Witch Loving

[Jave]

I enjoy his transparency and sorta think that would be a good change to mages.

The transparency and approachability aspect is precisely why I don't maintain two separate GDB handles, FWIW.

[wizturbo]

Hey look, another magick sucks thread lead by the vocal minority.  Let's keep everything in perspective:  http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,48952.0.html

With that said, I do like to hear why people don't like magick/magick users.  It helps me try and figure out what irks them, so when I play my mages I can try to avoid the cliches or play styles that generate that irritation.

I personally believe there should be a scale on hatred of magick, based on the element in question.  For instance, Vivaduans should be more accepted in Allanak and the tribes, they heal and create water which creates massive value to society at large.  Whereas Whirans and Drovians should be significantly more hated.  They provide nothing to society.  They're good at spying, killing, or summoning otherworldly creatures...maybe the Templarate would tolerate them, but I don't think even House Oash should be able to employ them openly without risking their reputation, and Templar's who employ them should receive a significant stigma for doing so.  Rukkians and Elkrosians could fall somewhere in the middle of this, probably receiving the same amount of hate they have now.  

And all of this is really just enforcing existing documentation on the elementalist roles....  "Water mages are highly employable, amongst those who would hire any mage to begin with.  As companions on journeys they can be worth incredible sums of money, and as permanent parts of clans or Houses worth even more." etc, etc.

[BadSkeelz]

That's a good idea to grade your hate based on the element. It already plays out in game to some extent, but it's useful to remember that most of the elements do little but to facilitate people to be assholes.

I think Jave's idea would make mages almost completely unplayable. For the record, I voted "magick's place in the world is fine" in that linked poll.

Also, I've never been PKed by a mage or even had a hostile spell cast on me... well, except for that one time, when we busted a gay Rukkian and his Nilazi sugar daddy.

[BadSkeelz]

I'm also saddened whenever an interesting character manifests because they just become a gimmick.

That isn't really a fair statement.

Also because I have a bit a time, let me explain why it is a fair statement. People suddenly manifesting are nothing more than gimmicks and the game would be better off if they were just insta-ganked.

Every reason you had to love or hate that PC, to strive against them, to compete, to Roleplay, suddenly becomes seconded to the fact that they are Magicker. The rest of the game world isn't going to give a shit about what that character really is either, because they're a Magicker. That's all the world needs to know to oppose them, and in doing so it cheapens them. By forcing us to react, it cheapens us.

The stories of the suddenly-manifested PC are always the same. They either become Gemmed, become hunted, or become dead. Their actual personalities and actions get lost behind the label of the Guild.

To the unmanifested PCs of the Known: don't! You're much more interesting as you are now.

[Fujikoma]

If you can be a manifested rogue without anyone being the wiser, and just be a master mage...

... That moment when all looks lost, gith or spiders charging in en masse... suddenly, the wild-eyed halfbreed cackles maniacly, chanting strange words and lifting his hands, as a massive wall of flame reduces reinforcements to cinder and smoke. His hands lifted to the sky as his hysterical, high-pitched, squeeling laughter echoes through the canyon, as those whose lives he just saved glance amongst eachother nervoursly, unsure of how to react, and somewhat disturbed by the gleeful, manic noises issue forth from the small breed.

Then, as he sobers, the breed turns and looks amongst his companions, clears his throat, and says, "What?"

[Armaddict]

And all of this is really just enforcing existing documentation on the elementalist roles....  "Water mages are highly employable, amongst those who would hire any mage to begin with.  As companions on journeys they can be worth incredible sums of money, and as permanent parts of clans or Houses worth even more." etc, etc.

If you want to bring up that helpfile, then you have to bring up that it's the red-headed stepchild of the magickal helpfiles; it is the only one with that friendly of a word describing the mage's relationship with everyone else.  Everywhere else, it discusses hatred and fear as the basis and foundation of magickal roleplay, to the point there was a thread specifically about this one helpfile. There it was argued whether or not this was a remnant of times when halflings sat in taverns and spoke with people, and that it was also posited that this was simply a matter of helpfile-formatting, following the trend for showing what the class was capable of, because this helpfile is simply not in line with any other helpfile on the topic.

As noted before, I have stepping off of my hate/fear reactions in the last year or so.  Trying to play more with it and have a more dynamic relationship.  I will still point out that that is a document that appears to have no association with the rest of documentation though, and I think the helpfiles that describe culture and magick as a whole have more bearing on any discussion of treatment of magick then the class outline that tells what a class is good at.

