Magick: how does my character deal with it?

[janeshephard]

A while ago someone mentioned that 'gicker hunters' shouldn't really exist or if they do be exceptional people since, again, we seem to be doing the 'hate' thing but not the 'fear' thing.

[spawnloser]

I would maintain that your lone Tuluki trying to scrag every magicker he sees is being somewhat unrealistic.  That's like you trying to beat up with rocks and sticks every tank, semi or city bus you see.  You need a lot more of you with rocks and sticks to take that magicker out.

Which I would imagine wouldn't matter to his PC, seeing as how he's doing it for glory and honor of the Sun King.

Quasi-religious fanaticism can do some amazing things.

I would also maintain that people rarely play this sort of quasi-religious fanatic.  They aren't berserkers or drug-crazed lunatics let loose upon an enemy.  They are, in most cases, just normal people that know that magicks leveled their city once... completely.  They're aren't suicidal in following the Sun King.

[LoD]

Maybe. But I don't want my mundanes to be buffer. And I don't really want the attitude toward magickers to change.
I like things the way they are.

What about the people that liked "things the way they are" before the game changed several years ago.  Many players don't even know what an atmosphere like that feels like because it's never existed for them.

Years ago, elementalists were made much more powerful than before, and the social consequences were implemented.  Unfortunately, the style of interaction in most places outside of Allanak became flee, kill, or be killed.  Old Kank and others are just lamenting the resulting lack of interaction options between most magickers and mundanes.

The small playerbase levels harsher consequences under such division, and that's generally the issue I'm most concerned with when these topics come up.

-LoD

[Barzalene]

I hear what you're saying. Yes, with a small playerbase it is important to facilitate as much interplay as possible. Yes.
But I don't think that sacrificing the culture of the game to do it is the way to go. It's like the c-elf d-elf thing. If you want to play an elf then you need to embrace the idea what you, as an elf are a we, not an I.
If you want a lot of easy interaction, you can in fact play one of the many many mundane classes available.
We're not talking about a code change here. If it was a code change I wouldn't care. I don't mind if you add more skills to the magickers or fewer to mundanes. Code changes are things that you just learn to live with.
But this is saying, let's change the entire flavor of the game. That's a huge issue.You can't just glibly chalk it up to be more flexible.

[Gobbleneck]

I would maintain that your lone Tuluki trying to scrag every magicker he sees is being somewhat unrealistic.  That's like you trying to beat up with rocks and sticks every tank, semi or city bus you see.  You need a lot more of you with rocks and sticks to take that magicker out.

Which I would imagine wouldn't matter to his PC, seeing as how he's doing it for glory and honor of the Sun King.

Quasi-religious fanaticism can do some amazing things.

Indeed my good man.

[Old Kank]

Maybe. But I don't want my mundanes to be buffer. And I don't really want the attitude toward magickers to change.
I like things the way they are.

What about the people that liked "things the way they are" before the game changed several years ago.  Many players don't even know what an atmosphere like that feels like because it's never existed for them.

Reading this thread has made me wonder why people seem so comfortable with the magicker love-hate pendulum firmly planted in the 'hate' zone.  As shadow said, nothing is going to change at this point, but I'd love to take a quick straw poll of anyone invested enough in this topic to respond:

1.  Do you like things the way they are now, or do you think the game would benefit from a more tempered responses to magickers?  ('Tempered responses' is not a call for free-love and hugs between mundanes and magickers, or the WoW-ization of Arm, but reactions other than immediate ostracizing, elimination from most clan roles, and/or killing.)

2.  When did you start playing?  Before the cataclysmic event of a couple years ago, when magick was everywhere?  During the Allanaki occupation of Tuluk, before there was a major anti-magick city-state?  Before karma went in, when every other character was a lovey-huggy-preserver? 

3.  Have you played a magicker in the last 6-12 months?  If so, were they generally known as a magicker, or were they a 'rogue' magicker?

