Thanks Akariel (RE: Touched Magick Users Appeal)

[Strongheart]

"Please do not discuss magicks. This thread will be locked from here on to suppress magickal lore to a matter of 'find out IC'. If you would like to open a new thread you may, but refrain from discussing what a magicker can do."

thank you so much for making my foresight a false one! lol

Anyway, I just wanted to ask if there are plans to work on some of the current magick systems in place within the game? The dissonance that comes into play, which I have viewed myself IG and through the touched documents, is why the touched are considered full elementalists when they're clearly not. In a roleplay sense, I completely understand why touched would be treated like some of the other more realized elementalists - however, I have seen roles completely denied to someone that pertains to their specific element but because they couldn't do X then they weren't accepted in after having filled multiple other criteria.

So if I am seeing this in the proper light, is elementalism too watered down from what is used to be and should that be worked on, or as I said previously: is it being worked on?

Normally I'd put this in Ask the Staff but I'd like some discussion that DOESN'T bring up the nature of magick in-game. Instead, I would hope to see the opinions on the magick options right now. Of which could be limited or jarring or however one may see them in roleplay, and how roles for players should not always be denied due to certain limitations.

[Strongheart]

This post is in reference of the Code Discussion Thread: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,54350.0.html

That should be enough context! I am basically restating what others have said but if we are going to have this discussion, it needs to avoid the nature of magick that can be found IG and only what is said in documents provided to us all. Or at least keep it general enough for those familiar with magicks not to spoil it for others. To which end, this topic is a difficult one to discuss to begin with. At this point, should we even bother talking about it? Without the proper parameters set up by staff, I am unsure what points will be closed or not.

[Erythil]

So I'm guessing what you're complaining about is, to be useful in a gemmed role, people expect you to have certain spells, spells which the touched guilds do not have, essentially making them unplayable once gemmed, having all the stigma with none of the power perks?

[Strongheart]

Sounds about right. Although, I'm not necessarily complaining! Just asking if there is going to be some sort of adjustment. I'm not too passionate about this particular topic but it seems like there is alot of contention here.

[Strongheart]

And I am also talking about the aspects in whole: some are far more useful than others to the goals of players, whatever they may be. It is restricting to be the MAGICKER WHO DOESNT MAGICK LIKE YOU EXPECT THEM TO MAGICK.

Edited by Akariel.

[Brokkr]

It seems like your primary issue is really about character vs character interaction, which is really determined by player vs player expectations, not typically by staff influenced components (likely not docs for a House stating that Frog elementalists need the "croak" spell).

A secondary component of that issue seems to be, given the primary issue, should staff re-look at what elementalists, and especially Touched, get in terms of spells/skills? Any revision would likely to be driven by broader issues than this, but may include it.

That said, I will point you at this publicly available information:

OOC:  Rukkian and Whiran subclasses have been updated.  This may result in characters playing these subclasses gaining or loosing spells. Additionally there are mechanical aspects of magick that may not work how people are used to (which can be treated IC'ly).

[Strongheart]

Thank you, Brokkr!

[Akariel]

Yes there has been active work into magicker subclasses recently. Expect to hear more about it soon.

[Strongheart]

And thank you as well, Akariel! Can't wait to see the upcoming changes.

[Rathustra]

To join the dog pile of staff responses:

As with every aspect of the game - we're looking to develop and make the mage subguilds more than just a re-jiggering of old mechanics, simply repackaged. Over time, more changes like the ones Brokkr pointed to and Akariel hinted at will be introduced.

However, it is worth stating plainly: these changes are to reinforce the theme, to develop these OOC elements to match the IC reality. So they will likely not satisfy the complaint here, that the mage subguilds don't satisfy OOC player expectations.

The idea that a vivaduan can heal, because they're a vivaduan makes as much sense as saying that any vivaduan you meet should be able to transform into a puddle of water and hide in your sink. These archetypal spells/abilities are left-overs from how mages were and are OOC baggage. I understand and can emphasize with the difficulties going from a situation where all vivaduans could heal to one where that isn't the case, but if an element's only use is as a healbot, it's boring and probably could do with being broken down and rebuilt.

Could it be that the concept of a gemmer as it exists IC with all its restrictions and available resources isn't compatible to a new IC situation where gemmers need to sell themselves as individuals with more focused, individual assets? Possibly. But it will likely be the role that shifts, through IC means, rather than the magick that underpins it.

[Strongheart]

Appreciate the response, Rathustra! Pretty much sums it up, especially with "These archetypal spells/abilities are left-overs from how mages were and are OOC baggage." bit.

I was expecting some more player discussion in this thread, so I guess this isn't as big an issue or complaint for change as I interpreted? Either way, these responses clearly state the stance that staff have taken which I enjoy hearing.

It's disappointing that the need for power has bled into OOC desire rather than being kept IC, however I do understand that want as I've done the very same thing before. It sounds as if these adjustments, tweaks, and changes are being worked on. Sure to excite the community and hopefully be an interesting or entertaining sight to see players experience these things with their characters!

[Nao]

These archetypal spells/abilities are left-overs from how mages were and are OOC baggage. I understand and can emphasize with the difficulties going from a situation where all vivaduans could heal to one where that isn't the case, but if an element's only use is as a healbot, it's boring and probably could do with being broken down and rebuilt.

Mages used to be versatile. This situation you're describing with the only use of an element being X seems like something that is a direct result of splitting up the guilds, with each one having a very specific niche.

What theme are the changes meant to reinforce, and what IC reality? These archetypes (Krathis throw fireballs and vivaduans make water) have been around IG for a long time. I'm having a hard time not seeing those as part of the theme by now.

[tapas]

Touched guilds should get custom crafting imho.

[Strongheart]

Mages used to be versatile. This situation you're describing with the only use of an element being X seems like something that is a direct result of splitting up the guilds, with each one having a very specific niche.

What theme are the changes meant to reinforce, and what IC reality? These archetypes (Krathis throw fireballs and vivaduans make water) have been around IG for a long time. I'm having a hard time not seeing those as part of the theme by now.

+1 to that point

[Cind]

I distinctly remember one of my mages being called 'not particularly useful' during the first times that the mage subguilds were being put into the game. I think we're getting used to how they are now, but some players check a couple of mages out with special apps and then never touch them again, giving them a limited view of what mage applications are like.


I mean, people will eventually get it, and it doesn't feel like they're less frightened of my witches than normal, which I was wondering about when the changes were put in.

[Rathustra]

These archetypal spells/abilities are left-overs from how mages were and are OOC baggage. I understand and can emphasize with the difficulties going from a situation where all vivaduans could heal to one where that isn't the case, but if an element's only use is as a healbot, it's boring and probably could do with being broken down and rebuilt.

Mages used to be versatile. This situation you're describing with the only use of an element being X seems like something that is a direct result of splitting up the guilds, with each one having a very specific niche.

What theme are the changes meant to reinforce, and what IC reality? These archetypes (Krathis throw fireballs and vivaduans make water) have been around IG for a long time. I'm having a hard time not seeing those as part of the theme by now.

The 'use of element being X' thing was what Strongheart posited at the start - that people IC only wanted mages for one particular thing and were upset when they found a mage that couldn't do that, if there's only one spell from each element that's useful, then the magick system sucks and at least having that one good spell in a subguild means less grinding to get it. If the other aspects that don't get these spells are considered unuseful, then why have those spells at all? I'd rather make each aspect useful and fun to play in its own realm of power, instead of returning to generalists, where a mage was as useful as the amount of time they had sat in their temple spamcasting.