Edit:  Fixed a giant run-on because I ramble.

[Desertman]

Getting gemmed has such an unusual dynamic surrounding it on the social level in the game.

In my mind I feel getting gemmed should be a horrible stigma that makes you walk through life not wanting to be around most people. Extreme shame, extreme guilt, and extreme self-loathing. If not those things, at the very least, fear/resentment of everyone else.

Imagine in RL if you had a disease that nobody understood but everyone thought made you literally a contagious walking monstrosity. You were literally the boogie man parents told their children about during their bedtime stories, and not just to scare the children, but because the parents believed it.

The gemmed, in my opinion, should be treated like you would treat a rabid dog that shot lasers from its eyes and infected anyone who got close to it with a disease that ate the lining out of your asshole so that anytime you shit it felt like razors until you died.



Getting gemmed now only means two things however:

A) You now have some backing to give you some political leverage most of the time from Oash/a Templar.
B) People are going to be extra nice to you pretty regularly out of fear of your new potential political backing.


That's pretty much the game.

(This is coming from someone who has hired magickers to help their own agenda and has on several occasions enjoyed playing with magickers in game. But not because they are magickers....but because I can and do treat them like everyone else....because they are like everyone else, with laser beams.)

[Ender]

I'm also saddened whenever an interesting character manifests because they just become a gimmick.

That isn't really a fair statement.

Also because I have a bit a time, let me explain why it is a fair statement. People suddenly manifesting are nothing more than gimmicks and the game would be better off if they were just insta-ganked.

Every reason you had to love or hate that PC, to strive against them, to compete, to Roleplay, suddenly becomes seconded to the fact that they are Magicker. The rest of the game world isn't going to give a shit about what that character really is either, because they're a Magicker. That's all the world needs to know to oppose them, and in doing so it cheapens them. By forcing us to react, it cheapens us.

The stories of the suddenly-manifested PC are always the same. They either become Gemmed, become hunted, or become dead. Their actual personalities and actions get lost behind the label of the Guild.

To the unmanifested PCs of the Known: don't! You're much more interesting as you are now.

This is a really unfair statement because you're basically speaking from a side of a curtain without knowledge of the other side.  You're upset someone has gone from your side of the stage to the other and not acknowledging that the same character depth and interest can and DOES exist for magickers.

Your perception is basically that YOU view the character as only the guild.  It would be like if someone was playing a ranger, and did a hunt infront of you and suddenly the only thing you could see is a ranger from now on.

I get you're upset because magicker guilds strongly identify and label a person ICly, unlike warrior or ranger which are OOC constructs, but labels and stereotypes exist outside of magick as well such as half-elves are all breedy, tuluki are all subtle, allanaki are all rude brutes, etc.

I get that you hate magickers, and for whatever reason you just can't see past the label, but that's your problem, and the shame you heap on the players of those characters is unwarranted.


EDIT:
I've seen a lot of negativity towards the intentions of players on the board lately, and it's really gotten to the point I feel like I can't keep quiet about it.  When you see another player, and you immediately think the worst of their OOC intentions and that they're just out to grief you it only serves to cheapen your own experience.  Just let go, assume other players are playing the game for the same reasons you hopefully are, that they want to enjoy a fully realized roleplaying game by bringing a character to life the best that they can.

[Delirium]

Personally (read: having nothing to do with my being on staff) I'd prefer if mages had no ground to go to. No elementalist quarter. No gemmed. No tolerant tribes or settlements. If you go magick you put it in the closet, go rouge, or get murdered like sorcerers and psions.

ETA: And if you didn't hunt and kill other opposing elementalists your elementals killed you. Welcome to magick: no friends allowed.

I hope you realize how incredibly boring, isolating, and awful that sounds to play. Not to mention very black and white; strict either/or scenarios are very opposite of actual human nature.

I think we need to remember that IC mistrust or hatred of magick is one thing; OOCly it should still be a role that is enjoyable.

[Majikal]

I'm definitely on the pro-magick team, the lore is rich and magickal plots are always super-exciting to me. I could sit around and talk magick for hours and enjoy every minute, not that mon un fireball talk but just good ole magick philosophy. It's deep, it's a very important part of the gameworld, and unlocking it's secrets it's always awesome. That said I'm just a lore nerd about everything in Zalanthas really.

My usual take on mages whether I'm playing one or not tends to be this..

A gemmed mage - they got registered, they're a tool of the city, my pc may have a generally dislike for them or not but if my pc is an Allanaki I'll recognize that they are in fact a slave to the city. They're controlled, clearly they abide in the same city under the same laws as I do.