4.  Have you been involved with the current "magick" side of the game?

5.  Would you rather have more or less magick in the game?

[Lizzie]

1.  Do you like things the way they are now, or do you think the game would benefit from a more tempered responses to magickers?  ('Tempered responses' is not a call for free-love and hugs between mundanes and magickers, or the WoW-ization of Arm, but reactions other than immediate ostracizing, elimination from most clan roles, and/or killing.)

More, and more varied, tempered responses. More of the fear, more of the anxiety that goes along with the notion that you are -about- to drink tea with an power rifle, cocked and loaded, and set to shoot randomly - or that might possibly just aim at your enemy - simply because it can.

2.  When did you start playing?  Before the cataclysmic event of a couple years ago, when magick was everywhere?  During the Allanaki occupation of Tuluk, before there was a major anti-magick city-state?  Before karma went in, when every other character was a lovey-huggy-preserver? 

Pre-lava, post-Nakki Occupation.  I remember Ten Serak. I do not remember players being allowed to play mantises.

3.  Have you played a magicker in the last 6-12 months?  If so, were they generally known as a magicker, or were they a 'rogue' magicker?

Any magicker I might or might not have had in the past 6-12 months might or might not be too recent to mention.

4.  Have you been involved with the current "magick" side of the game?

Too current to mention, and I'm not sure WHICH current magick side of the game you refer to.

5.  Would you rather have more or less magick in the game?

I like things how they are now. On the other hand, I don't know how things are in places my current character doesn't go. I might feel otherwise, otherwise.

[X-D]

1.  Do you like things the way they are now, or do you think the game would benefit from a more tempered responses to magickers?  ('Tempered responses' is not a call for free-love and hugs between mundanes and magickers, or the WoW-ization of Arm, but reactions other than immediate ostracizing, elimination from most clan roles, and/or killing.)

No, I do not like the way things are now, the fact that most mages are put up at the level of hatred almost equal to sorcerer is silly.

2.  When did you start playing?  Before the cataclysmic event of a couple years ago, when magick was everywhere?  During the Allanaki occupation of Tuluk, before there was a major anti-magick city-state?  Before karma went in, when every other character was a lovey-huggy-preserver?

I started playing before sorcerers were a playable class. I think it is funny how many people think the current IG hatred of mages is from IC events. It is not, staff started pushing it ICly through use of NPC clan leaders LONG before any of the IC events later.
And I do not agree with it, at least from the gemmed side.

3.  Have you played a magicker in the last 6-12 months?  If so, were they generally known as a magicker, or were they a 'rogue' magicker?

No, my last mage was just over a year ago, gemmed, and I have nothing but bad things to say about it.

4.  Have you been involved with the current "magick" side of the game?

Yes

5.  Would you rather have more or less magick in the game?

I think the amount of magick in the game is fine.

[WWYD]

1.  Do you like things the way they are now, or do you think the game would benefit from a more tempered responses to magickers?  ('Tempered responses' is not a call for free-love and hugs between mundanes and magickers, or the WoW-ization of Arm, but reactions other than immediate ostracizing, elimination from most clan roles, and/or killing.)

I think "the way the things are now" (as the docs say they should be) would be perfect if they were made slightly more lax. My personal problems are the way it's portrayed in-game by paticular players.

2.  When did you start playing?  Before the cataclysmic event of a couple years ago, when magick was everywhere?  During the Allanaki occupation of Tuluk, before there was a major anti-magick city-state?  Before karma went in, when every other character was a lovey-huggy-preserver?

Post-occupation.

3.  Have you played a magicker in the last 6-12 months?  If so, were they generally known as a magicker, or were they a 'rogue' magicker?

Experience with both.

4.  Have you been involved with the current "magick" side of the game?

Yep.

5.  Would you rather have more or less magick in the game?

Less, or at the very least, more ways for a magicker to keep their head down and be able to interact with society without taking a gem.

[spawnloser]

1. Too comprehensive a question.  Tempered could many too many things.  I don't dislike how it is now, but I wouldn't mind seeing more opportunities.  I actually played a Salarri years ago that was tasked with finding a krathi/armorcrafter or krathi/weaponcrafter for certain tasks, and it was an IMM-began plot.  I would like to see more using of magickers but with social ostracism for doing so publicly, so no strike-forces of magickers or the like.