I'm not sure we regard theme in the same way, so I can't address your second point here. If there were a tribe whose culture were that they were peerless artisans, rendering the wealth of the wastes into fine pieces of art - then they were decimated by Borsail slavers and reduced to a few diseased and fading survivors in the outer bailey of Luir's Outpost, their former tribal culture reduced to peddling crude trinkets - that is all theme. What was before is theme, what is now is theme - regardless of what was long standing, and what is assumed, the reality is what it is.

So it is with magick, what people IC may have thought all mages of an element could do may persist, regardless of what the new IC reality is. Ongoing changes will develop on this current situation - either through work on the subguilds themselves to make them more than just three subsets of a former whole, or through development of in-game roles such as the gemmed as the game world changes to accommodate the new nature of elementalists.

[ABoredLion]

I spent an hour writing up a post to address some of the points in here, but just decided to delete it and say this.

Back when the changes first came out, it was said that these changes were OOC and not IC. Claiming now that things are changing because they changed 'thematically' through organic gameplay is a step in the opposite direction. There was an outright statement that they were not 'lesser' elementalists to elementalists then. I want to stick to that, because anything else leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

The goal was to make mages 'people' as much as they were mages. They should have kept 3/4 of their spells at least, and then been moved to a subguild. Cutting them into three was a mistake I think. As it is, people don't really fear mages. I've seen it firsthand across a couple of different PCs. I don't think the game should be built around gemmed mages, as they're thematically the least 'responded to' mages. They're not the enemies. They're not the ones struggling to survive every day. They're not that distant power everyone knows about, that someone's going to really address soon.

If the goal was to nerf 'some' magickers and 'boost' others if they went with semi-specific builds, resounding success. Krathis suffered the worst for the changes that were all implemented at the same time. Rukkians and Whirans got the most out of it. But I guess we're just talking opinions at this point really. Every single magicker subset still has their 1-2 things they're clearly 'meant' to do to be effective to any degree, and people know what they are, and react like it. Of the 2-3 staffer PCs I know of in the last year, 1 was a wizard, 1 was a touched HG, and one I've had really rather readily leapt out to one v one the first magicker they found with the crappier set up and kill them with zero regard for the 'supposed' virtual danger involved. I kind of wish every single krathi (instead of none) got to hum, and every single viv got to turn your blood to death. Maybe things would be different then.

My opinion? Either vastly change how the spells of all of them work, or bring back the full-guilds as subclasses. They lose nothing for being 'people' that way, which was the original point of the struggle. Even the types of magickers who 'cast' to deal actual direct damage are weak without committing to the same extreme twinking as a mundane. Which to me, that's odd. Even those spell types were designed with the 'other' spells the mage would have had in its list to help keep it alive while those damage dealing spells went off.

I can't really get into the specifics that I'd like to here, addressing a lot of the individual underlying struggles that I've encountered over the last couple years with these changes because of the secrecy stuff, but I felt something had to be said.

Side note, if someone comes in with the whole, 'What about non-combatant of any kind mages' let me invite you to the theme of this game that I get reminded every single character report. 'Murder....corruption....betrayal.'

All of those lead to violence. If you avoid it, totally fine. I love flavor roles for mages. If you're a combatant mage and you don't do flavor things with your magick, you're doing it wrong. I just think that we should never write off that what makes things 'dangerous' is their ability to do something 'deadly'. Mages are supposed to be monsters of the Known.

[Cind]

EDIT: I'm going to take staff's advice and just shoot this through requests.

[Cind]

By the way, I promise to be quiet from now on about stuff like that.

[Rathustra]

I spent an hour writing up a post to address some of the points in here, but just decided to delete it and say this.

Back when the changes first came out, it was said that these changes were OOC and not IC. Claiming now that things are changing because they changed 'thematically' through organic gameplay is a step in the opposite direction. There was an outright statement that they were not 'lesser' elementalists to elementalists then. I want to stick to that, because anything else leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

This is a good post and I'm glad you made it, despite the frustration that lead to it, because it is really at the cutting edge of a fairly severe case of communication break-down and project mismanagement - somewhat on most side, but as a staff member it is only fair to state what staff did poorly.

Let's check out what I posted in the (hastily thrown together) magicker FAQ when the subguilds were released:

What is the IC explanation for these changes?
These changes are only being marked OOCly. Nothing monumental has changed in the game world - there will be no spectacular shift or RPT to mark this change. Whether or not your PC notices any change should be down to what they encounter IC and based on their IC knowledge of elemental magick. You are free to have your character respond in a way consistent with the IG world and their individual personality if they notice anything.

This is the poorly worded point that every clumsy attempt to realign stems from - here, in the first 7 words it seems to explicitly state that "This is an OOC change". From this a lot of confusion has arisen:

~ That this was a retcon of all previous magick.
~ That going forward, everyone IC was expected to act as though the new subguilds were unremarkable - that the change wasn't something different and should be accepted as being "the way things are".
~ etc.

I go on to try and clarify what the actual situation is with subsequent sentences - but by this point you'd be forgiven for trying to interpret them through the lens my first sentence sets you up with. Indeed the bit about there being no RPT seems to reinforce it, when read from the perspective of this being a retcon or a new status quo! So, at the end there where I say that people should react to the changes IC based on their character's experiences with magick, it just seems like a non-statement.

However that first sentence is stating that there was going to be no world-shaping RPT, it is the OOC opener for the second sentence. The subguild change wasn't going to be marked, or ushered in via an RPT. There wasn't going to be a storm of elemental energy, or an alignment of planets to mark the change - no sudden eventuality that people could point to as 'when magick broke' or whatever. The final part of that FAQ point leaves the door open for the change to be remarked upon, explored, pondered and struggled against IC - my point was that, unless your PC was magickally inclined (a mage themselves, a Templar, an Oashi, etc.) then the degree to which these changes mattered or were noticed IC would vary.

Which is to say that the reduction in spells, the fact that mages could only reach particular 'aspects' of their element - these have always been IC things. It has always been IC to do what PCs have already done - to try and find out the truth, the root, the meaning behind this change. This position, at least for me, has never changed. That is an important caveat, too - because the miscommunication that has sown continued confusion, disillusionment and frustration among players has also caused confusion and doubt with staff, due to the way the project was introduced and deployed.

You can check my post history (if you can stand all the shitposting) to see where I try to push this line of thinking, not really stopping to understand that maybe there's a fundamental misunderstanding. Here are some choice ones:

2017: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52079.msg975072.html#msg975072 - I try to provide an overview of previous posts detailing how the changes are IC.
2017: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,52079.msg975081.html#msg975081 - I decry the fact that things IC haven't happened - having not realized yet the disconnect.
2016: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50863.msg935953.html#msg935953 - I try to reinforce that we've not retconned the drov/elkros temples in Allanak, and if people go check them out, they will observe things IC.
2016: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50863.msg935531.html#msg935531 - another from the Q&A immediately following the change, I explicitly state that the changes are IC.
2016: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50863.msg935398.html#msg935398 - So it doesn't appear that I'm just fishing out my best posts - here's one where I'm trying to keep to the line that we're not delivering these changes via a big IG RPT, but likely muddy the water by making it seem that the changes have just happened and were now understood to be wholly the status quo. It's also worth mentioning that the person I'm replying to has a good point about "why is there no RPT" and the answer to that is: 'because we wanted the change in as soon as it were ready and felt the changes were occurring at such a high level thematically that they'd better be delivered through a more diffuse animation effort' - only, staff never did that 'diffuse animation effort', so people were left confused.
2016: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50863.msg934974.html#msg934974 - another post in the sake of fairness, here I say "we should adapt gemmers to fit the new situation" - which I repeated in my post above - only it's been 3 years now, why haven't you done this, Rathustra?