Rogue mages - scary, rabid dog off it's leash with nothing tying it to anything or anywhere. I will generally RP a fear of a rogue mages, my gemmed elementalists will distrust ungemmed mages.


I tend to get similar reactions from my fellow players when I play those roles as well, I feel a majority of our playerbase abides by some similar line of reasoning.

[Desertman]

Personally (read: having nothing to do with my being on staff) I'd prefer if mages had no ground to go to. No elementalist quarter. No gemmed. No tolerant tribes or settlements. If you go magick you put it in the closet, go rouge, or get murdered like sorcerers and psions.

ETA: And if you didn't hunt and kill other opposing elementalists your elementals killed you. Welcome to magick: no friends allowed.

I hope you realize how incredibly boring, isolating, and awful that sounds to play. Not to mention very black and white; strict either/or scenarios are very opposite of actual human nature.

I think we need to remember that IC mistrust or hatred of magick is one thing; OOCly it should still be a role that is enjoyable.

I think it sounds awesome in every way imaginable.

To each his own.

[Large Hero]

I wish magick was less sterile, more often.

By sterile, I mean: you type "cast mon blah blah man" and you know exactly what's going to happen. Maybe it's going to fail, but there are very few possible outcomes.

This is a poorly-understood mystical force of the universe! It shouldn't be so predictable and easily-controlled.

Two ideas:

1. There should be some code behind the "commoners think magickers will make your dick fall off" type of idea. No, nothing like that; more like, you stood next to an Elkran for too long, and you now have an affliction that makes you semi-permanently have less stamina (until it's cured by xyz, which can be a plot..."

2. A kind of "wild magic" table. You wanted to create a pool of water to drink from...but you rolled a 28, and an elemental is crawling out of the pool, and it isn't happy.

Crude, basic ideas, but the end goal is: I think magick would be more feared if it were more unpredictable and truly dangerous. As it stands, if the Mage in question is trustworthy, it's safe.

"Get the fuck away from me" would be a more popular response if mages were actually not safe to be around, instead of those ideas basically being old wives' tales.

I fully support staff doing wacky things to mages or those who spend time with mages, along these lines. But it'd be better if there was some code to it, too.

[wizturbo]

2. A kind of "wild magic" table. You wanted to create a pool of water to drink from...but you rolled a 28, and an elemental is crawling out of the pool, and it isn't happy.

I prefer things as they are.  It creates the cool sense of irony for a magickally inclined character.  Magick is a mostly stable, powerful force that could be used to make the world a better place, but it isn't because people are people.   The tool that could have used to build a paradise, was instead corrupted and used to create the barren wasteland that is Zalanthas.  It isn't chaos or a failed roll on a "wild magic" table that ruined the world (or killed your grebber in the wastes), no...it was the choice of a living being.

[tinsix]

2. A kind of "wild magic" table. You wanted to create a pool of water to drink from...but you rolled a 28, and an elemental is crawling out of the pool, and it isn't happy.

Crude, basic ideas, but the end goal is: I think magick would be more feared if it were more unpredictable and truly dangerous. As it stands, if the Mage in question is trustworthy, it's safe.

Great point - magick should behave unpredictably if we expect the whole playerbase to react as if magick behaves unpredictably.

I wish the syllables of magick for your spells were randomized so it wouldn't take one playthrough of a class to memorize the words for everything.

[wizturbo]

Great point - magick should behave unpredictably if we expect the whole playerbase to react as if magick behaves unpredictably.

If the game had the development resources to do it, I'd love it if there were regular changes to magick to keep it more of an unknown in the world.  But I do not like the idea of some wild magick table.  Magick is not a chaotic, wild force in Zalanthas.  It might seem that way to the uneducated, brain washed masses, but that's not the reality.  If there's a magickal catastrophe, you can bet there's a reason for it, and that reason is not a "whoops, rolled a 1".   

I'd love to see new spells added, and older spells become rare or disappearing all together as a result of IC events or magickally significant plot lines.  It would be cool if the effects of spells were perverted or enhanced by actions taken by players.  For instance, if the actions of a PC (perhaps unwittingly) caused all Vivaduans to create pools of blood instead of water when they tried to work their magicks until whatever is causing the problem is addressed.

[Large Hero]

Great point - magick should behave unpredictably if we expect the whole playerbase to react as if magick behaves unpredictably.

