency to turn into official lore rather quickly. While this is nice in the sense that you can actually have a big effect on the world it has left the roleplaying aspects that exist there pretty much unused, the next generation tends to believe every word told to them. On the other hand there are several aspects that are simply too inconsistent currently to have a discussion over. Rather than having several interpretations basically every explanation can be demonstrated to be at least partially incorrect and confusing.

But in this case I cannot see anything good coming out of revealing this information or discussing it OOC, assuming an "ultimate answer" even exists.

Drayn
Hero
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Making clerics more fun

#5 Post by Drayn » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:03 am

luminier wrote:I think the Gods would still have to be classed differently though. If Magic is just kids getting into to dads toolbox, it would be theoretically possible that a person could study long enough (in the case of an elf time is unlimited) to become godlike. And if a person gets the power of gods, why aren't they a god?
Could a five year old build the empire estate building with a just a hammer and screwdriver?

It takes more than just know how, you'd need the raw materials too. Infinity toddler could probably eventually cobble together a tower, even with his poor tools, but he'd still need the bricks.


Gods have more bricks.

User avatar
glasp
Professional
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:55 am

Re: Making clerics more fun

#6 Post by glasp » Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:16 pm

Regarding magic and clerics:

I think it would be a shame not to take this chance. There is generally a great lack of conflict (or abundance of friendship "by default" if you will), and to not use this situation is in my opinion a great waste.

Geas has a long-standing disease of players trying to minimize conflict to the biggest extent possible. This has taken different forms of expression. One of them is for example the need for a ridiculously solid proof before calling someone evil/enemy (negating oppurtunity for value-based disagreements). Other examples include giving away stuff for free (thereby negating any imbalances that an economic system can provide), or just assuming that the foreign guy next to you is your friend and you shall go hunting.. and well, the list is endless (sort of enabled by default if you are passive).

Imbalances are introduced to the game for a reason. What do I mean by imbalance? Well, any "difference" basically. The most obvious are the different faiths which I think nobody missed, but it can also be more subtle things. For example: In my opinion the situation in Arborea seems willfully aimed at trying to accustom as many wills as possible by law and thereby "solving" the problem. A sort min-max in friendshipness/problems-reduction, if you will ("Everybody is your friend? Good, nothing can hurt you and everyone's life remains problem-free"). It will make you the hero since you do in fact help everyone - but the damage to the game is huge.

Conflict is good. And differences make up reasons for disagreements and are as such excellent basis for conflict. When players/characters make it their task to neutralize these (often as quickly as possible) the room for RP gets shrunk. Because a world where everything is at peace and everything is fine is completely uninteresting and boring (there has to be struggle). At least I personally always found it much more interesting to see characters go their own path, even if it hurts them (even if those sadly tend to end up being hunted down by the entire MUD [with a passion])..

So it is somewhat depressing to see such imbalances neutralized. And it is my opinion that now the oppurtunity to create new ones are obvious and the reasons for doing so can be plenty. There is a good chance to make some "unnecessary" conflict (even based on "fake"/"bad" reasons) - or whatever you think fits your character or makes up a great story.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts and everyone is of course allowed to play exactly like they want. But in my opinion, the clerics (and technically everyone else) have a good oppurtunity to become fun and interesting at this point.

User avatar
Cuetlachtli
Veteran
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:12 am

Re: Making clerics more fun

#7 Post by Cuetlachtli » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:47 pm

Luminier Posted:
***
I think the Gods would still have to be classed differently though. If Magic is just kids getting into to dads toolbox, it would be theoretically possible that a person could study long enough (in the case of an elf time is unlimited) to become godlike. And if a person gets the power of gods, why aren't they a god?
***
I don't think the analogy should be taken too literally. While I think that mages, scribes, and alchemists (and even skalds) all draw from the same 'source' as the gods, I think that the tools that they have access to are fundamentally inadequate to ever allow them to fully understand or control the magic flows in the way a god could.

Muzharab Posted:
***
My comment on the topic of "where does the magic come from?" is why is this discussion happening OOC instead of in the game?

