Magic and Gods Revisited

[Cuetlachtli]

Long post to follow. Probably no tl;dr component, so skip if you're pressed for time or if you don't like to read (and stop playing muds...).

Glasp Posted:
Before I start individually commenting on your comments, first of all I'd like to say you bring up a lot of great points. And your thoughtful response is really great. I'm about to agree and disagree with you in equal parts, however.
****************************
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.

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.

When players/characters make it their task to neutralize these (often as quickly as possible) the room for RP gets shrunk.

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.

First of all I agree completely that it would be a shame to see this passed up on. But considering the nature of Mages in general, this kind of conflict isn't only going to happen at the creation of them. It's not the case that just because a Mages guild was created that the beginning is the only time that conflict can happen. The dynamic nature of Magic in Geas and Mages makes it possible for continual conflicts to arise. Forcing some conflict from the start isn't really needed. The Mages are a little unique in that they are very dynamic and also work pretty much individually from character to character, with only a few exceptions.

I'd also like to stress that the burden of conflict is more on the those opposing the Mages, specifically, than Mages themselves. Most Mages, or Wizards (in other lore) are pretty shrewd, and are going to be defending their positions and avoiding conflict as much as possible. As a player I'd love to see the conflict developed, and as a player I've for a long time loved to see my character hunted or something, you know, something interesting. But as for my character....he has no interest in it. And will use logic, reasoning, lies, and pretending to be cordial for as long as he can to preserve an easy lifestyle. Sorry if this is too much IC info, but I feel like it is important to bring up. Scribes are not stupid, nor are Mages. They're not going to be the ones inciting conflict (for now).

The opposition I've seen, particularly in Elvandar, OOCly, I love. And I hope it continues, despite the pushing back from active Mages. But Mages aren't going to just give in to it. And maybe there will be a long time of accepting them before any real conflict, but as I said before, the guild is dynamic enough that there are plenty of opportunities for conflict as they grow.



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.

Yep. I think that at least trying to role play is enough. I have seen plenty of players that only barely attempt it. And even 'poor' roleplayers that are at least _trying_ I like, as a player, 1000x more. For all I know, I might not even be a good RPer, though I do try to be.


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.


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?


I agree here too. Most people OOCly at least know this. From reading books, playing tabletop games, or watching movies, they are fully aware that Magic can be evil enough. And usually is at least mischievous or troublesome. Especially from a religious perspective. But I have to stress again that the burden is going to be on the those that want to persecute them, not on the Mages. My char, and I'm sure the majority (but not all) Mage chars are going to be actively preserving an idea of a positive or at least non-threatening image of themselves. And why wouldn't they? They are supposedly more intelligent than the average person and possibly more shrewd in words and visible actions. (with the exception of maybe thieves).

Some of the problem with conflict, and maybe this is an issue that is not really something we can deal with, is the short term play of a lot of characters. I play only one character (well I do have one alternate, but I rarely play it, and it's only an RP char) so I play him carefully, and develop his relationships slowly. If you want to know what he thinks, truly, most of the time your char will have to get to know him over a few years or so. So more or less there is usually no opportunity to create conflict with most chars my char encounters. Dunno how relevant that is.

****************************

Luminier Posted:
****************************

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.

Agreed and disagreed here. I avoid conflict with my char because it makes absolutely no sense to pursue conflict. My char, and Mage Chars in general, are pretty much happy to pursue their work quietly. Why would we invite interruptions? Sure, we'd be happy to test our spells out on you, but we're not typically very bloodthirsty, nor are we bound by religious or moral guidelines, generally. (generally)

Sometimes, maybe even at the expense of the overall interactions in the game, I think it's okay to roleplay a character correctly. In this case I mean deception, lies, avoidance, and telling people what they want to hear, in the case of my character. I see nothing wrong with that, and I stress again that the burden is on the observer, not on my character acting stupid, to create any conflict with him.
****************************

Eluriel Posted:
****************************

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.

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.