The goal was to make mages 'people' as much as they were mages. They should have kept 3/4 of their spells at least, and then been moved to a subguild. Cutting them into three was a mistake I think. As it is, people don't really fear mages. I've seen it firsthand across a couple of different PCs. I don't think the game should be built around gemmed mages, as they're thematically the least 'responded to' mages. They're not the enemies. They're not the ones struggling to survive every day. They're not that distant power everyone knows about, that someone's going to really address soon.

If people don't fear mages, we will make people fear mages. Unfortunately, this will take time and is part of the 'changes' Akariel hinted at and which I elaborated on above. I agree with you about Gemmed mages. We don't want the game to adjust to make them valid, when I mentioned adjusting to make Gemmers more viable, I meant within their niche.

If the goal was to nerf 'some' magickers and 'boost' others if they went with semi-specific builds, resounding success. Krathis suffered the worst for the changes that were all implemented at the same time. Rukkians and Whirans got the most out of it. But I guess we're just talking opinions at this point really. Every single magicker subset still has their 1-2 things they're clearly 'meant' to do to be effective to any degree, and people know what they are, and react like it. Of the 2-3 staffer PCs I know of in the last year, 1 was a wizard, 1 was a touched HG, and one I've had really rather readily leapt out to one v one the first magicker they found with the crappier set up and kill them with zero regard for the 'supposed' virtual danger involved. I kind of wish every single krathi (instead of none) got to hum, and every single viv got to turn your blood to death. Maybe things would be different then.

This wasn't the case (recent changes balancing options). We can't help it if people react with OOC knowledge to what mages can do - it happened with main guild mages, it was just instead a case of "how spamcasted is this mage?" which, I'll gladly admit makes for a scarier bit of arithmetic than 'what kind of viv is this'. I agree that every subguild should instill fear. I just disagree that every subguild within an element should instill the same fear.

I don't know what you're trying to say with the staff PC thing.

Side note, if someone comes in with the whole, 'What about non-combatant of any kind mages' let me invite you to the theme of this game that I get reminded every single character report. 'Murder....corruption....betrayal.'

All of those lead to violence. If you avoid it, totally fine. I love flavor roles for mages. If you're a combatant mage and you don't do flavor things with your magick, you're doing it wrong. I just think that we should never write off that what makes things 'dangerous' is their ability to do something 'deadly'. Mages are supposed to be monsters of the Known.

Sorry, I disagree fundamentally. We have a large number of non-combatant PCs and they pull a massive amount of weight. Violence and death are certainly cornerstones of the game, but the idea that magickers should simply be means of bringing about death and destruction is wrong. The only interpretation of this I agree with is that OOCly, people only care about their character dying, because that is the only "lose case" in the game - so it's hard to make something "scary" that doesn't kill your PC. However, as drovians once showed, being able to know everything about your PC can be scary too - it's just that people tend not to interpret it as a scary thing, instead feeling its OOCly unfair or annoying.

[Jihelu]

That's a really good post Rath.


Drovians when?

[Lizzie]

Rathustra for President!

and I'll collect the funds to lobby for the restoration of full elemental guilds, OR a "pick two" elemental subguilds of the same element, plus a mundane main guild.

[gotdamnmiracle]

I'm really impressed with staff's response to this. I think this hammers out a lot of the issues we had prior concerning understanding the state of magick and it's facets of recent.

[ABoredLion]

I don't know what you're trying to say with the staff PC thing.

In this instance I was highlighting how even the staff PC in question reacted like the mage in question was absolutely not a threat under any circumstance due to the fact they obviously weren't capable of the more dangerous things particular builds of their given element would have done. I gave an example where 2/3 (of the PCs I knew to be staff played) were either A) So powerful nothing in the game made them hesitate, or B) Entirely willing to ignore the implied 'virtual' danger 'feeling' toward magick in general. It was a fairly off the cuff remark that this behavior is even exhibited by fantastic roleplayers who have clearly earned the trust and nod of the game's administrators on the highest level. Certainly, it can't be expected by comparison that if they fall for these things, the rest of us wouldn't at times.

Side note, if someone comes in with the whole, 'What about non-combatant of any kind mages' let me invite you to the theme of this game that I get reminded every single character report. 'Murder....corruption....betrayal.'

All of those lead to violence. If you avoid it, totally fine. I love flavor roles for mages. If you're a combatant mage and you don't do flavor things with your magick, you're doing it wrong. I just think that we should never write off that what makes things 'dangerous' is their ability to do something 'deadly'. Mages are supposed to be monsters of the Known.

Sorry, I disagree fundamentally. We have a large number of non-combatant PCs and they pull a massive amount of weight. Violence and death are certainly cornerstones of the game, but the idea that magickers should simply be means of bringing about death and destruction is wrong. The only interpretation of this I agree with is that OOCly, people only care about their character dying, because that is the only "lose case" in the game - so it's hard to make something "scary" that doesn't kill your PC. However, as drovians once showed, being able to know everything about your PC can be scary too - it's just that people tend not to interpret it as a scary thing, instead feeling its OOCly unfair or annoying.

I'm sorry. I'm reading your post and other than you saying you disagree fundamentally, I'm not sure where you actually have. I said what makes mages dangerous is that they're capable of doing something deadly. I said murder, corruption, and betrayal all eventually lead to violence. You don't murder without violence coming from somewhere, even if it's not you (someone else is doing it). The thing that made Drovians deadly was their knowledge, if not their ability to pop out of thin air practically with two big-back-up buddies ripped from Drov to help murder you. It doesn't change that again -- they were deadly. Mainly deadly because if they didn't want to be found, they were ridiculously hard to be, while making your life utterly hellish. Whirans got the best of both worlds there.

Let's kind of refocus on some points though otherwise. When I said I think every Krathi should hum so hard 'The Hobbit' dwarves were jealous (paraphrasing obviously) I was being partly facetious, and making it a point that I think it's better that they were all feared for the same thing than having 1/3 feared for 1 thing, while the other 2 aren't generally worried about. (Contrary to what some people think, no, the code advanced players do not care about catching a fireball to the face when they know their 3-4 rounds of combat following are going to kill you before the 2nd or 3rd cast will). I don't ever want to hear a PC say to mine, 'Yea, we can go kill that Rukkian. He's not good with a sword.' -- that's what I feel has sort of come about with these changes. In many ways, the potential of some mages (in particular whirans/rukkians) have been raised with the caveat to their design that it's if they join in with mundanes and become dangerous in the way that mundanes are dangerous. It's almost like somewhere along the line people said, 'Hey, <insertdamagespellhere>'s just basically a master-level kickx2.5, with a delay timer that's different, and it can be interrupted.' What if we made it where they were warriors that did this?' And that's all well and fine. It's just that the old mages were balanced (I think) in a way that their weaknesses and such were fairly covered (except for scan, you poor bastards) and the split didn't do that well for many of them.

I don't know well how to articulate my issue with it here well without again getting into some specifics I wouldn't want to post on the board, but I suppose I feel like there wasn't some accounting done for certain builds, and the changes forced others into a niche that really drew away from a thematic danger to 'all' mages.

Your post about the suggestion that, 'if they don't fear them, we'll make them' gives me hope, for sure. But another part of me thinks it's easy to buy into that a 'design' is good, because one or two people have wielded it well. You give Majikal a damn grandfathered merchant guild PC with 'thief' as his subguild and he'll find a way to butterknife a templar to death, and that shouldn't be the metric for measurement. You know what I mean?