It is a perfectly good opportunity to have philosophical debates, differences of opinion, conflicts leading to great stories and the possibility to affect the world as a whole.
***

I think this discussion does happen in game. My char has had and is always willing to have that kind of discussion. Relatively recently he ended up having a rather heated exchange with another char, and had to back down due to a concern of being attacked possibly :P.

But I agree that asking these questions ICly makes more sense, since the answers are more relevant IC than OOC.

User avatar
Eluriel
Master
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Making clerics more fun

#8 Post by Eluriel » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:21 pm

glasp wrote:At least I personally always found it much more interesting to see characters go their own path, even if it hurts them (even if those sadly tend to end up being hunted down by the entire MUD [with a passion])..
Yeah, that's the thing. If Eluriel really acted on how she feels, she'd probably get kicked out of Elvandar in a second and made enemies of at least a couple groups I can think of. It's a bit too easy to "neutralize" dissenters and those who are causing conflict.

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Making clerics more fun

#9 Post by luminier » Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:53 pm

I can't speak for everyone but I feel like the player base is being stereotyped as being bad RPer's. Certainly there are a few bad eggs in the basket, but I think there are quite some numbers of good RPer's.

I don't think wanting to be naturally friendly and trusting (unless life has kicked you in the nuts too many times) is that far fetched personally.

There is a difference between being friendly with someone and actually trusting them. Lets face it, at some point somewhere, you have to start trusting SOMEONE or else you'll have a hard time getting anywhere and doing anything.

I remember there was a time when the Crusaders were being hated on because they made everyone enemies too quickly and for small things. When I became Lord Marshall I decided to lax these rules and I guess it was too much. I figure a place where people want to play is more important than "sticking to my RP guns" and being unwavering and unforgiving in my judgments of the actions of others.

There are always good RP opportunities that i see being taken.

Well this is certainly getting derailed.... new topic?****************WIZARD MAGIC PERFORMED ********* EDIT
Last edited by luminier on Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
Cuetlachtli
Veteran
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:12 am

Re: Making clerics more fun

#10 Post by Cuetlachtli » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:36 am

Agreed with Luminier here on this point....

I think it's fairly logical for people to try to minimize conflict for themselves. If your character has motives or interests that would immediately ostracize them and put them at risk, then naturally some characters would prefer to keep a cordial appearance...for as long as possible at least.

I think it adds a good level of depth, particularly when your character knows or suspects a person has a side of them that is not being expressed, and gets to watch them act differently. It's subtle, but some of these kinds of characters seem to be able to keep up a friendly face while still affecting the world environment in ways that might not be immediately obvious.

My character, for example, gets a kick out of acting cordial with people who he does not care for much or knows that they don't care for him.

It's in a situation of push-comes-to-shove where actual character characteristics can surface. And I think it's reasonable enough that there are characters that aren't fanatic or are reasonable enough in their heads to see that sometimes there's no sense in creating conflict which leads to no personal gain.

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#11 Post by Delia » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:38 pm

About conflict in general there once used to be a trend in which most verbal confrontations easily evolved into PvP-situations. I think the fear of a physical confrontation still greatly affects this as it is easy to see who has the capability to send you screaming for mommy with a pinky finger alone.

Even if such fear is a very necessary and relevant part of Geas, I have been delighted too see more social difficulties arise instead of just applying boot to the head. I mean, most situations should not be solvable with violence. Atleast without proper repercussions.
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

Zehren
Overlord
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:50 am

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#12 Post by Zehren » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:06 pm

I do not want any correct OOC answer, as I find they are easily relied on ICly instead of false IC knowledge.

OF COURSE IF IN DOUBT ZEHREN KNOWS EVERYTHING. HE ONCE DISCOVERED HOW TO BE GODS. (Thought 'twas in conversation with Lachtli, by formerly established premises and some fishy logic.)
Drayn wrote:Zehren, the Karmassassin!

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#13 Post by luminier » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:48 pm

Cuetlachtli wrote:Regarding magic and gods:

I don't remember reading an official explanation, but I am fairly sure that magic isn't literally stealing power directly from the gods.

If that were the case then no magic user could maintain a religion.

I think it's closer to tapping into the same source that the gods also use, although much more clumsily.

I could be completely wrong there though.

What you say makes sense. Magic users can't be stealing power from the gods, that doesn't make sense. But they might be trying to emulate the power that gods give their clerics.