OOCly and ICly my character likes Eluriel's character a lot. OOCly I could be wrong, but ICly my char pretty much doesn't trust her at all, but loves interacting with her, and recognizes her reserved way of interaction. Subtle interactions at the best. I wish I encountered more characters as subtle as she is. Plus ICly, it's fun to accuse her of his suspicions and watch the reactions, for my char .
****************************

Amrat posted:
****************************

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)
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".

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.

My character distrusts about 90 percent of all tshaharks and views them as unpredictable and to be avoided (with of course, the 10 percent exception, Mogwai being a great example...he trusts and likes that char a lot). That being said, I think my char fits into your last statement there, as one that doesn't always reveal his thoughts. I don't see a problem with that. If you want to know what my char thinks, try to get to know him. Even in an impromptu political discussion with a stranger he's not going to speak his mind. That's realistic enough. He's not going to reveal his innermost opinions or thoughts just to amuse some other person, or to invite unwanted attention.
****************************

Delmon Posted:
****************************

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.

I'd love to see more of this. My char, as a character, could care less about slavery or any of that crap. Sure he likes some tshaharks, but if you get a human or elf talking to him about those lizards, he might have less good to say than bad. He's not about to be overtly racist to anyone though, and that goes back to just the fundamentals of my char. Maybe some people can see it as bat RP or as trying to minimize conflict...but god damn, if you listen to my character for not too long, he's pretty fucked up in the head, by normal standards! (excuse my english)
****************************

Glorfindel Posted:

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).

Doesn't apply to my char much, but yes, I completely agree here.


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.

I really wish people understood this. Maybe they do. My char is not peaceful at all. But he is non aggressive.


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 don't think we need to have every character expressing their most extreme opinions to everyone. That is just bad RP. So I completely agree with you there. I play my character subtly, yes, but there are plenty of clues to how he actually thinks if the other player looks for it. Or knows how to read human body language (which it's also fine if their character doesn't).

[Allurana]

I think an important thing to remember is that just because you don't see RP or don't know a character's thoughts on something doesn't mean they're non-existent. Before automatically assuming that the reason players don't jump on board with things like the anti-mage movement must be because they're bad roleplayers or conflict minimalists, consider that some characters may have motive to not jump on board, or even agree about it, that you simply don't know about.

If you feel characters that keep to themselves are "crappy", well... loud and obnoxious is not the only way to roleplay, and if you expect characters to prostrate themselves at your feet for your personal entertainment, prepare to be disappointed. Most characters are going to require you to make the effort to get to know them before they reveal their thoughts to you, especially if they go against the norm. Personally I find characters that have layers to their personalities to be far more interesting than the ones that wear everything on their sleeve for all to see.

That being said, OOCly I'm all for conflict, and things like fear/hate of magic, slavery, and so on (for instance, I've been a longtime advocate of halfelves being ostracized by several races for their mixed nature, and am disappointed to see that they're instead integrated into society as perfectly normal), and more often than not, I'll support Wizards' attempts for establishing new RP situations, at least OOCly if not ICly.

Some of my characters (especially new ones) will share some or all of these thoughts. Others (generally the ones already established) may not. All of them are open to having many of their opinions changed one way or the other, if someone can convince them to see things differently. But it's not always going to happen just by the snap of fingers, especially if they have IC reasons for feeling the way they do currently.

[Zehren]

Deleted comment.

[glasp]

I would just like to clarify my last post little bit. The point I brought it was not whether it is possible to find an excuse for a character to avoid risk-taking in-game (such as being socially compatible). It is always possible to find a motivation for a certain character to act in a certain way. Neither was it about how visible those emotions are (although I agree that being completely invisible in every regard is bad).

The point was rather that basic elements in the game's background are being ignored for the benefit of the player, even to the extent where hard facts are ignored (Such as: darkelves are perceived as evil, tshaharks are disliked by humans, mages are really suspicious people, etc, etc, etc).