2. Barely post-occupation.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Amount is fine, I think.

[Samira]

1.  Do you like things the way they are now, or do you think the game would benefit from a more tempered responses to magickers?  ('Tempered responses' is not a call for free-love and hugs between mundanes and magickers, or the WoW-ization of Arm, but reactions other than immediate ostracizing, elimination from most clan roles, and/or killing.)

I think things are more or less fine the way they are now.  I wouldn't mind additions to the gemmer's quarters, though.  A bar, an expanded shopping center, and a gemmer day care center wouldn't be a bad start.

2.  When did you start playing?  Before the cataclysmic event of a couple years ago, when magick was everywhere?  During the Allanaki occupation of Tuluk, before there was a major anti-magick city-state?  Before karma went in, when every other character was a lovey-huggy-preserver?

Post-occupation, pre-Copper wars.  Like 04-05ish, when Shatuka was still around and you could still make a PC without worrying about the Second Coming.

3.  Have you played a magicker in the last 6-12 months?  If so, were they generally known as a magicker, or were they a 'rogue' magicker?

Yeah.  I've never played a "rogue" 'gicker that wasn't in some kind of coded tribe, though.  The general impression I've gotten is that, as a rogue 'gicker, you'll get whacked by a d-elf or caught by the templarate of one of the city states before you hit 5 days (unless you hide out in a certain village and find work doing a certain thing).

4.  Have you been involved with the current "magick" side of the game?

Yuh.

5.  Would you rather have more or less magick in the game?

I think the amount in the game right now is just fine.  People getting jaded about magick is partially an OOC thing you can't really help.

[LoD]

For the benefit of those that never saw the model before the Cataclysm of ~1998, which was the IC event that triggered a lot of the changes to the elementalists, this is a rough approximation of how the game "felt" to me in terms of progression in terms of Days Played to the coded Power Potential of a given character.

Mundanes were the most common and the most powerful out of the gate, and were likely the more powerful characters in a given environment the majority of the time due to the scarcity of sorcerers and the slow progression of elementalists.  People that wanted a quick access to power went mundane, because the other paths were either too restrictive or took too long.

Elementalists progressed very slowly and were fragile in their beginning stages.  Many of them were forced to ally with mundane organizations and institutions as a method of survival against physical and political attacks from those who feared their ultimate potential, encouraging a wider variety of options for social interplay between mundane and magickers.  However, in the long run, the elementalists would eventually eclipse the power potential of the mundanes and a handful would become dangerous and legendary.

Sorcerers were a combination of the two, inheriting both the quick progression of the mundanes and the high power potential of the elementalists, with the highest possible potential for coded power.  It was because of this rapid rise and unparalleled potential for coded power coupled with their unique methods of acquiring magickal energy that made them some of the feared and hated beings on Zalanthas, which is what warranted the kill-on-sight culture mandated by most major civilizations in the Known World.



The numbers are all just made up examples, so don't spend too much time focusing on the values as much as on the general concept as a whole -- which afforded magickers and mundanes more interesting options than the current fear and hatred model that's been running for the last decade.  Most people simply haven't ever known anything different.

I felt this was a better model because it allowed for a dependency to develop between mundanes and magickers; a dependency that led to a wider variety of options for social interaction and integration within the game world as a whole.  In many cases, it required the cooperation of both entities to combat the truly powerful sources in the world.  Magick was feared, but elementalists progressed in such a way that did not require them to be universally feared, hated, and hunted by the mundane population.

-LoD

[Armaddict]

Nice, LoD.

[Nyr]

I started playing before sorcerers were a playable class. I think it is funny how many people think the current IG hatred of mages is from IC events. It is not, staff started pushing it ICly through use of NPC clan leaders LONG before any of the IC events later.

NPC clan leaders in pre-cataclysm Tuluki times were pushing for hatred of mages?