[number13]

There was an old tabletop RPG called Paranoia, where one the goals of the game was to expose other player characters as commie mutant traitors. The joke of the game was every PC, including yours, was a commie mutant traitor.

That's what being a magicker in Arma feels like. It's basically impossible to be surprised that new PC Amos turns out to be some variety of elementalist, because that's the default.

Which is fine. Everyone wants to play an elementalist. Whatever. But since probably over 50% of us are playing elementalists, sorcs, or templars, you're just going to have to adjust to the idea that magick isn't really going to be scary for over 50% of the PC population.

The alternative is to make elemenatlists very rare, which would just piss off the 50% that likes playing some variety of magic-user.

[mansa]

There was an old tabletop RPG called Paranoia, where one the goals of the game was to expose other player characters as commie mutant traitors. The joke of the game was every PC, including yours, was a commie mutant traitor.

That's what being a magicker in Arma feels like. It's basically impossible to be surprised that new PC Amos turns out to be some variety of elementalist, because that's the default.

Which is fine. Everyone wants to play an elementalist. Whatever. But since probably over 50% of us are playing elementalists, sorcs, or templars, you're just going to have to adjust to the idea that magick isn't really going to be scary for over 50% of the PC population.

The alternative is to make elemenatlists very rare, which would just piss off the 50% that likes playing some variety of magic-user.

Here's some stats of characters from when Brokkr gave out data:
https://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,54260.0.html

[Brokkr]

Your post about the suggestion that, 'if they don't fear them, we'll make them' gives me hope, for sure. But another part of me thinks it's easy to buy into that a 'design' is good, because one or two people have wielded it well. You give Majikal a damn grandfathered merchant guild PC with 'thief' as his subguild and he'll find a way to butterknife a templar to death, and that shouldn't be the metric for measurement. You know what I mean?

If you haven't played the subclasses which had changes in November, your experience is outdated.

[ABoredLion]

If you haven't played the subclasses which had changes in November, your experience is outdated.

Shameless plug of own work is shameless, but I can't blame you.

It's true that the changes to guilds have been very beneficial to the immediate defensive capabilities of PCs. The obvious changes made (parry being much higher for many, alongside it being readily available early outside of a warrior guild, as well as advanced shield use in most cases) really appear to at base level give these magickers some defensive capabilities they might otherwise not have.

...that point is lost though, because this was a spread across all guilds, and it doesn't change that the same mundanes who don't care about these 'pseudo' magickers that remain are plenty capable of killing the crap out of them (and know it) when they are aware that the magicker is limited to (at maximum) their 10-11 spells. My thought is that defensively, magickers have been weakened. Offensively, they've been made into a niche where some of them get stupidly strong (if they treat themselves like just any ol' mundane and join sparring clan X for a bit).

None of these points of mine at least will address whirans, who outside of initially appearing to have 1 particularly terribly put together subguild (that I assume was recently remodeled a tiny bit) are the best idle-gankers in the game. Anyone who knows a little of anything is still cautious of them due to this, no doubt. Whirans never needed summon, heh. I think whoever set these up (from what I can tell witnessing them, and doing some idle guess work) did well. Then again, whirans were always so packed full of 'oomph' that splitting them didn't hurt them. They were never one trick ponies.

To be fair to Rathustra's point, I do think it's sad that people won't react like something is terrifying (truly) until it is. Most can put up a thin veneer of caution or worry, but the second their things are actually on the line, no one can really blame them for folding and 'reacting' with violence to their fear and then going, 'Turns out he wasn't so tough! It only took 4 rounds of combat to kill him with ye olde axe! That <insert one of the damaging spells here> hurt, but I'm fine.'. Crap, when you think about it, 1/2 the Known at least has a 'hunt the magickers!' reaction.

There's a weird disconnect, and I'm struggling to put my thumb on how to exactly point that out.

[Brokkr]

Not my work.

I think the reactions you describe are incredibly meta, way overboard in terms of taking into account OOC desires and information in determining IC reactions, and are a great example of the kinds of folks we get that think they are pretty good roleplayers that don't merit moving beyond low karma levels until they have changed their mindset.

[Riev]

Not my work.

I think the reactions you describe are incredibly meta, way overboard in terms of taking into account OOC desires and information in determining IC reactions, and are a great example of the kinds of folks we get that think they are pretty good roleplayers that don't merit moving beyond low karma levels until they have changed their mindset.

Once again, for those in the back:

"You are not good at this game until you think about the game in terms those in power would prefer."
"You think you are a good roleplayer, but you aren't, until you think about things differently."
"There are only a few varied routes to being a good roleplayer, and caring about the code in a MUD is not one of them."

The joke used to be:
Nyr: Fleeing is roleplaying

Now the joke is:
Brokkr: If you're fleeing without 3 pages, double spaced, with APA formatting, you may have survived but you aren't a good roleplayer. A good roleplayer would have died.

[Brokkr]

We make judgments about how good of a roleplayer a player is all the time.  It is literally part of our function.

I don't care if you care about the code. I don't care if you just type flee, or three pages of emotes.  Just typing flee if you see magick seems like a thematic reaction. 

I care if you start making IC decisions just because of what you know about the code, rather than about IC circumstances.  One IC circumstance is that part of the setting is that most people are afraid of magick. To discard this IC circumstance because of what you know about the code, yes, that is the sort of thing that would negatively impact your chances of gaining the magick related criteria for karma.

[gotdamnmiracle]

I am confused. I often times don't know how to react to a magick user. I want to RP with them, but that RP is supposed to be a negative (in terms of outcome) experience, so what is their motivation to hang around my PC or I them?

And when I play PCs who are concerned with power because it is the most concrete form of security on Zalanthas they are often rebuked by magick users because I'm told "I can't do that" or "that's not what my element does" when asking for things like readings of the future or good luck charms. I am rebuked and I feel like I'm doing something dirty in response to the docs. And both players are left with less interaction as a result.

Not a coded complaint, but I wish there was some benefit to befriending a magick user to offset the hate (long term boons, charms, etc.), and by extension some incentive to screw over mundanes (sacrifice, thralling, component creation, stealing of essence or something). Currently screwing with magick users is a death sentence by others and magick users have zero reason to want to be scary.

I think the documentation is confusing if the knee-jerk response is to run in fear or run the gicker out of the tavern. Recognize this is anecdotal and my experience. It may be that it isn't yours.

[ABoredLion]

I can't speak for the other points brought up here. I think I've said my bit, and I'm not about to start on a riot act or something over it. I just think at the end of the day if you give me a subguild named 'Fearmonger' who has zero actual skills, but the IC is that fearmongers make everyone around them scared/bitter/cautious of them, with some suitable tell as to the nature of their 'mongering', you'd find the reactions and lack thereof positively silly. You'd get a lot of 'base' level 'fear' right up until something mattered, heaping helping loads of 'caution' and more than a little 'bitter' right up until it mattered. Armageddon has a massive kill culture that's been reinforced since forever. It's weird to suggest that you can make something scary (to these people) without the potential for it to cause death directly or indirectly. I wish we were both wrong and that things were different for the most part.