Since humans fear/dislike/hate tshaharks, when you create a human you should make him/her resentful of tshaharks. This is the default.

Unless you have a good point in doing otherwise. And by "good point" I do not mean "I dislike that my character dies" or "it makes my life generally easier since I will avoid conflicts". But because you really made it an integral, rich part of your character's history how your human differs from everyone else. And by common courtesy you intend to capitalize on that in your roleplay, invite others into it and actively make a point out of it. And then perhaps in fairness compensate for the "bonus" you have given yourself by adding your character some other negative trait.

Making yourself a character that is immune to cultural background is just as much a bonus as higher strength. And if it was technically possible to make code that interpret that a character discourses from the societal norm - we would. If you walk around talking positively about mages you might have something coming for you (or even just passively not "tagging along" when somebody says something bad about them - a nod in agreement might be expected!). It would have consequences (tshahark lover? blanket party for you, boy) just like having a low intelligence will make your book reading more difficult. Some things can be enforced by code - others are the responsibility of the players to do. The absence of that code isn't a feature.

And the same thing goes for mages. The default cultural inheritance is very clear and so are the official help files. It is beyond doubt that they are suspicious. And that goes regardless of what the OOC truth is (which we should not spread in OOC channels like this one). Not having that natural inclination (which could for example be introvert/silent resentment that perhaps in the best case show up as passivity to react to injustices) is just to give yourself advantages, being different for no good reason.

[Allurana]

I'm not sure if some of these things are as readily obvious as implied, actually. I'll point out a few examples.

Firstly, on the topic of slavery, you said this:

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.

Human racial hate against tshaharks is obvious, I would agree- but not slavery. I can't think of any examples of spoken or living examples of slavery in the game, actually, besides perhaps Naga's old tshahark servant in his former inn (which was seen more as a quirk of Naga than Arborean norm). I think if players are to treat slavery as a norm, it should be shown as a norm, and not as a hushed background whisper sort of thing (correct me if I'm wrong about it not being prominent, though).

Then there's situations like Korsario becoming judge of Arborea. Now, I realize the fault of this lies far more on players than wizards, but situations of Arborea having a tshahark judge... creates a conflict of RP consistency, and kind of pressures people into seeing tshaharks as equals instead of inferiors. In cases like this, I'd probably recommend that tshaharks can't become Arborean judge, or even cast votes in Arborea. Unfair for them? Sure, but it might better express this racial hatred.

Second, as for magic... if it's such a bad thing, then I'm left to wonder why Ecthor has been allowed to open practice magic in Arborea for years? Or why Masterscribes were allowed to openly do the same, with similar lack of issue. Though the fault of the latter may once again fall on the players, I don't recall any messages from the wizards that such things should be considered forbidden/unwanted, and the case of Ecthor is directly contradictive of the message trying to be expressed of magic now.

Again, OOCly I'm all for these things, and I will support them, but ICly there needs to be some consistency, too. If magic is to be hated and mistrusted, that should be shown from the onset, and not just ignored until the Mage guild is formed. If it's not introduced until after players have roleplayed it differently, then I think there needs to be a grace period for transition- not everyone is going to do a Jekyll/Hyde and flip opinion overnight.

[Zehren]

Stuff.

I agree with several of these points, however, I must raise the following concerns: (fully knowing that addressing all this might require much work)

1. New players will seldom know the lore, often resulting in non-default stances.

2. The default cultural inheritance/stance (in general) is, in my opinion, NOT very clear. (I greatly enjoyed reading the high magic, magic and low magic ones, though - they had both great atmosphere and much information.)
The help files sometimes leave things to be desired, or there IS no help file
for major cultural/historical points of importance.

I. The often fluctating nature of various lore oriented help files make for a confusing conglomerate. Compare: 'help human', which is given as a report from the character 'Xutra', 'help elf', which I could hardly imagine being more generic, and 'help half-elf', which I find satisfactory. The fluctating nature of these three, however, is a tad bit confusing.