[X-D]

Actually Nyr, I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about Nak, and gemmers, I leave Tuluk out of the picture when talking about magick.

Before, during and after the rebellion, In nak. Gemmers could and did work for several clans. Some of them even had thier own ops.

But in each case, Staff logged in with a NPC leader and said NO MORE MAGES.

This is the first thing to set the later tone on gemmers in allanak. Because then they got set apart from the rest of the clans, save one. And even that one is only useful for human gemmers.

What had been incorperated into allanak sociaty was now...Well, not. And so, the beginning of the outright hatred of all mages in allanak.

The cataclysm was a staff creation as well BTW.

[Armaddict]

Actually Nyr, I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about Nak, and gemmers, I leave Tuluk out of the picture when talking about magick.

Before, during and after the rebellion, In nak. Gemmers could and did work for several clans. Some of them even had thier own ops.

But in each case, Staff logged in with a NPC leader and said NO MORE MAGES.

This is the first thing to set the later tone on gemmers in allanak. Because then they got set apart from the rest of the clans, save one. And even that one is only useful for human gemmers.

What had been incorperated into allanak sociaty was now...Well, not. And so, the beginning of the outright hatred of all mages in allanak.

The cataclysm was a staff creation as well BTW.

So...shouldn't that just be a sign that something was going very wrong?  It seems like you're talking about 'glory years' that you were screwed out of, when really that sounds like everyone went mage happy and staff had to come in and say 'Remember the way the game is played, please.'

[Jingo]

Actually Nyr, I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about Nak, and gemmers, I leave Tuluk out of the picture when talking about magick.

Before, during and after the rebellion, In nak. Gemmers could and did work for several clans. Some of them even had thier own ops.

But in each case, Staff logged in with a NPC leader and said NO MORE MAGES.

This is the first thing to set the later tone on gemmers in allanak. Because then they got set apart from the rest of the clans, save one. And even that one is only useful for human gemmers.

What had been incorperated into allanak sociaty was now...Well, not. And so, the beginning of the outright hatred of all mages in allanak.

The cataclysm was a staff creation as well BTW.

So...shouldn't that just be a sign that something was going very wrong?  It seems like you're talking about 'glory years' that you were screwed out of, when really that sounds like everyone went mage happy and staff had to come in and say 'Remember the way the game is played, please.'

The staff should probably tell us, if that's the case.

[Nyr]

Oh, okay.  I just wanted to be sure I understood correctly.

Point of contention:  staff created or not, it is still IC.  (regardless of OOC reasoning behind something, what occurs IC is IC, separating things out into "staff did it" and "players did it" doesn't serve much purpose)

Point of clarification:  the 1450 cataclysm was (if not directly caused by) directly influenced by players, as well as any other events since then.

[X-D]

Actually, the number of mages was then lower then it has been since, and the number of powerful mages MUCH lower.

Mages took a very long time to amass any sort of power. and a 20 day mage often fell to a 1 day burgler.

And the Halaster fix to empower mages did not happen for a couple years after all but 1 clan in nak stopped hiring gemmers.


So no, I don't think it was sign that anything was wrong. At least not from the playability side of the game. Sure, people bitched about how weak mages were, but then it did not matter much because gemmed mages had clans they could fall back on.

After they no longer had that then they had to be "fixed" They were gievn more power and the length of time it took to skill them up was reduced.

IE, the cause again can be traced back to staff stepping in and laying the npc hammer down. Which is not an IC event.

Here is what it looked like in Tor.

NPC noble walks in.

NPC noble says We are hiring no more mages.

PC noble and PC LT and PC lead aide all ask why?

NPC noble says "Because I said so."

NPC noble leaves.




(edit) Lightly influenced on the edges maybe. Hell, there was complaints at the time that there was nothing any player or group of players could have done to alter the outcome in any way that mattered.

[jriley]

For the benefit of those that never saw the model before the Cataclysm of ~1998, which was the IC event that triggered a lot of the changes to the elementalists, this is a rough approximation of how the game "felt" to me in terms of progression in terms of Days Played to the coded Power Potential of a given character.