Whether or not gods take offence to the emulation, I do not know. But I think if people are able to use all the miracles of clerics being a mage... thats going to be a powerful powerful tool.

Also what makes a miracle evil? The person using it? Or the miracle itself? Personally, I am not sure. It's going to have to be decided like the backstab skill. Is bone spear an "evil move"? I would argue no. Is backstabbing from the shadows evil? I think any surprise attack isn't brave, but I think like anything else it could be justified =D.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
glasp
Professional
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 6:55 am

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#14 Post by glasp » Fri May 04, 2012 4:10 am

luminier wrote:I can't speak for everyone but I feel like the player base is being stereotyped as being bad RPer's. Certainly there are a few bad eggs in the basket, but I think there are quite some numbers of good RPer's.
I think the wizards are being stereotyped as micromanaging, while the points brought up are in fact about some pretty fundamental/macro things.

But since you bring it up, let's be frank. Of course there are bad roleplayers. Probably also on GEAS. I think it would be a very strange thing if GEAS was somehow excused. I can only think of a few MUD's I experienced with a very high number of hardcore RP:ers who all did it well, but even then there were bad eggs. But for me personally, I think what matters it that you try to RP. As long as player tries to RP, then that's good enough (at least) for me.
Delia wrote:About conflict in general there once used to be a trend in which most verbal confrontations easily evolved into PvP-situations.
Cuetlachtli wrote:I think it's fairly logical for people to try to minimize conflict for themselves. If your character has motives or interests that would immediately ostracize them and put them at risk, then naturally some characters would prefer to keep a cordial appearance...for as long as possible at least
Eluriel wrote:Yeah, that's the thing. If Eluriel really acted on how she feels, she'd probably get kicked out of Elvandar in a second and made enemies of at least a couple groups I can think of. It's a bit too easy to "neutralize" dissenters and those who are causing conflict.
The thing which is really at hand, is IMHO, again about the imbalances that we wizards wire into the setting and how they are consciously ignored. Or should I say systematically and consciously worked against/minimized.

Let me take another example that shares a common denominator with the mage issue. I remember back when a tshahark slave was introduced in Arborea, many voices were raised against this "change". It was unfair, horrible and totally ruined the game. Both IC and OOC. Basically all charcaters distanced themselves from this type of horrific element, even those who claim to be Arborean.

The only problem was that tshahark-racism has been a part of Arborea since its creation. It is there for a reason. A tshahark slave is totally in line with its history, norms and values of this society. Accepted officially? Maybe, maybe not. Inofficially? Surely, and by the vast majority of the citizens. Noone would react - the whole thing would be expected.

And there we have the problem again. Nobody wishes to play with it. It is supposed to be a norm in the city, but each character take distance from it (well, there were a few nice and rare examples in the history, but let's skip those for now). We are essentially left without anyone wishing to play the stereotype of their culture. And not just unwilling to pursue it and incorporate it in their Arborean, but even actively deny it and claim it's totally wrong.

Is this because players are "bad roleplayers"? I do not think so. Perhaps to some extent some people are unaware of the hints in the game and the history that the game provides.. but in general I'd say it's pretty obvious. It is not due to an roleplaying inability to incorporate the game setting into your character - it is an unwillingness to incorporate any negative trait into your characters because.. yes.

On the one hand I can see that slavery would be an example of something that people would reject based on their OOC morals. Of course all of us think slavery is a bad thing. Failing to do the distinction between OOC and IC would of course be an example of "bad RP", or rather, a lack thereof. But I do not think this is the case.

I think it rather seems like a way of maximimizing your chances by avoiding any negative consequences that might arise from associating your character with certain valuess (such as trying to buy/sell slaves). A sort of "social" min-maxing.

And naturally it hampers the game. The thing naturally becomes the same with mages. Only that now the "bad element" that we wish to minimize is the idea that magic can be a bad thing. And with that background, unless someone finds the corpse of a dead child with "magic did this" written on it in blood - nobody will accept that magic can be bad. The default stance is that it's good (which is totally unfounded), and it must be proven evil (although help files are clear on the actual perception). If handling the imbalances wired into the background was different, the path to such suspicion is of course shorter and more natural.