The admittance that people who react like that and don't care that the fearmonger is supposed to be scary despite not having the talent to back it up don't raise beyond the lower echelons of karma doesn't change that when your fearmonger gets rofl-smashed in a few weeks, that you've got to wait four months to play anything in the same ballpark. (or 2.5 for a reaver, or something)

Even if I ignored that 'magick roleplay' is only 1/7 points on the karma scale and anyone could still get 3 karma in theory without ever reacting appropriately to it by this scale. I hope none of my tone comes across aggressive, or defensive. I just feel like I want to directly approach part of what I feel like is the problem with the touched subguilds (though I do think some of them appear fairly well constructed), and just as much the actual aspects.

[Cind]

Not my work.

I think the reactions you describe are incredibly meta, way overboard in terms of taking into account OOC desires and information in determining IC reactions, and are a great example of the kinds of folks we get that think they are pretty good roleplayers that don't merit moving beyond low karma levels until they have changed their mindset.

If you guys don't understand this, think about it this way.

You're an ex-bynner who didn't make the cut for becoming trooper, or a jewelry peddler who buys from a half-elf grebber and gets bothered by House Kadius for being too gifted, or the daughter of an aide and a hunter who hates the idea of aiding and is learning to hunt.

You're sitting in the Gaj when your hunter best friend offers to take you out hunting; all you have to do is watch the horizons while he hunts and he'll get you supplies that you could do with what supplies are done with. You say yes.

The desert is hot today and the wind is kicking up in an unusual way. Suddenly, your mounts rear in fear and your own bucks you because you suck ass compared to your friend. A witch is suddenly hovering in the air between the two of you; his eyes are glowing yellow and he is wielding what appears to be a sword and a dagger made of fucking wind. Your friend yells "Run!" and books it, attempting to draw the witch's attention by waving their own sword around because they do care.

How many people would honestly draw their sword and start killing the darn thing?

[Riev]

How many people would honestly draw their sword and start killing the darn thing?

I'm still trying to figure out why I wasn't sitting at the bar, minding my own business in the first place.

And I would probably draw my sword because otherwise I'm defenseless. I probably wouldn't run because I'm not so good on my mount when both of us are frightened. I might die fighting, but at least I'd die proud.

[Brokkr]

Wait!?!?!!

You, or your character?




I would advise when encountering a magicker in RL in this scenario to flee, as we can't afford to loose valuable players to this sort of stuff.

[number13]

How many people would honestly draw their sword and start killing the darn thing?

In the real world, violence is often a consequence of fear.

This is true in Armageddon as well. When BIG MAGIC stuff happens, there's often staff run riots in Allanak, sometimes even mundane commoners forming mobs outside of elemental temples.

That mundanes are afraid of magickers isn't supposed to be an advantage, an I-WIN card. It's a disadvantage. Conan the Byn-barian might fear and loath witches, but he's still Conan. He's going to express his fear by calling to Tek and swinging his sword.

[Hauwke]

How many people would honestly draw their sword and start killing the darn thing?

In the real world, violence is often a consequence of fear.

This is true in Armageddon as well. When BIG MAGIC stuff happens, there's often staff run riots in Allanak, sometimes even mundane commoners forming mobs outside of elemental temples.

That mundanes are afraid of magickers isn't supposed to be an advantage, an I-WIN card. It's a disadvantage. Conan the Byn-barian might be fear and loath witches, but he's still Conan. He's going to express his fear by calling to Tek and swinging his sword.

He may not like it, but he will deal with the situation the only way he knows how. KILL IT WITH STABS!

[Kol]

So I've been keeping an eye on this thread for a little while, and thought I'd finally drop my 2 cents into the mix.


Whilst I understand the frustration of some people who may feel that the way magic used to work is better than the current system, it's changed, for better or worse, and as Rathustra stated, the majority of the world, wouldn't have noticed any change whatsoever. This is important, as it comes into play later.

Sure, some previous main guild witches had pretty damn near godly power, some, not so much. Most of what I've seen in this thread is 'Why should I be scared of a witch if they can't codedly kick my ass with witch shit they way they used to?'

Because they're WITCHES.

You're playing a RPI MUD That means Roleplay Intensive, and if you rely on Coded aspects of the game to enforce the fact that, in this game, magic is a hated, feared, and mysterious force 99.9% of the population does not understand and has no desire to understand ever, you need to re-evaluate what role-play means.

I point out that because unless you are in that 0.01% (a witch yourself, Templar or Oashi etc) and a student of history (unless your witch PC is old enough to have lived through the changes or whatever while manifested and lost contact or whatever with aspects of your element) You, as a character, would not know of, care for, or want to know, about any change in witchery. Witches do witch things. They're dangerous, mysterious, and not to be trusted.

I'll explain a few common myths and tragedies as to why witches should be feared and mistrusted.

They eat babies to get their power. And sacrifice people to whatever figure they worship to get more power.

They curse people who slight them with crotch rot and other nasty ailments.

They caused my buddy Malik to die in a fall from his Inix. I know this because Malik spat at one on our way out the gates this morning.

That still-born baby was obviously the work of some witch.

The fact you had that fruit in your bag for months isn't the reason it turned rotten, it obviously went that way because of some witch shit fucking with you.

THEY DROPPED A FUCKING VOLCANO ON ALLANAK, CAUSED EARTHQUAKES, MADE A WALL OF WATER WASH OVER HALF THE KNOWN AND LITERALLY DRAGGED A NEW MOON INTO EXISTENCE

They can sneak into your dreams and drive you mad, I know, it happened to My cousin Amos, because he died in the arena after mouthing off to a lord templar after some bad nightmares.

They destroyed the world and brought the dragon on us all. It was only thanks to the (insert respective overlord reference here) that we live today.


Someone mentioned that they've seen mobs inside the Elementalists Quarter outside temples.

There's a reason there are never any Mobs of commoners that enter the temples when they Riot. And there are reasons that the majority of rioting happens outside the mages quarter when riots do happen, and that's because witches are fucking dangerous, and those who riot or mob outside of temples, are pretty much the same as idiots who go to a protest or riot in any major city.

They're angry, scared, and frustrated, and driven by a few passionate zealots who have enough intelligence or charisma to pull on peoples fears and frustrations and drive them into a stupid action.

But much like mobs and riots in real life, as soon as the object of peoples blame and frustration shows any fight, the majority will disappear because that's what happens. People might be frustrated and angry, but they also have lives to lead, and regardless of how things feel at that point in time, for the most part, the lives of most, if not all common people, remain largely unchanged.

While sure, I'm not going to argue, some people may feel it's correct and proper for their character to fight and kill that witch, the majority of PC's should not be fighting that witch, they should be running. If a Witch has a Gem, most 'Nakki's and anyone who spends much time in 'Nak would know that the templarate keep a close eye on the Witches for obvious reasons, they'd also know that if, for any reason, the witch got away, they'd not only be fucked by the templarate for attempting to Raid a traveler (as that's pretty much what would be told to them) They'd have also pissed off a Witch., who likely has witch friends (I mean, they have an entire QUARTER of the city to make witch friends in) and Witches with Witch friends are fucking dangerous. (See above at for why witches should be feared)

The desert is hot today and the wind is kicking up in an unusual way. Suddenly, your mounts rear in fear and your own bucks you because you suck ass compared to your friend. A witch is suddenly hovering in the air between the two of you; his eyes are glowing yellow and he is wielding what appears to be a sword and a dagger made of fucking wind. Your friend yells "Run!" and books it, attempting to draw the witch's attention by waving their own sword around because they do care.

How many people would honestly draw their sword and start killing the darn thing?

Let me give you a better example.