II. Many help files are painfully lacking in information - the help files on the different deities could for betterment say more of the deities - drawing in history most would know, and more specific information than "Ah. Lilith. Evil goddess of chaos and darkness. Yup. Also, orcs." 'Help elf' would be another example.

III. There are no 'help arborea', 'help elvandar', 'help culture', 'help morals', 'help norms' or 'help slavery' files. There IS some information on the cities in http://www.geas.de/?page_id=28, but this is largely geographical information -very little in regards to culture is conferred here.

(IV. Some help files are written in a manner I find very anachronistic - 'help darkelf', for instance." Not really a separate race by biological standards, they are nevertheless considered to be a sub-species of common elves due to their insular society and alien culture.")

3. As Allurana mentions - inconsistencies. It is clear from the gate guards, non-serving dragon inn, glares from guards, etc.that tshaharks are not much liked. However, tshahark slavery is not clearly put forth (or was not, before one appeared at the docks.) It might be argued, through humans finding freedom by fleeing from Sathonys, a former 'master', that humans would be, per default, AGAINST slavery. Hate, war and murder can clearly be inherited both from being created by Sathonys and being dominantly Asralitic, but slavery seems, to me, with the knowledge of Forostar's history I have, very unfitting.

Given the lack of official information on different issues, or the information being given in spread droplets, players are often forced to make up the gaps - resulting in very amusing differenting ideas - but also resulting in actions
and occurances rather weird, such as Korsario's instance.

Echtor was adressed by Allurana - masterscribe magic was several times requested in different ventures, as far as I know. I personally make/made certain Zehren downplay(ed) his magical knowledge; he has no great need to boast or flex, he is not exactly an archmage, but most importantly, he neither wants to scare anyone, or attract undue attention - explaining
magic properly would only be possible if the other part had years of study behind them, and is not much encouraged... BUT! Masterscribe magic was/is in general very open - often when asking around, it would be casually stated some scribes dabbled in magic.

As per the link in 2. III. some of the information is outdated/contrary to current status. Of Naarved the page says "But since the village is in the middle of nowhere, the major cities aren’t very interested in this fact." This is
in direct contrast to Elvandar assuming authority AND responsibility for judging any reported criminal incidences there.

4. Most want to play heroes/villains. Most characters are thus exceptions from the norm - the heroic ones who venture forth, defy fate, jatta jatta. In all these ventures, it might be expected to end up with individualistic views on matters - adressing tshahark hate, it might be hard for humans who have fought side by side with tshaharks in several skirmishes to hate them as much... On the other hand, it would be posible to hate them more as well - "it just proves how bloodthirsty they are!"

5. Death. It is a very hard topic in RP games, and I believe the current coded solution would/could work very well - if death was taken more solemnly. I often come across other PCs who have "recently gotten a new body" or who otherwise simply mentions, in a footnote, that they have died. Not knowing what else to do, I have myself mainly conformed to this - with Zehren, I entirely ignore his deaths (unless at player hand, perhaps...) (not that either happen often...). But if death can be handled so casually, how can racism be handled soberly?

/end list.

Given that I raise questions pertaining to the quality of various (presumably old) help files, and unexistant ones, it seems only fair to also offer to write new(, more elaborate ones) - of course, if so commisioned, I would first need to know the default cultural stances.

[Nathan]

The point was rather that basic elements in the game's background are being ignored for the benefit of the player, even to the extent where hard facts are ignored (Such as: darkelves are perceived as evil, tshaharks are disliked by humans, mages are really suspicious people, etc, etc, etc).

Hmm, what about players will? I personally cannot see any hard facts that /all/ /darkelves/ must be evil, /all/ /mages/ must act and be treated as criminals and /all/ /humans/ must dislike Tshaharks. E.g. Nathan's life has been rescued hundreds of times by Tshaharks, why should he even dislike their race anymore? I am also able to imagine a darkelf changing his mind and following Gwen, and I personnally cannot see any reason why game design or history should be treated like some kind of dogma, I would prefer to see all these informations as some kind of historical background, but nothing that /must/ apply to everyone and everything.
I mean that all must be players choice, and I also cannot see any benefit in ignoring them ... just to mention that.