I am not sure why people try to avoid this to such an extreme. Perhaps I possibly gave the answer myself, in part, that people who do go out on a limb for others, whip up a little interesting, evil RP, end up getting persecuted by the entire MUD. If this is the danger that everyone wishes to avoid (by minimizing conflict in all sorts of possible contexts), then I think we have a different problem. PVP is an excellent outcome from a conflict, but not to the extent where it permanently haunts your character to death. Of course choosing certain roles is expected to have a natural stance of conflict, so that can't be all of it either.

I rather think the real problem is somewhere around "if I do bad stuff, I lose interaction with everyone else". And let's face it, playing alone sucks. So essentially, just to preserve your ability to play with others, you reduce your risk-taking to essentially zero and stay friends with everyone.

The perception is that it is so ultimately destructive that nobody dares doing it (and yes, I do think it is a shame if nobody would dare buying/selling tshaharks or hunting mages).

If that is the case (and please correct me if I am wrong), then I think we ought to rather address proportion/size of the negative consequences / "punishment" of doing bad, saying bad, or being bad. And by "bad", I mean: something which is sometimes even supposed to be normal in e.g. that culture or role (as mage, in this instance)..

Perhaps I am wrong? Or not? How do we solve it?

User avatar
luminier
Overlord
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:40 pm
Location: Manitoba Canada

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#15 Post by luminier » Fri May 04, 2012 6:25 am

After reading your post Glasp it sounds to me like you are trying to portray these points.

Wizards don't mind what you RP as long as you RP.

Then in the next paragraphs later.

We want you to RP you characters this way, we want everyone to have some negative affects on their character that are noticeable to the wizards.. on a fundamental/macro scale.

Forgive me if I am paraphrasing incorrectly, but it is the impression I got (perhaps, and I hope, the wrong one).

I really don't mind the whole point of your post, I think you raise some good issues and I agree, there is probably something wrong with how certain RP issues are dealt with. OOCly I think it's nice the Sathonites are allowed in Arborea, certainly makes the game less boring for them as they don't have to interact with the same people over and over. That being said, it's pretty clear that when people "go evil" they take a lot of flak from all over. It seems that is just how the game has grown... perhaps not for the better.

I recall poGanon always telling me, if you play a Sathonite it's you against the whole MUD. If you make yourself known as evil, the whole MUD wakes up and goes to kick your ass. To be honest, I am not sure how to fix that but hey the Sathonites now sure seem to be doing a bang up job.

I personally think that all RP situations are dealt with in accordance to how a character would deal with them. The fact of the matter is, most people just don't care about stuff... is that out of the ordinary? How many average people don't vote in political elections? It directly affects them, but they just don't care. Granted that may be a bad example and people might not vote for other reasons, but I feel it can be likened to the situation in Geas. If the RP situation doesn't affect your character, and your character wouldn't give a damn about it... why should they give a damn about it?

At this point if we were to properly "fix" the issue, many characters should RP more openly their negative sides as you seem to suggest. How many people openly show their bad sides in real life? Players like poNaga who are openly crude and outspoken are not a dime a dozen. It's genuinely difficult to RP like that, I feel people do the best they can. (but then theres always the player that irks me even OOC... haha)

Is this RP a problem? Sure I agree somewhat with what you said. Do I feel it's getting better than it was? Hell the fuck yes.

Don't people "social minmax" in real life? I know I do. I try to be as agreeable as possible as to piss off the least amount of people because I hate drama. Aren't most people like this? Does it hamper the game? If it does, how so exactly?

I think magic is being talked about and questioned quite fairly at the moment, certainly the default stance is not that it is good (at least not Luminier's).

People avoid conflict presumably because they don't want to deal with being hunted, they just want to do their own thing. I don't think every player takes this game 100% seriously, and expecting them to is a little silly IMO. Of course they should still RP, I am not suggesting they shouldn't, but to be expected to do what is "right" according to you 100% of the time isn't reasonable.

Sorry if any of this sounded insulting, it is only my opinion, you certainly need not agree with it.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.