You're a Person. It's real life. You've done a little hunting before, and are out in the plains, hunting with your small calibre rifle on your motorbike it's a sunny day, and everything seems fine, even if the woods are a -little- quieter than usual. Suddenly, you hear a growl and turn, and there before you is a fully grown, snarling Lion,  standing on two feet, with a pair of fucking plasma firing AK-47's in his hands with opposable thumbs and itchy trigger fingers. Your buddy you've been hunting with guns his motorbike away firing a round at the obviously magical lion you've discovered yelling at you to run.

You gonna stand your ground and try and take it down with your .22 rifle, or get the fuck out of the way of the plasma firing AK wielding Lion? Because, I know what I'm doing, I'm running as far away from the motherfucker with the AK's, because if the lion can appear like that in the open, holding AK's like Rambo that shoot fucking lasers, I don't want to be anywhere near it.

Because that essentially what you should be picturing whenever your scenario occurs.



Apologies if I rambled, Its late, I had a long day, and I'm trying to cut chocolate and some other shit from my diet.

[Heade]

Let me give you a better example.

You're a Person. It's real life. You've done a little hunting before, and are out in the plains, hunting with your small calibre rifle on your motorbike it's a sunny day, and everything seems fine, even if the woods are a -little- quieter than usual. Suddenly, you hear a growl and turn, and there before you is a fully grown, snarling Lion,  standing on two feet, with a pair of fucking plasma firing AK-47's in his hands with opposable thumbs and itchy trigger fingers. Your buddy you've been hunting with guns his motorbike away firing a round at the obviously magical lion you've discovered yelling at you to run.

You gonna stand your ground and try and take it down with your .22 rifle, or get the fuck out of the way of the plasma firing AK wielding Lion? Because, I know what I'm doing, I'm running as far away from the motherfucker with the AK's, because if the lion can appear like that in the open, holding AK's like Rambo that shoot fucking lasers, I don't want to be anywhere near it.

Because that essentially what you should be picturing whenever your scenario occurs.



Apologies if I rambled, Its late, I had a long day, and I'm trying to cut chocolate and some other shit from my diet.

I don't think this is a valid comparison. IRL, we "know" magic to be mythical, so seeing something like that, that challenged our idea of reality is a completely different thing than seeing a magicker in Zalanthas.

In Zalanthas, magick exists, and everyone knows it. Sure, it's supposed to be rare and mysterious, but it really isn't all that rare. And if you're playing a character that is in a position where they're forced to amiably deal with magickers on a regular basis(such as certain Militia positions), there is only so far you can go with the whole "magick is scary" thing before you can't ICly justify it as really being that scary any more.

The lack of rarity is making magick mainstream in Armageddon. Mainstream things aren't that scary, unless it can actually hurt you.

I understand that having a completely dynamic magick system isn't something that's possible with our current system. So, we currently have a static system that is meant to represent a dynamic "reality" IC.

Maybe we could let magick subguilds "custom craft" a spell effect or two within their given element over the lifetime of a magicker. This would allow them to better represent the fact that magick, in the gameworld, is a dynamic thing, and not static. It'd be supported by the code, and would work to ensure that each individual magicker holds some wonder and mystery, where people don't necessarily know the full extent of their capabilities.

I'd also like to discuss ways to make magickers more rare in general. It's really tiring playing a mundane in a position where you learn who many of the secret magickers are, and it ends up being just about EVERYONE of any note.

[Lizzie]

All of those are great examples of "fear of magick roleplay" Kol. And they are all made 100% invalid by a single person at the bar saying "no one has ever actually experienced any of those things, no one has ever sent rumors (oocly via the tavern boards) to support these myths, no one has ever walked into this bar and shown any evidence of suddenly being cursed by a mage who was also in the bar. Since the world doesn't support the myth, the myth must be unfounded."

They can say that in the most IC way possible, but the result is the same. And it's based on fact. The game world has never supported those myths. Children are taught about tigers living in the woods, and once those children grow up they learn that there are no tigers there. When Zalanthans grow up they realize those myths are unfounded, because none of those myths have ever come true, and yet there are all those mages, being mages.

[number13]

All of those are great examples of "fear of magick roleplay" Kol. And they are all made 100% invalid by a single person at the bar saying "no one has ever actually experienced any of those things, no one has ever sent rumors (oocly via the tavern boards) to support these myths, no one has ever walked into this bar and shown any evidence of suddenly being cursed by a mage who was also in the bar. Since the world doesn't support the myth, the myth must be unfounded."

They would be wrong. It's probably too recent to talk about on the board, but that character would be incorrect in his assumptions.

[Brokkr]

All of those are great examples of "fear of magick roleplay" Kol. And they are all made 100% invalid by a single person at the bar saying "no one has ever actually experienced any of those things, no one has ever sent rumors (oocly via the tavern boards) to support these myths, no one has ever walked into this bar and shown any evidence of suddenly being cursed by a mage who was also in the bar. Since the world doesn't support the myth, the myth must be unfounded."

They can say that in the most IC way possible, but the result is the same. And it's based on fact. The game world has never supported those myths. Children are taught about tigers living in the woods, and once those children grow up they learn that there are no tigers there. When Zalanthans grow up they realize those myths are unfounded, because none of those myths have ever come true, and yet there are all those mages, being mages.

That level of scientific inquiry and enlightenment is not thematic and is anachronistic to the setting.

[Heade]

All of those are great examples of "fear of magick roleplay" Kol. And they are all made 100% invalid by a single person at the bar saying "no one has ever actually experienced any of those things, no one has ever sent rumors (oocly via the tavern boards) to support these myths, no one has ever walked into this bar and shown any evidence of suddenly being cursed by a mage who was also in the bar. Since the world doesn't support the myth, the myth must be unfounded."

They can say that in the most IC way possible, but the result is the same. And it's based on fact. The game world has never supported those myths. Children are taught about tigers living in the woods, and once those children grow up they learn that there are no tigers there. When Zalanthans grow up they realize those myths are unfounded, because none of those myths have ever come true, and yet there are all those mages, being mages.

That level of scientific inquiry and enlightenment is not thematic and is anachronistic to the setting.

It's scientific to say, "I've never heard of someone being attacked unprovoked by a turaal, and I've personally seen turaals, so turaal's must not attack unprovoked."? I mean, that's the level of deduction we're talking about, here. It's not exactly the scientific method.

Without basic logic like this, everyone would just have to believe every tall tale they're told. Are we RPing "The Invention of Lying"?

[gotdamnmiracle]

All of those are great examples of "fear of magick roleplay" Kol. And they are all made 100% invalid by a single person at the bar saying "no one has ever actually experienced any of those things, no one has ever sent rumors (oocly via the tavern boards) to support these myths, no one has ever walked into this bar and shown any evidence of suddenly being cursed by a mage who was also in the bar. Since the world doesn't support the myth, the myth must be unfounded."

They can say that in the most IC way possible, but the result is the same. And it's based on fact. The game world has never supported those myths. Children are taught about tigers living in the woods, and once those children grow up they learn that there are no tigers there. When Zalanthans grow up they realize those myths are unfounded, because none of those myths have ever come true, and yet there are all those mages, being mages.

You see, the solution to this seems obvious to me. It would be to curse some people. Really fuck them up. Animate a whiran who gets his foot stepped on by your byn sergeant and all of a sudden you can't roll the dice to save your life and trooper Hana kicked your ass in your most recent spar which NEVER happens. But the problem is that we can't expect staff to just animate something as a response to this each time we need it because they aren't mind readers.

The only way I could see reliably accomplishing this without relatively frequent staff reinforcement that things are the way they are supposed to be is to put the tools in the players hands. This requires coding them to be there. Permanent debilitations and things like that are a great example of something like this.