Considering the mages, they should have a choice whereto develop their char - like everyone else. So beeing suspicous should be ok I mean, but anything more would lead too far.

Since humans fear/dislike/hate tshaharks, when you create a human you should make him/her resentful of tshaharks. This is the default. Unless you have a good point in doing otherwise. ...

Hmm, thats not true at all.

Help human sais:
"They are friend to all races on Forostar having trade relations with most of the settlements around their capital Arborea and are occupied with enlarging their knowledge, wisdom, allies and numbers everyday"

Help tshahark sais:
"Now that their population is growing again and the human kind forgot about the tshahark they are roaming the world again and can be found nearly everywhere."

Help darkelves sais nothing about them beeing bad under all circumstances

The absence of that code isn't a feature.

I mean that you are going way too far. The players make this game, not a concept, and also not the code. /Only/ the absence of code makes this game interesting - the relations between players within this game are, and always must be, the result of players will, and only as long as it remains a product of players it will be worth playing.

So absence of code it might not only be a feature, but the essence of this game.

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.

As Nathan came back to forostar, Arborea and Elvandar have been totally synchronized. They shared the same opinions, laws, enemies and lists of outlaws, somehow entire Arborea was like little Elvandar, and things that were not identical were at least handled identically -- or ignored. There was absolutely no difference between both towns - and for sure no imbalance of any kind.

Infact the changes in Arborea changed admittedly the balance between light and darkness, because Arborea is not automatically acting like Elvandar anymore. This of course might have caused some inconveniences in Elvandar, but i cannot see any damage done to the game.

The only result of these changes I see is a higher demand onto diplomatic efforts


You might not like these developments, but a "damage tzo the game " should be proofed somehow before postulated.

poNathan

[Delia]

I think this is more about the wolrd as a whole than the limited perspective of a single character. Players more often than not choose against the grain roles and perspectives with their characters but that is completely irrelevant here. What matters is how - and I think this is the subject at hand - the world works and is perceived by the majority of its inhabitants.

As far as player will goes, sure players will try to pull off amazing to ridiculous things off but what players should also keep in mind that there always are consequences. Or should be, atleast. The game world is not just a sand box for the players to do whatever they like without consequences. The world should respond according to its rules and without amazing amounts of detailed code wizzie involvement is usually required to give things the nudge required.

Personally I love when wizards come and meddle a bit. It makes the game much more alive. How people see that as a bad thing, I simply cannot fathom. Sure it can be a pain when things work against you but then again, how boring it would be if things always worked your way?

[Nathan]

As far as player will goes, sure players will try to pull off amazing to ridiculous things off but what players should also keep in mind that there always are consequences. Or should be, atleast. The game world is not just a sand box for the players to do whatever they like without consequences.

I have never been arguing against guidance - but there is a difference between guidance and restrictions.

I just wanted to say that rules like
- all humans must hate tshaharks
- all darkelves must be evil
- all mages must be outlawed
are unnecessary, and hardcoding them would damage the game.

The fact that this world works is a proof that not everything has to be regulated by code and "game laws", most of the players behave quite responsible, and that most necessary consequences are already handled greatly by the players.

[Delia]

- all humans must hate tshaharks
- all darkelves must be evil
- all mages must be outlawed

I do not think that is what is even discussed here nor wanted. After all, there are always exceptions. Nor do I think it is generally wanted that such exceptions become the rule neither. Some guiding attitudes should be there, IMHO that force said groups to travel the extra miles to win trust and acceptance.

For example dark elves become dark elves not by picking pretty flowers and being generally nice and helpful to the poor and the needy. Tshaharks are not specifically known for their peaceful and controlled behaviour. Some might view them as beasts of burden or trained dogs at best. If for not anything else having such an intimidating sight strolling around the neighbourhood should cause some concern. As for mages I personally see them as drawn swords that cannot be sheathed nor put away. Placing it into a modern perspective imagine someone constantly playing with a loaded gun. "It's alright, I'm an expert." Yeah, how reassuring when the gun is being pointed at random directions and fancy stunts are done with it and you are next to it.