That's a very neat presentation, LOD.  I can certainly admire that you've a definite point that you're making, and that magick/mundane characters once enjoyed a closer interaction during the early stages of the game in the 90's.

That being said, I think that the goal that this line of reasoning is aiming for will not work out for a couple of reasons, one of them being that our playerbase does not universally want to play social characters.  There is a significant demographic of players that choose desert elves, halfing PC and magical characters for the very reason that they enjoy either playing alone or in small groups.  I'll elaborate on this in another post soon, but I think it's an important point to appreciate when renegotiating the boundaries of mundane/wizard interaction.

The other point being that there is a thematic conflict against what you're proposing.  Specifically arm is a low-magic setting.  Many chroniclers tend to assume that the difference between a high-magic setting and a low-magic setting is the frequency with which one encounters magic.  This is not so.

In truth, one of the biggest differentiators of a high-magic setting and a low-magic setting is the utility of magic to solve problems.  Magical characters (as well as templars and PC monsters) have more in common with NPC than most PC.  Specifically, magic is a plot device that shows up in order to cause conflict.  If you're a commoner, you're much more likely to get wounded, frightened or melted by magic than you are to be aided, protected or comforted by magic. 

Can the average commoner cooperate with a spell-caster in order to solve problems?  Only with the greatest difficulty.  For most commoner PCs, this will happen only once in their game life or less. 

In order to play correctly, most of our PC characters are meant to be terrified/hateful of magic.

[LoD]

The other point being that there is a thematic conflict against what you're proposing.  Specifically arm is a low-magic setting.  Many chroniclers tend to assume that the difference between a high-magic setting and a low-magic setting is the frequency with which one encounters magic.  This is not so.

In truth, one of the biggest differentiators of a high-magic setting and a low-magic setting is the utility of magic to solve problems.  Magical characters (as well as templars and PC monsters) have more in common with NPC than most PC.  Specifically, magic is a plot device that shows up in order to cause conflict.  If you're a commoner, you're much more likely to get wounded, frightened or melted by magic than you are to be aided, protected or comforted by magic.

You may then find it interesting that I consider today's model to be much higher-magick, by your definition, than the period I was describing in my post due to a few byproducts produced by the slower-developing elementalist model.

First, there were fewer displays and common uses of powerful magicks back then, because it took the characters so long to actually develop the ability to use them.  Elementalists took RL months and years to attain spells and abilities that can be achieved now in a matter of weeks.  Because of this, the frequency with which you encountered anything but the most basic of spells and abilities was much less than it is today.  And while elementalists had more potential to be used as part of an everyday solution, they often weren't nearly as capable.

Second, magick had a greater sense of mystery operating beneath that model.  Fewer people played mages because it was difficult to skill them up and survive, which was much less fun to people that were looking for classes that offered the most coded power with the least effort.  That slot generally fell to DE assassins or mullish warriors.  Because elementalists required more time and patience to be successful, many of them never made it to their goal and those mysterious higher-tier spells were rarely employed and even more rarely witnessed by the general public.

Third, there were fewer utility spells and abilities under that model per elementalist, so the classes were actually less flexible and less utilitarian than they are today.  And elementalists were initially so fragile, the Zalanthan wilderness was often a death sentence.  The wilderness then was much more mundane, and the chances of wandering into any type of magickal being while you were out and about was minimal compared to your chances in today's game.

So, in practice, the older model that allowed for greater degrees of social interaction between the players actually resulted in a more mysterious, lower-magick setting than the one you have today driven by fear and hatred.

-LoD

[Nyr]

Actually, the number of mages was then lower then it has been since, and the number of powerful mages MUCH lower.

Mages took a very long time to amass any sort of power. and a 20 day mage often fell to a 1 day burgler.

And the Halaster fix to empower mages did not happen for a couple years after all but 1 clan in nak stopped hiring gemmers.


So no, I don't think it was sign that anything was wrong. At least not from the playability side of the game. Sure, people bitched about how weak mages were, but then it did not matter much because gemmed mages had clans they could fall back on.

