Contract Magic Revival?

[𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖚𝖘𝖍 2451]

+1

[luv 3469]

Lots of updates have been added to the original post, if anyone hasn't seen them as of now.

[TeaLulu 1783]

It was removed because the original lore writer wanted it removed and believed it wasn't fulfilling it's purpose

 

its a fairly useless magic prone to powergaming and other issues and to my knowledge the fact there was no way to break out of it was incredibly obnoxious to some people. it could be used to hamper someone's character after an OOC falling out, for example.

 

If something gets removed I don't think it should be added back without extremely good reason. Besides, magic is bloated enough as it is and I just don't see how this adds anything interesting to it, so -1 on my end.

I also would not want the "lorekeeper" of it, if it was accepted, to be anyone but a top LM who is familiar with spook magics (Zarsies, Benbo, Swgr, definitely not ski given recent events) and allow them to completely handle re-release of it without allowing it to be open to potential abuse or bias in the handing-out of the magic.

[trinn 5146]

I was contracted once.

To disobey was to PK

 

The PK thing kept people in line. If you disobeyed your 'master', you pk. That was the overwhelming threat to keep you from betraying your masters. 

 

It hurts me to say this, but something is needed to keep people in line. Lets say that this is revived -and you remove PK (as you stated in the comments above, I believe.) ; what are you going to use to keep people in line from obeying the contract terms?

[BonesOfTheEarth 2252]

+1

 

Well written. Low key should teach me

[luv 3469]

7 hours ago, || Trinn || said:

I was contracted once.

To disobey was to PK

 

The PK thing kept people in line. If you disobeyed your 'master', you pk. That was the overwhelming threat to keep you from betraying your masters. 

 

It hurts me to say this, but something is needed to keep people in line. Lets say that this is revived -and you remove PK (as you stated in the comments above, I believe.) ; what are you going to use to keep people in line from obeying the contract terms?

Could see this potentially being changed, am currently on my phone so I will get back to you when I reach a computer.

 

After discussion with three people who have been helping me the most in this writing, I have decided to remove the PK related redline, as it DOES in fact add a lot more possibility and severity to the contracts if chosen to be added.

[ski_king3 0]

I'm not certain that I'm in favor of this magic returning, but if so, I feel very strongly that it should never be allowed to halt someone from betraying someone else (this can be explained just by the idea of betrayal being complex and impossible to quantify in a contract). This would sort of screw up the student contract.

 

It also should never be used to stop people from teaching a magic. The necromancy contracts of old were the shiniest example of contract magic's abuse, and something that should never return (if you weren't aware, there used to be contracts that stopped necromancers from betraying their teachers or teaching without permission of higher ups).

 

I think there could be a more interesting spin on this that could make this lore less prone to those who simply wish for their OOC whims to be enforceable IC upon people. I'm thinking on it, anyways.

[trinn 5146]

1 hour ago, Luv (Люблю) said:

Could see this potentially being changed, am currently on my phone so I will get back to you when I reach a computer.

 

After discussion with three people who have been helping me the most in this writing, I have decided to remove the PK related redline, as it DOES in fact add a lot more possibility and severity to the contracts if chosen to be added.

 

Alright. You're removing. I stand by my point that you need something to keep people in line - so if you remove PK, what would you replace it with?

[luv 3469]

4 hours ago, || Trinn || said:

 

Alright. You're removing. I stand by my point that you need something to keep people in line - so if you remove PK, what would you replace it with?

I mean I removed that people can't be PK'd by contracts.

[luv 3469]

4 hours ago, cyber_king3 said:

I'm not certain that I'm in favor of this magic returning, but if so, I feel very strongly that it should never be allowed to halt someone from betraying someone else (this can be explained just by the idea of betrayal being complex and impossible to quantify in a contract). This would sort of screw up the student contract.