If the game had the development resources to do it, I'd love it if there were regular changes to magick to keep it more of an unknown in the world.  But I do not like the idea of some wild magick table.  Magick is not a chaotic, wild force in Zalanthas.  It might seem that way to the uneducated, brain washed masses, but that's not the reality.  If there's a magickal catastrophe, you can bet there's a reason for it, and that reason is not a "whoops, rolled a 1".  

I'll point out that I'm not discussing changes based on how they fit into Zalanthas' current magick mythos. I'm speaking purely from a hypothetical perspective - what might, in my opinion, make for better gameplay.

Because as we all know, players will change their play to fit with how things actually are "on the ground"; that is to say, we can talk on the GDB until we're blue in the face about how mages should be feared and shunned by the general population, but if there aren't real reasons to fear and shun them, it ain't gonna happen.

As of now, there are few compelling reasons to fear and shun them. What's more compelling is what others have said - that they're tolerated and considered to be common, because as a percentage of the playerbase, they are. When you discover your third manifested magicker, as others in this thread have described, it becomes ho-hum. Especially when they represent reliable tools who can't really hurt you unless the individual chooses to or goes off the rails.


I'm one of those people who would very happily go along with huge changes to the game that swept away everything that came before - if they were legitimately good changes. If staff decided to retcon half-giants completely, they never existed (and there was a good reason for it) - alright. If staff decides to say that halflings exist and have always existed and never died out - sure.

"This idea isn't good because it doesn't fit with the way things have always been done" isn't a compelling argument to me. This is a game; we (being the players and staff as an entire community) can change it however we like. I don't hold sacrosanct someone's ideas about magick from 1996 or whenever the system was designed. If they're good ideas, great, keep them. If they can be improved, change them.


All that said - when I bring up a "wild magic table," I'm not advocating random fireballs flying around with every cast. I'm suggesting that there could be a small chance of occasional unintended effects. The exact implementation doesn't matter.

What matters is the concept: we can say magick exists on a spectrum between "completely safe" and "completely dangerous". If it were completely dangerous, all mages would just be hunted relentlessly, and even the Templarate wouldn't use them. No one is suggesting that.

I'm only suggesting that, currently, the slider is too far toward "completely safe," and that it would be more interesting if it weren't - because unpredictable magick creates conflict - the conflict of "is this mage worth keeping around? Worth using? Despite all the dangers?"

That this thread exists at all is evidence that the conflict level mages are 'supposed' to have (i.e., "get away from me, filthy magicker!") isn't lining up with reality.

[Patuk]

My views haven't changed much since the last time I posted in such a thread:

A lot of mages are played by offpeakers. When I log in during dinnertime for me there tend to be few people in general, but many gemmers around.

Having said that, I've had a single character who was willing and in fact did bang a magicker, and especially in retrospect, all I can think now is 'why the hell did things go well for so long?' When you're a walking master of doom having sex with some idiot who can't get a normal girl to like him, for even a minor mishap to happen seems likely.

A solution I'd like to see is for magick to actually become as dangerous as it's implied to be. Not to the extent that there would be no krathi played beyond the ten day mark, but, from the top of my head:

(Note: I'm doing my best not to describe any existent spells. It's not easy, so at least give me some credit and don't entirely remove my post)

A rukkian casting spells, and doubly so at a higher level, might cause an occasional minor tremor or natural deformity to happen. The armour of people near a rukkian weaving spells might degrade a bit because of their effect on matter.

A vivaduan may have fewer adverse effects on bystanders, what with their reputation being better than other mages, but their magics could cause bystanders' clothes to stain with weird fluids or inflict minor diseases/poisons and little miraculous healing acts in equal measure.

A krathi shouldn't really be near friendlies while casting at all. I have seen that the code supports people being set on fire, and their thirst levels could be increased as well.

Elkran spells could cause static currents to shock unfortunates, even temporarily lowering agility in the process.

Drovians casting shit may darken rooms, put out light sources or even curse bystanders with odd, fleeting magical nastiness.

... I got nothing insofar Nilazi are concerned, but people who hang with Nilazi know exactly what they are doing, I reckon.

If you want people to distrust elves and think of them all as thieves, make them good thieves. Since they are, people really fucking hate elves.

Consequentially, I really don't think magick is going to be treated in line with the documentation very well as long as it's more reliable than modern firearms and explosives are.

Re: wizturbo

The argument that magic shouldn't become unpredictable because it's stable right now isn't a very good one, since it relies on circular logic. It's like arguing against the legalisation of weed because it's illegal; you're just describing the status quo as is. Yes, magic is a stable force. If you want to argue against people who say it shouldn't be, come up with something better than 'lol but it's not'

[manonfire]

After reading this thread and giving it careful consideration, I have decided I will continue to play my magicker however the fuck I want.