To simply state that this is an RPI and roleplaying properly is what you should be doing is a tad obtuse. Just because you roleplay perfectly does not mean anyone else will be doing so and often, I imagine, people manufacture reasons for their PCs to roleplay to their liking anyway. Is the guy who says his PC isn't afraid of your witch because of IC reasons wrong? What if every other person is doing this?

I say if we can't succeed in enforcing the message that magick users are terrifying through suggestion we make them that way. If you say turaal are terrifying a thousand times it doesn't make that so. If you made it so their bite had a percentage chance to permanently drop one of your stats, disfigure your character, or randomly teleport you, then you wouldn't need to say anything. They'd simply be terrifying.

[tapas]

How many people would honestly draw their sword and start killing the darn thing?

In the real world, violence is often a consequence of fear.

This is true in Armageddon as well. When BIG MAGIC stuff happens, there's often staff run riots in Allanak, sometimes even mundane commoners forming mobs outside of elemental temples.

That mundanes are afraid of magickers isn't supposed to be an advantage, an I-WIN card. It's a disadvantage. Conan the Byn-barian might fear and loath witches, but he's still Conan. He's going to express his fear by calling to Tek and swinging his sword.

Might as well forget about the fear part if you're not going to represent it.

[number13]

Might as well forget about the fear part if you're not going to represent it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghrzxvRxCIo

Was this kid scared? Did he stop and ponder, "Monsters aren't real, therefore this is just some guy I can punch?" No. His backbone did all the thinking there.

I have close to the same reaction when I'm startled. I've never actually punched someone because of it, but my fist reflexively raises. I don't think about it. It's just my fear reaction.

It's called a "fight-or-flight" reaction. Choosing 'fight' doesn't mean they're not afraid. It's perfectly natural and involuntarily reflexive for some people to choose 'fight' when they are afraid.

[Nao]

All of those are great examples of "fear of magick roleplay" Kol. And they are all made 100% invalid by a single person at the bar saying "no one has ever actually experienced any of those things, no one has ever sent rumors (oocly via the tavern boards) to support these myths, no one has ever walked into this bar and shown any evidence of suddenly being cursed by a mage who was also in the bar. Since the world doesn't support the myth, the myth must be unfounded."

They can say that in the most IC way possible, but the result is the same. And it's based on fact. The game world has never supported those myths. Children are taught about tigers living in the woods, and once those children grow up they learn that there are no tigers there. When Zalanthans grow up they realize those myths are unfounded, because none of those myths have ever come true, and yet there are all those mages, being mages.

If this was how people worked, there would be no superstitions in the real world. There would be no witch hunts and there wouldn't have been any at any point in history.

Correlation is enough to convince people that the myth is true. Got sick or a case of boils after pissing off a magicker? Blame the witch. This applies to any sort of misfortune, really. Accident, someone dies, sickness, bad luck gambling, any injury... You can blame a brief encounter with a witch for anything bad that ever happened to you, and people who believe witchcraft is real did (or still do) just that.

[tapas]

Might as well forget about the fear part if you're not going to represent it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghrzxvRxCIo

Was this kid scared? Did he stop and ponder, "Monsters aren't real, therefore this is just some guy I can punch?" No. His backbone did all the thinking there.

I have close to the same reaction when I'm startled. I've never actually punched someone because of it, but my fist reflexively raises. I don't think about it. It's just my fear reaction.

It's called a "fight-or-flight" reaction. Choosing 'fight' doesn't mean they're not afraid. It's perfectly natural and involuntarily reflexive for some people to choose 'fight' when they are afraid.

Pretty sure there's a difference between jump scares and the same kind of fear we're talking about with magick.

Nobody attacks templars on a dime because they're afraid of them.

[number13]

Nobody attacks templars on a dime because they're afraid of them.

A templar is in a position of authority. A witch is an aberration, an unwelcome outsider. The Salem Witch Trials weren't born of hate, but of fear.

You shouldn't be expecting to use witch-fear as a social or PvP advantage. It's means that people want you gone or dead, not that people want to be your bitch. If you want to play a character that inspires the kind of fear-respect that makes others bow before your might, those roles exist -- they are the nobles and templars.

Which isn't to say that your character can't hold that philosophy. One of my longest lived characters believed that elementalists were chosen, and that mundanes should bow before him. But OOCly, I never expected that to actually work. It was line that I fully expected and hoped would fail spectacularly. (and it did!)

[tapas]

Nobody attacks templars on a dime because they're afraid of them.

A templar is in a position of authority. A witch is an aberration, an unwelcome outsider. The Salem Witch Trials weren't born of hate, but of fear.

You shouldn't be expecting to use witch-fear as a social or PvP advantage. It's means that people want you gone or dead, not that people want to be your bitch. If you want to play a character that inspires the kind of fear-respect that makes others bow before your might, those roles exist -- they are the nobles and templars.

Once again, you're describing emnity. Not fear. Fear and hatred go to together here, sure. But the fear part almost never gets expressed.

Maybe if I saw some emotes where folk were shakily reaching for their blades. Or a generalized fear that the witch blood would get under their skin after the fact. In fact I don't think I've seen a proper flight response that wasn't w,w,w,w.

To respond to your other point. If I'm playing up the spookiness of my character, I'm not trying to make your pc my bitch. I'm trying to depict the actual spookiness of my character in accordance to the game world for you to react to however you like. However, note my earlier disappointment when the response is pretty universally the tough guy one.

But I think that's probably par for a game in which "kill man" always seems to be the default.

[Riev]

Wait!?!?!!

You, or your character?




I would advise when encountering a magicker in RL in this scenario to flee, as we can't afford to loose valuable players to this sort of stuff.

Humour, AND concern! I approve!

Also if I'm, as a real person, sitting at a bar... something is very very wrong. I may be homeless, or worse... my computer died.

[Riev]

On the real though, I think there is a lot of onus on the players to roleplay appropriately (as much as there should be). When it comes to magickers, sometimes you're over the 120th time emoting that the wind blows out a nearby candle before its become... meh. (I've gotten to the point where I almost wanted to add my own timed emotes that just go off regardless).

I would be all for the cantrips being reworked (somehow) to allow for magicker-only socials. Sometimes less of a Cast-code, which can get you dead, and more of a twitch/discord emote like 'kangry' echoing a generic krathi showing signs of anger, or something. They'd either be overused, or never used, but they'd be available.

[Lizzie]

Nobody attacks templars on a dime because they're afraid of them.

A templar is in a position of authority. A witch is an aberration, an unwelcome outsider. The Salem Witch Trials weren't born of hate, but of fear.

You shouldn't be expecting to use witch-fear as a social or PvP advantage. It's means that people want you gone or dead, not that people want to be your bitch. If you want to play a character that inspires the kind of fear-respect that makes others bow before your might, those roles exist -- they are the nobles and templars.

Which isn't to say that your character can't hold that philosophy. One of my longest lived characters believed that elementalists were chosen, and that mundanes should bow before him. But OOCly, I never expected that to actually work. It was line that I fully expected and hoped would fail spectacularly. (and it did!)

Actually no, the salem witch trials were born of something unfortunate happening to someone, and they wanted someone to blame. It escalated in kind, until people would accuse anyone they didn't like of witchcraft, and even fabricated actual demonstrations of horrific experiences (children having shaking fits - which the children did on purpose to demonstrate that someone had cursed them). I see none of that roleplayed, presently, and haven't for a very long time. In addition, not a single one of those incidences were actually attributable to magic. In the world of Zalanthas, there really IS magic. It's an actual thing. But without that kind of demonstration of its actuality, it becomes nothing more than unfounded myth. People can get their kids to believe in unicorns and Santa Claus. But eventually those kids grow up and realize these things don't exist.