After they no longer had that then they had to be "fixed" They were gievn more power and the length of time it took to skill them up was reduced.

IE, the cause again can be traced back to staff stepping in and laying the npc hammer down. Which is not an IC event.

Here is what it looked like in Tor.

NPC noble walks in.

NPC noble says We are hiring no more mages.

PC noble and PC LT and PC lead aide all ask why?

NPC noble says "Because I said so."

NPC noble leaves.

We've "dropped the hammer" before in other clans for other reasons, whether it be via NPC, e-mail, request response, or board post.  I have done this myself.  What is the point that you are making, and how does it relate to the discussion at hand?  Are you saying that there should be more clans that gemmers can be involved in?  Is this causing a problem?  Is there a void in the game that is not filled due to these changes?

(edit) Lightly influenced on the edges maybe. Hell, there was complaints at the time that there was nothing any player or group of players could have done to alter the outcome in any way that mattered.

I'm not sure how to classify this one, but I'll try.  You already know that we do not make any plots (except one) staff-created anymore.  We let things develop as influenced by players.  This has developed over time.  In the past, there was less of an emphasis on player-created plots, but players still had the capacity to do so, and the ability to be involved in staff-created plots.  Staff-created or no, players influenced it and were a major part of it (the Cataclysm stories I've written were based on logs, staff wiki information, and staff information about PCs involved).  Where should the line be drawn, and is that even an important distinction to make?

Magick and how it affects my PC:  I played one PC in a severely anti-magick area of the game.  Even PCs that have plots and plans to destroy magickers can still fear them.  Even PCs that fear and hate magickers can interact with them in a neutral setting.  Even that PC found an occasion to interact with magickers without trying to actively kill them.  (one occasion only though)

So, in practice, the older model that allowed for greater degrees of social interaction between the players actually resulted in a more mysterious, lower-magick setting than the one you have today driven by fear and hatred.

This is an interesting point, but I would also have you throw in the factor of "the great announcement of 2006" as a variable in this...can you write on that too?

[jriley]

So, in practice, the older model that allowed for greater degrees of social interaction between the players actually resulted in a more mysterious, lower-magick setting than the one you have today driven by fear and hatred.
-LoD

Wow, I never looked at it that way.  I guess you're right.  Hmmm.  Maybe the old way was better.

[Salt Merchant]

I started playing before sorcerers were a playable class. I think it is funny how many people think the current IG hatred of mages is from IC events. It is not, staff started pushing it ICly through use of NPC clan leaders LONG before any of the IC events later.

NPC clan leaders in pre-cataclysm Tuluki times were pushing for hatred of mages?

Yes. Not hatred, exactly, but unacceptability. This was true even in '96. I remember Hanruak leaning on Rhydun/Alkyone, for example.

[LoD]

So, in practice, the older model that allowed for greater degrees of social interaction between the players actually resulted in a more mysterious, lower-magick setting than the one you have today driven by fear and hatred.

This is an interesting point, but I would also have you throw in the factor of "the great announcement of 2006" as a variable in this...can you write on that too?

The announcement that Armageddon's doors would be closing in June, 2007 caught a lot of people by surprise, and was likely one of the more damaging events we've experienced as it pertains to maintaining the integrity and consistency of our small, but loyal, player base.  While there was certainly no malice intended (quite the opposite, I think), the residual fallout has only recently seemed to be repaired nearly four years later.

Before discussing the flame that was generated by the announcement, it's important to understand the pool of gasoline onto which the flame was being tossed.

As a result of the Cataclysm, elementalists were displaced in the north as abominations to be feared, hated and hunted.  In their current progression model, they proved to be easy prey without the environmental and political protection they once enjoyed by serving as a contributing, yet suspicious, member of civilized society.  To balance this new social disadvantage, they were given "teeth".  These teeth came in the form of faster skill progression, great power potential, and greater survival skills.  However, there were a couple of flaws in the model that didn't surface until later down the road.