User avatar
Eluriel
Master
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#16 Post by Eluriel » Fri May 04, 2012 7:16 am

Well, I do see being outlawed from one or both of the major cities as a rather large consequence that may prevent me from being "bad," or at least being too vocal or obvious about it. It cuts you off from a lot of interaction and those areas of the game, which have their own unique features that you would also lose access to. It logically makes sense that if you get caught doing something illegal or are perceived as a threat to the city that you would be cut off from it, but it's not that fun for a player.

I do feel that the other players are trying to keep things fun for everyone by promoting interaction and not punishing or pking someone just because they can. Luminier's given Eluriel plenty of second chances she might not really deserve. ;) But I do feel that there is a very black and white, good vs. evil line which, while it promotes conflict, makes it hard to be "bad" without being branded evil/a threat and ostracized or hunted by half the mud.

I also think that keeping friendly with people is a survival mechanism. The less enemies you have, the better off you are. Eluriel has her reasons for not liking certain people, but she'll stay cordial with them because it's not in her best interests to make enemies. Unfortunately, other people don't see the layers underneath, so interactions may seem bland. I think maybe I will try to bring out more of my character's subtleties and hidden opinions to make things more interesting.

amrat
Apprentice
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:09 pm

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#17 Post by amrat » Fri May 04, 2012 9:50 am

Based on my own experiences I agree completely with the post by Glasp.
luminier wrote:I recall poGanon always telling me, if you play a Sathonite it's you against the whole MUD.
I have played a couple of Sathonites, Taniels and other chars during my time here. I had much harder time and many more enemies with my main Taniel priest than either of my Sathonites.
luminier wrote:I personally think that all RP situations are dealt with in accordance to how a character would deal with them. The fact of the matter is, most people just don't care about stuff...
.. and the hardest time of all I have had with characters that ended up as social outcasts because of pretty basic things (racism against tshaharks being a good example). It is clearly not a matter of "people not caring". You have no idea just how much people care and how united the front against you from all the guilds and characters is until you try it.
Eluriel wrote:But I do feel that there is a very black and white, good vs. evil line which, while it promotes conflict, makes it hard to be "bad" without being branded evil/a threat and ostracized or hunted by half the mud.
I think you have the cause and effect reversed here. I think the reason why it is so black and white is because of the lack of "shades of gray" in the characters. "I steal and don't follow the rules and do whatever but am misunderstood and actually a good person" is not "shades of gray" but an abusive power-gaming approach. When people only play @good characters (even when sathos) good and evil become nothing but tags. I believe most of the code changes were made because of the same thing, people ignoring the concepts of the world completely (like darkelves all being misunderstood and cuddly)
luminier wrote:At this point if we were to properly "fix" the issue, many characters should RP more openly their negative sides as you seem to suggest. How many people openly show their bad sides in real life?
I don't think this is about conscious "bad sides", "I am a complete drunk but I don't want to talk about it"- type of things. This is about things they are supposed to believe in. At least 90% of the human characters in this MUD should believe tshaharks are inferior and were taught to believe that by their parents and peers. It is not a "bad side", it is the "truth".

Sure, you can create a completely bland and opinionless character and roleplay him flawlessly. But that is a crappy character. And a character with a lot of opinions and thoughts who never reveals any of them to anyone is not really a step up IMHO.

Delmon
Champion
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:19 pm
Location: USA

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#18 Post by Delmon » Fri May 04, 2012 5:44 pm

I have played a couple of Sathonites, Taniels and other chars during my time here. I had much harder time and many more enemies with my main Taniel priest than either of my Sathonites.
What did you do, sit in Asador and play with nymphs? :D I feel as if it all depends on who is awake and how far you push your character. However, for Lilithians and Sathonites, more restrictions are fact. More caution is needed in the more populous areas.
At least 90% of the human characters in this MUD should believe tshaharks are inferior and were taught to believe that by their parents and peers. It is not a "bad side", it is the "truth".
I agree. As to starting this up again, it is clearly a way to get good rp going. Maybe an anonymous human needs to write a treatise on why tshahark are inferior to "re-spark" older human character to think this way. It could be a good way to tie it in with some of the magic stuff I've been seeing. Also, some human could put a bounty on some tshahark for the heck of it. Or, someone could propose some arborean law changes for tshaharks, making slavery acceptable, no rights for free tshaharks in arborea, etc. Maybe someone could whip out an alt and enjoy this rp? The issue is people would have to be a little lenient on the consistency of their old and ancient characters. I can't just think Mogwai's inferior as Delmon out of the blue, but maybe some humans can re-develop their racism. It can be done.