[BadSkeelz]

This is a really unfair statement because you're basically speaking from a side of a curtain without knowledge of the other side.  You're upset someone has gone from your side of the stage to the other and not acknowledging that the same character depth and interest can and DOES exist for magickers.

I don't deny that other players find Magick plotlines engaging and interesting, just as I don't deny that other players found rape plotlines engaging or interesting. I personally find neither to be engaging or interesting. At worst they're distractions that override all other plots due to the attention they attract. They both have their place in making Zalanthas what it is, but that doesn't mean I have to like it, especially when I have no means of opting out.



If I could change one thing about the current Magick code, I would make it so the Gemmed could visit other elements' temples again. That or remove Nil. I think both of them contribute to a super-iso style of play that's offputting (regardless of the theme involved). Don't know how others put up with it.

[Armaddict]

After reading this thread and giving it careful consideration, I have decided I will continue to play my magicker however the fuck I want.

That's well and good, this thread is less focused on the players of mages and more on how people treat mages, why, and whether that needs adjustment (with ideas on how to make that adjustment easier).

[wizturbo]

Re: wizturbo

The argument that magic shouldn't become unpredictable because it's stable right now isn't a very good one, since it relies on circular logic. It's like arguing against the legalisation of weed because it's illegal; you're just describing the status quo as is. Yes, magic is a stable force. If you want to argue against people who say it shouldn't be, come up with something better than 'lol but it's not'

I just don't want people to mistake the perceived instability of magick as actual instability under the current setting.  If people want to argue that the setting should change, I guess that's okay.  But it's just like saying Zalanthas should have a rain forest, or muls should be able to have babies.  It might be worth changing, and there could be IC reasons for those changes to occur, but it would be stepping away from the setting as it stands today.

[wizturbo]

If I could change one thing about the current Magick code, I would make it so the Gemmed could visit other elements' temples again. That or remove Nil. I think both of them contribute to a super-iso style of play that's offputting (regardless of the theme involved). Don't know how others put up with it.

+1

[Asmoth]

If I could change one thing about the current Magick code, I would make it so the Gemmed could visit other elements' temples again. That or remove Nil. I think both of them contribute to a super-iso style of play that's offputting (regardless of the theme involved). Don't know how others put up with it.

+1

Do you really want me playing a krathi who has to find a person to cast his fireball of doom at un?

Nil is needed for some spells.

[BadSkeelz]

Do you really want me playing a krathi who has to find a person to cast his fireball of doom at un?

Yes.

Magick is dangerous. It should be dangerous to use, be dangerous to be around. Nil removes all danger. It encourages magickers to just sit in caves or temples, spam casting away until they're able to walk in to the game world and force us to acknowledge their "achievements."

If a spell is so powerful that you're afraid of using it with Un, then it's a powerful spell and you should acknowledge that.

[Large Hero]

Re: wizturbo

The argument that magic shouldn't become unpredictable because it's stable right now isn't a very good one, since it relies on circular logic. It's like arguing against the legalisation of weed because it's illegal; you're just describing the status quo as is. Yes, magic is a stable force. If you want to argue against people who say it shouldn't be, come up with something better than 'lol but it's not'

I just don't want people to mistake the perceived instability of magick as actual instability under the current setting.  If people want to argue that the setting should change, I guess that's okay.  But it's just like saying Zalanthas should have a rain forest, or muls should be able to have babies.  It might be worth changing, and there could be IC reasons for those changes to occur, but it would be stepping away from the setting as it stands today.

I don't think anyone is perceiving magick as being unstable, currently. We all know that a magicker isn't going to randomly cause catastrophes. We all know that the "a magicker made my child turn blue!" commoner hysteria is just flavor and doesn't represent the reality of the game. Part of the discussion is: is that hysteria something we want the game to have? Does it improve the atmosphere for roleplaying? Would having mages -actually- be feared more be an improvement?

If we agree that mages should be feared and distrusted more than they are, then, as other players have said, they need to actually be made more fearsome and untrustworthy.

If the community were making threads about whether the current level of Zalanthan rainforest or mul fertility rates were positively impacting the game and making for good gameplay, then it'd be constructive to discuss changing them.

I'd say that the implementation of magick is so relevant to player experiences, given how common it is, that potentially changing it should certainly be on the table.

I'd also just like to state that I'm not trying to jump down your throat, wizturbo! Just defending an idea.