[Allurana]

I personally cannot see any hard facts that /all/ /darkelves/ must be evil

All darkelves have effectively max-evil auras, and also cannot convert from the god that created them (Sathonys or Lilith). That makes them pretty conclusively evil.

Many years ago, it was indeed possible for non-evil darkelves to exist (through char creation or wizard conversion), but these darkelves have since stopped playing or have been converted into elves.

As it is now, I believe the darkelf ritual is the only way for darkelves to canonically exist- a discussion I had with Abharsair in the past had him state that he preferred to think of all darkelves as sterile to prevent darkelf offspring- though whether this is officially established or documented anywhere I do not know.

The reason all darkelves are supposed to be evil is because, at least as I've interpreted it, they're created from the essence of Sathonys or Lilith and, as such, are basically of the same impurity as demons or undeads.

Personally I love when wizards come and meddle a bit. It makes the game much more alive. How people see that as a bad thing, I simply cannot fathom.

For the record, I'll emphasize again (or maybe I left it out in my original post), I have strong support for the wizards and try to work with whatever they want to introduce into the game setting, the examples in this thread being no exception. Like poZehren, I'm happy to offer a helping hand if wizards desire it(especially when it comes to updating and extending various lore-related helpfiles). I'm likewise completely fine with the world norm being presented however the wizards desire it to be presented.

What I don't agree with, however, is what I feel is a suggestion that there's only one way to roleplay, and anyone that doesn't do it, regardless of what reasons they may have, are bad roleplayers.

One thing that would probably help push players in the desired direction is having live examples of some of these things in the game, via NPCs. Help files do help shed some light, but nothing beats seeing it in one's day to day life. Some tshahark slaves in Arborean lands, or anti-mage sentiments being muttered by various NPCs (the rumour system would be great for this) might go a long way with enticing other players to share these perspectives, or speak up if they feel they'll have support behind their feelings (few people, in RL or RP, are going to stand up and voice a controversial opinion if they have no power, authority, or influence to back it, lest they simply become public punching bags).

Also, the issue of Ecthor. Ecthor openly serving in Arborea does not make sense if the land is supposed to hate and fear magic. However, I realize simply removing him causes issues with a quest and a small explorable area.

My suggestions for working around that:

1. Have Ecthor relocate somewhere outside of populated lands, where he can continue his activities outside of the public eye or the arm of the law.

2. Replace the magic seal + Ecthor with some sort of complex locking mechanism + a locksmith NPC, or something similar.

Once again, I'm willing to back my criticism/suggestions with help. Any wizard is welcome to drop me a message (preferably forum PM, as I don't log into the mud regularly), and I'll do what I can.

Placing it into a modern perspective imagine someone constantly playing with a loaded gun. "It's alright, I'm an expert." Yeah, how reassuring when the gun is being pointed at random directions and fancy stunts are done with it and you are next to it.

This happens in America all the time. What's the problem with it?

[Arthur]

I think one factor that has so far not been mentioned is that at many times (at least when I play) there are too few people online to support groups representing each side of any conflicting argument. As a result, if you want to go against the norm, you do tend to find yourself alone and at risk of persecution. Also it makes it more likely that unnatural groupings are formed simply to make a big enough fighting team to tackle a big threat. If we could get the playerbase up a bit then (1) people might feel feel a bit safer role playing some of the intended themes without being entirely ostracised and (2) new characters would be more likely to find themselves in a grouping where the role-play of others educates them in the beliefs and prejudices normal in Forostar.