User avatar
Sairina
Hero
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Magic and Gods Revisited

#19 Post by Sairina » Sat May 05, 2012 3:37 am

I personally think that all RP situations are dealt with in accordance to how a character would deal with them. The fact of the matter is, most people just don't care about stuff... is that out of the ordinary? How many average people don't vote in political elections? It directly affects them, but they just don't care. Granted that may be a bad example and people might not vote for other reasons, but I feel it can be likened to the situation in Geas. If the RP situation doesn't affect your character, and your character wouldn't give a damn about it... why should they give a damn about it?
Because most people actually like to raise hell about nothing. They may not vote, but you can bet that they have a political opinion, which they are happy to share with everyone, interested or not. How many people do you know who don't like to bitch about their political leader, the ruling party, the bankers, the religious/non-religious, people from another region or country etc. etc.? And the less likely they are to be able to do something about it, the more likely they are to rant. Especially if things don't go their way, people like to have someone to blame, and they don't tend to be entirely fair about it either.

glorfindel
Hero
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:08 pm

Re: Making clerics more fun

#20 Post by glorfindel » Mon May 07, 2012 10:51 am

glasp wrote: One of them is for example the need for a ridiculously solid proof before calling someone evil/enemy (negating oppurtunity for value-based disagreements).
I like to say something to that particular one. While my char was Judge, I had a few chars trying to easily 'tag' people as Evil and I stood in the way of that. There's two sides to that, it's more to it then trying to minimize conflict. My reasons were to stop 'ooc explainations' from ruining Thief characters. Like: "There was a halfling in Arborea, then a different halfing came back a few seconds later, it must be the same halfling, but in disguise.". That just said, to the rest of the post:

I honestly hate that everything you do in this game that ends up being slightly conflict causing will get you to die till your vitality is at it's uttermost low and recovery from the social stigma will be impossible to recover from. You sure can do it like the Mogwais, Delmons, Jezzs and Whatevers of this world and get very strong before you switch sides, but this is imo one of the worst 'patterns' in the game (not blaming the people who do it, I do understand that there's nearly no other way).

That said, I do think the 'auto trust' should go out of your character and stay with your ooc person. It's nothing your char would usually do, the world being as it is. Apart of that, one should not confuse 'non aggressive' stance with 'peaceful stance'. My char's not looking for a fight everytime he walks into Elvandar.

Much depends on your characters background. I do think it'll be harder to discover the likes and dislikes for other characters in a Shaolin then you'll discover them in a cleric or Crusader. It might just be a hint sometimes, just a nod instead of a bow, a wary glance out of the eye... etc. I don't think that everything has to be shown openly, though I see why it might hurt the game if it's not. So, well played out conflicts, go for it. I at least try to be aware of other players as well though and it's not fun to always
be on the loosing side or get faced against impossible odds (OOC knowledge saying you are a thief, Arborea and Elvandar banning you, you're screwed). It's a balance act, but I think it's possible to have a character with a base in the world that's not a good look on everybody, no hippie and still not killing everything that moves.

That said, a last word from my view: 'conflict' is NOT equal pvp. The 'boot to the head' should always be the last option, though 95% of geas chars (guessed) use rather force then to actually try to get yourself through and try to solve (or not solve) your conflict some other way. It's only to kill. And if every conflict you bring up ends up with a physical fight then it's not worth the trouble for me. Don't get me wrong, I see a good deal of conflicts that can only end in physical violence, but ... it should be a last resort, for a good deal of the characters in daily encounters. For example: Satho cleric finds Taniel cleric blessing their sacrifical site => that cleric will likely find themselves on a cross. Taniel cleric finds sathonys cleric talking on the crossroad ... Should that be a kill? Why not try to convince that cleric what is wrong with their view? Why not try to join the discussion and stand your ground in it ? bonespear and smite are easier though... I know. (Again, this are only examples, do not take them personally they were not aimed at any group or person, I just picked the clerics because we have a lot of them, so it's easier to follow my reasoning).

Just my 2cc, feel free to disagree.

Post Reply