[gotdamnmiracle]

If the fear is supposed to be grounded in the unknown the idea of violence as a response is poor. Most lovecraft characters aren't coldclocking fishfolk or mi-go. They're running, hiding, praying to god, and asking "what the hell".

I also see this failing in the context of fear of power. If you register something as a threat it's far more likely for you to take off. We're using exceptions to the rule to define the rule, I think. All you need to do is look at how to ward off aggressive animals and not get attacked to see that the most common response is to run screaming or freeze and you have to be TAUGHT to be aggressive. This could be fine if it was someone like The Arm who was teaching how to incapacitate a witch or a Delf tribe that teaches how to traditionally take down a trickster. It gets fucky once you have runners not thinking twice about it or worse, every lone hunter in the Known, a hayseed from Storm or the North where they have zero exposure to magicks, who encounters something weird just chopping away because they know if they can get the jump on them it's better than not. I am guilty of the latter.

[Riev]

Does the (basically) enslavement of magickers in Allanak help, or hurt, the stereotype of them being a fearful 'other'? I can see a route of thinking that brings you to "The Templars know they are dangerous, but they're gemmed. They can't DO anything to me without suffering the wrath of His Shadow."

So you meet one out in the wild, and based on everything you've experienced, they're docile and under control, except this one. Like going from seeing docile doggos to straight up wolves.

You might be afraid and try to run. You might try to fight because you think its "just a dog after all". You might even try to reason with it, because OTHER doggos like the treats you offer. But in Armageddon, the only thing that reinforces this scary situation is the player 'acting according to the docs'. The krathi can't (shouldn't) power-emote setting an ember about your clothing, or cause the wind to blow sand into your eyes. The tools at their disposal are both wide open by the emote system, and curtailed by imagination and suspension of disbelief.

At least let my Shadow Witch turn the room to complete pitch black, virtually or not, for a second. Let people know who you are, without being outwardly aggressive.

[mansa]

Known world examples of magickers... That's a good thought.


We should change or reiterate how players should react based upon visible examples to characters and NPC's.

I would suggest examples - more echos at the entrance to the magickers quarter and more examples within there of how typical characters with spells should react and play.

[RogueGunslinger]

What if we just changed the docs to represent the player base and the reality of ingame situations. Make magick more accepted, less feared. After all people have been living with it in Allanak for multiple generations now. Maybe society progresses somewhat here so that it's not at all weird to have Gemmed doing anything any other citizen does. Keep the bigger hatred and fear to the other portions of the world and have Allanaki's be woke.

Keep ungemmed magickers hated how they are now.

[gotdamnmiracle]

What if we just changed the docs to represent the player base and the reality of ingame situations. Make magick more accepted, less feared. After all people have been living with it in Allanak for multiple generations now. Maybe society progresses somewhat here so that it's not at all weird to have Gemmed doing anything any other citizen does. Keep the bigger hatred and fear to the other portions of the world and have Allanaki's be woke.

Keep ungemmed magickers hated how they are now.

I'm okay with this. Honestly I've always felt that the gemmer was reviled and pitied much better than feared. They are about on par with the grossest rinther, but probably less likely to give back attitude because of how closely they're chained to the templarate (and they can't exactly scrabble off to the Rinth if they screw up).

On the real though, I think there is a lot of onus on the players to roleplay appropriately (as much as there should be). When it comes to magickers, sometimes you're over the 120th time emoting that the wind blows out a nearby candle before its become... meh. (I've gotten to the point where I almost wanted to add my own timed emotes that just go off regardless).

I would be all for the cantrips being reworked (somehow) to allow for magicker-only socials. Sometimes less of a Cast-code, which can get you dead, and more of a twitch/discord emote like 'kangry' echoing a generic krathi showing signs of anger, or something. They'd either be overused, or never used, but they'd be available.

Right! Yeah having some spells or even a baseline of acceptable "power" emotes would be awesome. I think that'd go a long way towards making magick feel more organic.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

What if we just changed the docs to represent the player base and the reality of ingame situations. Make magick more accepted, less feared. After all people have been living with it in Allanak for multiple generations now. Maybe society progresses somewhat here so that it's not at all weird to have Gemmed doing anything any other citizen does. Keep the bigger hatred and fear to the other portions of the world and have Allanaki's be woke.

Keep ungemmed magickers hated how they are now.

Woke? Just ... no ... not something that's gonna happen on Zalanthas, like, ever.

I'm teasing. I honestly think this is exactly how things should be. Gemmers  are nasty, cursed, and reviled, but so are breeds and elves. Putting them on that level in Allanak seems like a good stance to me. I think I argued for this back when Tuluk was open and there was a clear-cut place to hate magickers.

[Cind]

I don't want magickers to turn into the wonky Fear me/I'm powerless situation of city elves, and I don't think staff are going to do more than tweak the subguilds soon, so if that's the way we should fix it, then fine, yeah. For a couple of years, we can even RP about how, back in my day, we had to walk up the hill both ways to get to school (its an American saying for how things were harder/better for you back then.)

[Brokkr]

We destroyed the last city somewhat accepting of magickers.

With magickers.

Resulting in magicker hate.

[Riev]

We destroyed the last city somewhat accepting of magickers.

With magickers.

Resulting in magicker hate.

Steinal? The place idiots are always looking for, for loot, because they're not afraid of scary magicker ghosts?
Or Mal Krian? The "see above I'm not copying and pasting"

Do you know the amount of things that can happen in a King's Age? Most of our PCs aren't rolled up, privy to the knowledge and understanding of 100% of the documentation. Maybe an example must be made.

[Lizzie]

What Riev said, in a nutshell. Also reflective of one of Mansa's recent posts on the subject. Legends are myths - meaning, likely not true, but great stories that might have once had a basis in truth a long time ago - unless they are reinforced by current (or recent) events.

[Brokkr]

Well, those too.

Tuluk, though.  Tuluk.

[Heade]

Well, those too.

Tuluk, though.  Tuluk.

Uh...what? Tuluk wasn't accepting of magickers...at all. Not even a little. If that's why Tuluk is closed, I want a do-over.

EDIT: OH! Did you mean the FIRST version of Tuluk, before it was destroyed and rebuilt? Were they accepting of magickers? I thought Tuluk had always been anti-gick.

[Lizzie]

Tuluk had an entire quarter dedicated to the elementalist temples. It became known as the ruins, after the sacking.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

Wow. We goin' waaay back. Like, twenty years RL?

[MeTekillot]

History is cyclical. Have another settlement rise in favor of magick. Lynch anyone known to frequent it, but the thing will be that the allure of power and mystery will draw those daring-do to it seeking things Man should not know. Pride will be their destruction.

[Eyeball]

Tuluk had an entire quarter dedicated to the elementalist temples. It became known as the ruins, after the sacking.

Actually, Tuluk didn't have temples so much as a combined temple. It had one central room, with four rooms branching off of it, one devoted to each of the four (then) elements. The surrounding layout of exits was a little confusing.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

History is cyclical. Have another settlement rise in favor of magick. Lynch anyone known to frequent it, but the thing will be that the allure of power and mystery will draw those daring-do to it seeking things Man should not know. Pride will be their destruction.

This isn't a horrible idea. It would thin the ranks of the Gemmed, but I think it would be a cool thing.