[✗] Soul Tree Clarification & Rework

[Sky 0]

Having children from a soul tree was left because there are several children from past soul tree druid's around, I understand and agree that it makes no real sense, but it doesn't have to make a lot of sense since magic and unless you wish to retcon these character's backstory to a point of making their birth invalid, then there is no point in removing it.

[Gladuos 857]

Just to say, coming back to this. I want to say I support the notion of MT observation of the actual ritual of becoming a tree lord, as well as the limitation/documentation of saplings from soul trees. Except for the whole being forced to attack no matter what your character archetype is if tree is being harmed in the slightest (including allowing a friend take a sapling). Just don't try to control how people's characters act now. However, just want to more comprehensibly state what my issues were earlier.

 

As far as the regeneration branch is concerned, when my character became a soul tree I was told you're allowed to do it however aesthetically you please so long as the tree excretes a wax that forms into the tree lord's body. Trying to specify it only results in restriction of roleplay, which if is happening in an unneeded manner I would say can only be a bad thing. In that way I'd say yes, that's impeding the lore piece a little bit imo, but it's not the biggest deal.

 

Druidism can't sense voidal magic. The only reason druids using void magic start to have nature react violently to them is because in general having more than one magical connection is corrosive and causes one or the other to start breaking down. The reason this is an issue for me is because not even most void mages can sense void magic without a magic specifically designed to do so, such as with voidal feeling. Druidism can't sense any more than the average non-magical crew. They might see a floating fireball and come to the conclusion of "That's not normal. Looks like fire evocation", but Nature won't be discerning the difference between a real fire burning it and a voidal flame burning it. It's all the same hot. Of course if voidal magic is directly harming a plant or something, a druid can definitely sense a plant is being hurt (and not much more).

 

The whole anchoring into the ground for eating thing. Never heard about it in all my days really. Just seems like something that'd never be roleplayed. Basically like "Yeah I did it this morning while meditating", and then something nobody ever mentions again. Not to mention how does a tree lord even do this if they 'can't control their bodies through their gifts'?

 

Now onto the things I think matter more. I don't think it's necessary to have staff oversight for FTBs, at all. I think perhaps you wanted this because there was some recent arguing going on about whether they should be fertile or not? Well in any way, I don't think you should maintain such a cynical view on this or the next point. As even if a few bad eggs have chosen poorly in the past, that doesn't mean you should restrict the people that were meaning to do it properly anyway as well. Elves are fairly infertile, and you don't see staff monitoring that. Nor should they, I believe such things should be left in the hands of the players more than the staff.

 

Requiring staff approval for respawning. Totally unnecessary. Let me remind us that regular non-tree-lord players are capable of respawning immediately with the restriction of not being able to go to the point of death for the next 30 IRL minutes (which even this can be circumvented should the point of death be the character's home). This alongside the previous point just seems like a hindrance to freedom of roleplay, and something staff members probably shouldn't bother concerning themselves with. I understand the intention, but I want to say it's not needed and only gets in the way of freedom of roleplay. Becoming a tree lord is supposed to be an IC blessing, not an OOC hindrance.

 

Sorry for more walls of text, but I guess I think it's important I share my thoughts anyway. Good luck.

[Avacyn 1706]

6 hours ago, Sky said:

Having children from a soul tree was left because there are several children from past soul tree druid's around, I understand and agree that it makes no real sense, but it doesn't have to make a lot of sense since magic and unless you wish to retcon these character's backstory to a point of making their birth invalid, then there is no point in removing it.

 There is a point, because there's a standard to uphold on the rationale behind these sorts of things occurring. 

Just because RP in the past occurred unmonitored and unregulated doesn't excuse it continuing to happen. An explanation could be devised for past children but I won't sit easily with it continuing to.

[Destroyer_Bravo 1052]

honestly barkmen should be cut down where they root

[Sky 0]

1 hour ago, Avacyn said:

 There is a point, because there's a standard to uphold on the rationale behind these sorts of things occurring. 

Just because RP in the past occurred unmonitored and unregulated doesn't excuse it continuing to happen. An explanation could be devised for past children but I won't sit easily with it continuing to.

Then perhaps explain why the past had happened and why it no longer happens?

[Avacyn 1706]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

Then perhaps explain why the past had happened and why it no longer happens?

That would, in my opinion, be the best way to go about it.

I'm just saying that moving forward a lot of wires are being crossed to a confusing point if soul-tree'd people can make babies.

[Sky 0]

16 minutes ago, Avacyn said:

That would, in my opinion, be the best way to go about it.

I'm just saying that moving forward a lot of wires are being crossed to a confusing point if soul-tree'd people can make babies.

Would you think that having the ability that you become completely infertile over time be something that you think would be alright, or would it add unessecary complications?

[Avacyn 1706]

30 minutes ago, Sky said:

Would you think that having the ability that you become completely infertile over time be something that you think would be alright, or would it add unessecary complications?

I mean, I suppose that makes a degree of sense-- your biological parts and those organs degenerating into your new... wood-y sappy-ness over a period of time.

If given a rational timeframe, that's something I'd agree with.

[Sky 0]

38 minutes ago, Avacyn said:

I mean, I suppose that makes a degree of sense-- your biological parts and those organs degenerating into your new... wood-y sappy-ness over a period of time.

If given a rational timeframe, that's something I'd agree with.

Perhaps a week? Which is a year in character. So it offers a player the ability for it, and it's a year of baby-making in character.

[ZBLBAC5 79]

Good work Sky.

I would say that it is odd that a literal wood construct has the ability to have children as the sap the would come out would likely lack the ability to have the DNA required to reproduce. unless if you can add a sense able reason on how it should.

[GDPR 014 23]

Denied. As LT, we feel that this lore has no downsides (see saplings being able to spew from the tree to defend the Treelord and having the ability to produce children).

[GDPR 014 23]

This Lore has been denied. Topic moved to Denied Lore forum.