 

It also should never be used to stop people from teaching a magic. The necromancy contracts of old were the shiniest example of contract magic's abuse, and something that should never return (if you weren't aware, there used to be contracts that stopped necromancers from betraying their teachers or teaching without permission of higher ups).

 

I think there could be a more interesting spin on this that could make this lore less prone to those who simply wish for their OOC whims to be enforceable IC upon people. I'm thinking on it, anyways.

Discussed this through Skype, the red lines have been adjusted before you made the comment.

[GDPR 014 48]

The necromancer contract did way more than stop you. It made you fear for your life, because if you got on a certain wraith's nerve... heh, r1p n kill.

[Jistuma 1996]

One of the most important things about contract magic of before, and one of the things that very few people actually roleplayed, was that you can find ways around a contract. What was written in the contract was up for interpretation and the only interpretation that was needed was the signer's. If it said "You can't betray the Necromancers" that's so vague that the person that signed it could do almost everything, including killing them all because he thought that them being necromancers was harming them and stopping them from being good people, and death was their salvation.

 

Yet, asside from that problem, there were so many others. I wanted to make a dark magic that could happen because of RP, but because it was a dark magic (even thought no one knew of it's existance) no one signed it, and would more quickly kill the person with the contract.

 

It's use is also... limited... There aren't many times where a contract is needed, and my imagined uses were completely ignored. A truce being written in a contract, never done. A Peace treaty, never done. A vow of silence, never done. A vow of knightship ("I will do this for the rest of my life" type of thing), never done (Okars don't count, they got something in return). Trades were done very rarely, and only for magical things most times.

 

It was abused somewhat, though only with the necromancer's contract which shouldn't have been able to be signed by more than one person, asside from that, it was used for dark things. It was hard to use as well, since you had to kill someone, or at least capture them and keep them alive after flaying their back.

 

As for what you wrote, when I wrote it I overcomplicated it since I liked writing and wanted something unique and not just a "Sign this paper, now you're forced to do this". I think that is what you wrote, which I think makes it slightly boring. I'll write a bit more after dinner.

[luv 3469]

3 minutes ago, Jistuma said:

One of the most important things about contract magic of before, and one of the things that very few people actually roleplayed, was that you can find ways around a contract. What was written in the contract was up for interpretation and the only interpretation that was needed was the signer's. If it said "You can't betray the Necromancers" that's so vague that the person that signed it could do almost everything, including killing them all because he thought that them being necromancers was harming them and stopping them from being good people, and death was their salvation.

 

Yet, asside from that problem, there were so many others. I wanted to make a dark magic that could happen because of RP, but because it was a dark magic (even thought no one knew of it's existance) no one signed it, and would more quickly kill the person with the contract.

 

It's use is also... limited... There aren't many times where a contract is needed, and my imagined uses were completely ignored. A truce being written in a contract, never done. A Peace treaty, never done. A vow of silence, never done. A vow of knightship ("I will do this for the rest of my life" type of thing), never done (Okars don't count, they got something in return). Trades were done very rarely, and only for magical things most times.

 

It was abused somewhat, though only with the necromancer's contract which shouldn't have been able to be signed by more than one person, asside from that, it was used for dark things. It was hard to use as well, since you had to kill someone, or at least capture them and keep them alive after flaying their back.

 

As for what you wrote, when I wrote it I overcomplicated it since I liked writing and wanted something unique and not just a "Sign this paper, now you're forced to do this". I think that is what you wrote, which I think makes it slightly boring. I'll write a bit more after dinner.

I see a lot of where you're coming from and in some ways I agree. If you'd like I would LOVE to speak with you about this as I had intended to before hand. 

[Jistuma 1996]

20 minutes ago, Luv (Люблю) said:

I see a lot of where you're coming from and in some ways I agree. If you'd like I would LOVE to speak with you about this as I had intended to before hand. 

Sure, add me on skype, it's Jistuma.

[luv 3469]

There has been an update on the post.