One was with karma.  Karma is intended to afford trusted role-players the opportunity to attempt more difficult and limiting roles.  Half-giants had near-limitless strength, but a lack of intelligence and, likely, no leadership potential.  Muls had ferocious combat potential, but tied to a slavery role that frequently found the players storing due to lack of interaction or fulfillment.  Elementalists had expanded power potential and rapid skill progression, but with extremely limited social options -- especially outside of Allanak.  Karma worked well in the outset, but as people continued to earn karma and gain class options, the potential number of magickers began to increase.

Another issue was with power-gamers, or players who are primarily concerned with skill-maxing characters as quickly as possible so they can exert their will upon the game and its characters.  This was long the province of assassins, rangers, and warriors.  Sorcerers were too rare and restrictive to be an option, and elementalists were too slow and fragile to be attractive to the fast-paced nature of this player-type, whose incendiary game play was frequently self-destructive, hence, the need to pursue class/race combinations with fairly rapid skill progression.

Finally, we return to the announcement of 2006.  As it pertains to magick, the announcement fueled a surge in high-karma applications (i.e. elementalists, sorcerers, and psionicists), which was likely compounded by the Staff's willingness to approve special applications by those players who may not have earned the trust required to play such classes in the past.  And it was considered the right thing to do -- why not let people have access to things they've always wanted to try, especially when the game is already on a crash-course with planned disaster, right?

Except that disaster never came.  Only the floodgates of high-karma roles.

Coupled with a newly designed progression model that had the potential to create huge magickal footprints onto the game, the growing number of karma players and the relaxing of restrictions beneath the announcement was a potent mix.  The temptation of using these high-karma classes as a means to further plots or impact the game world increased even more when players were told that the game would soon come to an end.  How could a mundane character, which may require 20 - 40 days of playing time hope to reach the point of coded and political power necessary to achieve their goals?  This is likely what many people thought when hearing the announcement, and those that continued to play now had some other options to explore.

And, so, people began creating magickers.  Some because they'd never played them before, some because they wanted to explore different options, some because it offered them a quick rise to meaningful power.  And with some many people playing magickers, the mystery of magick, long kept in check by models of slow progression and a demand for patient game-play, slowly dissolved as power-players chose the same magicker over and over, and players who probably shouldn't have been playing magickers were given access to the class with the understanding that the game would soon be closed anyways.

However, the game didn't close.

The magicker footprint began to swell, and frequent posts regarding the proliferation of magickers into the game world began to surface more and more frequently.  They were so easy to skill up that consequences didn't matter.  It didn't really matter if your 10-day krathi died, because you could have a new one skilled up to nearly the same level 5 days later.  The permadeath model works because the time you put into your character is an investment and, historically, it takes a long time for you to achieve certain levels of coded, financial and political power within the game.  That invested time serves as a system of checks and balances against rash and impatient decisions that are easy in a consequence-free environment.  The easier these things are to attain, the less permadeath does it's job to lend some measure of weight to your decisions.

Around this time, players organized the great Karma-Off where they encouraged people to strip their magicker karma options and pursue playing mundane roles instead.  While I do feel the footprint of the magicker has shrunk since this time, and that the panic created by the news of Armageddon's close has largely dissipated amongst the existing playerbase, I still consider the current models to be inferior in the areas of maintaining a low-magick environment, keeping a sense of mystery around magick in the game, and encouraging the right type of people to select the magicker option (those primarily concerned with the RP and not the power).

Now, I want to state that I'm not aiming at spoiling anyone's fun, or making claims that my vision for the game is the "right" one.  I do feel that the current model is more dangerous to the game of Armageddon than some of the alternatives, and that the (somewhat) artificial persistence of universal fear and hatred toward all forms of magick is an unfortunate and, ultimately, harmful trait the game has assumed over the last several years.  In my opinion, you'd have to alter the elementalist progression model for the game to properly shift to a different system of checks and balances that doesn't use social exclusion as a counter-balance to power potential.

Again, these are all just my observations and perceptions.

-LoD