---

[Mrlollytime 102]

8 minutes ago, zaezae said:

Never once in the new map have I ever seen any of those besides byros and never have I heard anyone, not even once, mention them IRP. Who exactly plays a good deal of their time on these characters? Or is it a '1-hour a week alt if that' characters? 

 

 

I have never rpd with you on my normal elf but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist on the server since you've never seen him or rpd with him. I would have loved to have played the Bryophyte I had rp built up to, the skin made, and app done for. You would have most likely never had any reason to rp with him or see him but it would have been my personal rp not yours. 

[zaezae 1098]

10 minutes ago, Song Druid said:

Refer to my thinking out loud post.  All your silly points are addressed there.

I referred to your post that is nothing but presumptions and strawmen. The point of this decision is about playable races and making room for new playable races. It's about playable races. If you'd like to edit your post to include the fact that playable races is the central point of the decision, feel free and get back to me. Otherwise, it's just a wall of text that flies off the rails halfway through the second paragraph and fails to understand that the decision is to free up spaces of playable races specifically and not the entirity of the server mithos or lore. Or simply make a super snide comment at me again, or ignore me. Whichever.

 

Regardless nothing here is convincing if not snide. It just looks like more LOTC drama to me without any rational thinking of "Does it /really/ matter?". So that's my point, if you disagree, continue to do whatever it is you're trying to do.

 

At least MrLolly actually has a rational point. To address him, it isn't rather or not I see you specifically, but rather when I visit the four nations I frequent I should either see or hear about, at least once, these races over the span of several months. Which I have not. 

[thaddeus11 75]

I like how you say that removing them allows for new lore for new creatures to be added... It wont happen, and you know it. Don't say stuff you know isn't true.

[thaddeus11 75]

Id also like to add that I really think these things should be voted on by the community, not the lore team. I know they think they know whats best for the server, but most of the time they don't and just end up pissing everyone off.

[sean66 272]

This is sad news, RIP Burgrum the fatherly Troll.

 

I wish this decision hadn't been reached but it is understandable. Also to note on others not seeing these races, we were fairly active at least the Grum tribe/family. We resided within the Dwarven mountains, owned our own caves, RPed a fair amount with various races, and were actually very active around Christmas time. Many times Urgrum (Kymera_) could be seen at the CT docks sitting on the trees offering his large lap for any to sit on and to tell what they wanted that Krugzmas, I was also fairly active just running about RPing. We might not have been the most noticeable/were thought to be orcs, as Trolls both lore wise and skin wise look like Orcs. We did exist though.  

 

Ultimately what saddens me the most was me and Kymera_ planned on trying to revive the race, maybe submit a revision of the lore, and just to improve the experience of playing a Troll. Sad overall but I understand the LMs decision fully. 

 

Bonus: Us Trolls in our Santa Outfits donated to us by Orcs when we went caroling with them. 

 

 

 

[Aqua Vita 136]

Meh

[Swgrclan 2682]

17 hours ago, Draxagon said:

 

Wait, if you're removing lore so that you can add lore that does the same thing, what was the point of the removal in the first place? And if there are other characteristics of the new lore that could stand on their own, wouldn't they be accepted anyway?

Removing certain lore so something else can replace it is an option, not the plan, and is up to either players to submit revisions or for the LT to make a revised or new, but similar creature, if met with demands for replacement. The bigger idea of removing one concept so the possibility of a revision can arise is because of the fact it can be rewritten to become better than what it was. Why would anyone let an outdated banana rot on the floor if the banana can be disposed of, and replaced by a new, fresh banana with a fresh banana smell? 
 

 

17 hours ago, Space said:

17 hours ago, Chaotikal said:

 

17 hours ago, Chaotikal said:

 

Why is this being attended first and not the more needed things, such as an incredibly desperate repair to the Magical lore, the confirmation of Dwarven lore, amongst other things that need more urgent attention... There's been a year or so since the team produced anything of relevance to the lore. And this is substracting from lore, also aiding to scramble it further. You also never mentioned that groups may return in the original post? If you guys are so skilled at writing that you were entitled with a group rank for it, why can't you write better posts?

 

(The quote got all fucky, pardon the mess)

Because stuff like this is the little, announceable things that the LT handles, and stuff like magical lore revisions and plot or deep lore developments are the bigger things, and aren't known to take place because the team doesn't need or want to make announcements pertaining to them under the context of concealment (ie, lore dedicated to eventlines and what have you) or otherwise. You think we just work on little things, but we actually do big things which you do not see.

Also, magic lore doesn't need desperate repair, nor do other things demand the attention you claim these "things" need. Or Dwarven lore, either. The focus of the team is not Dwarven lore right now.

[=Nkruma= 65]

The Trolls were pretty cool Rply there was a group of Trolls that lived by the dwarves that enhanced RP. I suggest they be kept there for fun RP.

[hellfiazz 879]

For those people thinking there's some kind of limit on the amount of creatures, or that we're removing to replace with something the same, that's not entirely correct.

 

For a while now there has been a feeling amongst some of the playerbase that the lore of LoTC is kind of over-saturated and that there's too many different kinds of creatures for each one to have any real presence or meaning. It's not a view that I personally necessarily agree with, but it's certainly something I and other LT members would most certainly like to avoid. Consequently there is often a degree of reluctance among many LMs for accepting new creatures, for fear of creating that situation where each creature is devalued by the amount of different kinds. This can lead to a few quite good creature lore pieces being passed up which is a real shame, and I recognise that this might be a flaw but it's the result of that stigma. Hopefully the removal of these creatures, which we and other members of staff felt are some of the more inactive player groups and some of the more distasteful (for lack of a better word) creatures (this isn't all of the ones removed), will mean that that stigma can be moved past and some decent ideas that might otherwise be denied can have their shot.

 

Also for the members of these removed player groups, remember that if you feel your character is important and well-constructed and deserves to continue to exist, you can make their case to Arzota or Supremacy. Your old creature characters needn't go gentle into that good night yet folks.

[Beordan 219]

*Deletes 9.72 gigabytes of byrophite lore, skins, and and backstories.* *Sobbing*

[Mrlollytime 102]

1 hour ago, Varian said:

*Deletes 9.72 gigabytes of byrophite lore, skins, and and backstories.* *Sobbing*

 

I would have loved to have added to that. 

[Free The Hobbits 859]

Very good, I wrote the lore and was not satisfied with how people were using it. Oozes are very nice additions and I hope to see them used in the future as an event. 

[mitto 2312]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.