[Eluriel]

I don't think Glasp meant them as strict rules, but rather the general view of the populace. Characters can certainly go against the grain, but if everyone is going against the grain then it's not really the grain anymore. So, those are the general guidelines that hopefully more people will take into consideration. I do agree that there should be room for people to play a wide range of views though.

people might feel feel a bit safer role playing some of the intended themes without being entirely ostracised

I guess that's the thing, that people shouldn't feel ostracized for playing their character the way a typical person of that sort is intended to be. Yes, slavery and hating on people who are different is not something we appreciate in today's society, but if it's typical in the world of Geas, then characters should be used to people acting that way.

My character will still have her reasons for disliking certain things like religious zealotry and torture, but I think if opinions like that are rooted in the character and their experiences then they have a place in the world too. Just keep in mind why your character feels or acts a certain way if it goes against established views, and make sure there's a reason for it.

[Delia]

After all this new mage stuff I've had immense difficulties coming to terms with the relationship between my character and the gods as things have obviously changed. With so many unknowns in the mix it seems quite hard forming a good view on things. Obviously this is stuff to be explored in the game but as a player I'd welcome some clarity for myself first Any similar feelings?

Anyways, some thoughts about gods. Lilith sounds as the one who will most likely accept all magic as magic kinda is the stuff of chaos. The perfect tool for the Lilithian.

Asral might view magic with some distain and mistrust as using magic kinda clashes with the whole warrior ethos. Think of how Conan views witches and sorcerers, for example.

Zhakrin is a hard one to figure out(as he/she/it generally is)but I think creative forces are appreciated more than destructive ones as when the dwarves started tinkering and offering their creations to Zhakrin he grew more powerful. Or then again, he just might not care.

Gwen might respect magic as an art form but frown on using it "misproperly". More illusions and mischief than the standard fare of blasting things with raw force.

[Delia]

Sathonys might generally dislike the idea that a mortal posesses great power unless thst one is firmly in his bony grasp. Sell your soul kind of deals could be the case here in exchange for patronage in pursuit of dark magicks.

Taniel while being the god of knowledge I can see having the dimmest view when it comes to magic, mainly because of it's unpredictable and chaotic nature. With rules and regulations magic can be allowed to be but there is such a thing as a mortal knowing too much.

Evren is a hard one for me as magic can be seen as an invasive, unnatural force that just doesn't dance that well with all things harmoniously natural. Harming the delicate balance of nature being so easy, I see this one as the most problematic.

Well, just some very generalized thoughts.

[fernao]

+1 on Delia's comments how the gods might see magic. I fully agree.

[Delia]

I guess what I am implying here is that mages could have harder time with favour. As in increased decay time and/or favour gain penalty. Maximum favour should be left untouched, I think.
Would this be just a general 'you are a mage'-penalty or a god specific do not do this thing(preferrable) is open to question as is this whole favour penalty stuff. Just tossing stuff out from my head. Spring cleaning of sorts.

[Zehren]

I guess what I am implying here is that mages could have harder time with favour. As in increased decay time and/or favour gain penalty. Maximum favour should be left untouched, I think.
Would this be just a general 'you are a mage'-penalty or a god specific do not do this thing(preferrable) is open to question as is this whole favour penalty stuff. Just tossing stuff out from my head. Spring cleaning of sorts.

Increased decay time AND increased favour GAIN? (That is, if negative. I feel Gwen approves (though disapproves of any harmful uses - except if it was the lesser evil), and Zhakrin observes (tee-hee.))
It'd be like... "Oh, you think you can magic enemies instead of fight them honourably? Well, I think I will simply make you feel my wrath... What? Ye bringeth me heads? Jolly jelly, thankye."

PEANUT BUTTER PURGING TIME

[Delia]

and/or favour gain penalty.

That is, less favour gained per sacrifice. Though I feel increased favour decay would be more appropriate forcing the mages to scurry to the gods more often.

[fernao]

and/or favour gain penalty.

That is, less favour gained per sacrifice. Though I feel increased favour decay would be more appropriate forcing the mages to scurry to the gods more often.

Of course... They are sinners and have to ask more often for forgiveness than others, only natural.