[✗] The Malakim; Aos Forsaken

[Jentos 6813]

No thanks 

 

make something that will benefit the server

[mmat 7461]

Well written lore =/= Lore that would be beneficial to the server

 

No more.

[ShameJax 1391]

9 hours ago, Ford said:

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH WAIT ZARSIES THAT WAS YOU??????? 

 

i take back that insult however I will not take back that it went downhill very fast and it was not possibly a good move, as i had walked around and begun to witness voidal horrors just casually chilling in taverns and having little mystery surrounding them as was originally planned, making them more common and thus not as interesting to the common playerbase, lessening their potential which i believe could have been greater had they been in ET care. more magical things imho should be the dessert, not the main dish. still present, but not so common that you can walk into a city and just see four types of different high fantasy creatures sitting on a bench and having casual convos  

1

Upvote

If this lore gets accepted and you see any Malakim being obvious that they are Malakim and just doing that, please do report it. That is something that should not be allowed whatsoever, and I fully agree that it is an issue.

9 hours ago, Zarsies said:

 

yeah that's fair and well put, I might ask to take down the Voidal Horror trial although there are a loose few (1 or 2 can't remember) characters who have done a quite good job at being the desirable Horror sort while also maintaining activity (rest in peace Tentoa). What a world we live in. Anyways, on the lore my thoughts are quite basically and without any helpful criticism: "neat".

1

Upvote

If you do decide to end that trial and this ends up getting accepted let me know, if they could play Horrors well then I'm sure I could integrate them into this.

8 hours ago, Sir K Andruske said:

2 major issues with this piece:

 

1.) this is a knockoff archon with less accessibility, more reliance on staff intervention, and less opportunity to involve others in RP.

 

2.) there is a bias in this piece. The persistent pessimism and negativity towards  void magic is an OOC bias that needs to stop. Its a nuetral thing and so much oppressive writing as of late is really bogging down on actual opportunities to provide voidal RP. 

3

Upvote

No, this is not whatsoever a knockoff Archon. This is a creature specifically related to the Veil, not a creature born out of the Void wraith meme. Nor does this have less accessibility, I made the creation process as it is so I could integrate a sort of trial within itself. This will allow for it to actually be more accessible, instead of requiring all judgments to be made prior. The staff intervention is literally just making a MArt so each character isn't a copy of another, is there a problem with that? I don't quite understand where you get the idea that it has less opportunity to involve others in RP, it really just seems like you're coming up with negative reasons to put on there.

 

There is no bias, and I have no idea where you get that idea from. This is explicitly a neutral creature, never does it require for a Malakim to go out and drain someone. They are just chaotic, which is perfectly canon with the Void. Also, this is a designed as a Veil creature, not a Void creature.

4 hours ago, Jentos said:

No thanks 

 

make something that will benefit the server

1

Upvote

See next

4 hours ago, iMattyz said:

Well written lore =/= Lore that would be beneficial to the server

 

No more.

0

Upvote

This is the way I see it. If lore doesn't actually hurt anyone, but offers a chance for interesting RP, and it's balanced, then who are you to say it isn't beneficial to the server? This is a fundamental difference in philosophy that we disagree, however you've yet to do more than beg the question.

2 hours ago, DPM said:

personally i love watching the arms race between the magic playerbase

0

Upvote

I suggest you read the lore before commenting.

[mmat 7461]

4 minutes ago, ShameJax said:

 This is the way I see it. If lore doesn't actually hurt anyone, but offers a chance for interesting RP, and it's balanced, then who are you to say it isn't beneficial to the server? This is a fundamental difference in philosophy that we disagree

0

Upvote

 

 

And who are you to say there lore doesn't hurt anyone? Who are you to say that having a constant absolute flood of the same kind of lore doesn't harm the server? Because many others on the server and I think and have seen that in fact, it does.

 

Maybe it is you who has not thought about the consequences of this, and not me? Just something to consider.

[ShameJax 1391]

1 minute ago, iMattyz said:

 

And who are you to say there lore doesn't hurt anyone? Who are you to say that having a constant absolute flood of the same kind of lore doesn't harm the server?

 

Maybe it is you who has not thought about the consequences of this, and not me? Just something to consider.

0

Upvote

The burden of proof is on you.

[mmat 7461]

Just now, ShameJax said:

The burden of proof is on you.

0

Upvote

 

You're the one making the lore, not me.

[ShameJax 1391]

1 minute ago, iMattyz said:

 

You're the one making the lore, not me.

0

Upvote

You're the one claiming that it would be harmful. You are the one making the claim. Anyone can google burden of proof and know that it is on you.

[mmat 7461]

1 minute ago, ShameJax said:

You're the one claiming that it would be harmful. You are the one making the claim. Anyone can google burden of proof and know that it is on you.

0

Upvote

 

I'm not getting into a ******* athiest-evangelist debate with you, anyone who isn't a blinkered, creature obsessed lore-o-phile knows this bloat has happened, and is harming the server, simply to sate the whims of people who wants their own special thing on the server.

 

Well written lore =/= Necessary, practical lore.

[ShameJax 1391]

1 minute ago, iMattyz said:

 

I'm not getting into a ******* athiest-evangelist debate with you, anyone who isn't a blinkered, creature obsessed lore-o-phile knows this bloat has happened, and is harming the server, simply to sate the whims of people who wants their own special thing on the server.

 

Well written lore =/= Necessary, practical lore.

0

Upvote

And now you're arguing in circles. All I ask for is criticism, not just a claim. And I've stated that I dislike the lore bloat, however I dislike it because of dumb lore - not because of lots of lore.

[mmat 7461]

Just now, ShameJax said:

And now you're arguing in circles. All I ask for is criticism, not just a claim. And I've stated that I dislike the lore bloat, however I dislike it because of dumb lore - not because of lots of lore.

0

Upvote

 

My claim is a criticism. Stop using this Sargon of Akkad-tier '''debate''' jargon. I'm not 'arguing in circles', I'm putting across a point that loads of other people have seen.

[ShameJax 1391]

Just now, iMattyz said:

 

My claim is a criticism. Stop using this Sargon of Akkad-tier '''debate''' jargon. I'm not 'arguing in circles', I'm putting across a point that loads of other people have seen.

0

Upvote

Christ, I haven't watched Sargon of Akkad in ages. Still need to watch that Richard Spencer debate.

 

And no, you are. A claim is not an argument. An argument requires both the claim and premise, whilst you just have a claim. To use more debate jargon, you're ending that right there with a fallacious appeal to popularity.

 

As previously stated, lore bloat will be handled by the LT over the coming month. However, that does not warrant for the prevention of a trial. With all pieces of playable lore there are two votes required, one to give it a trial and the next after the trial.

[mmat 7461]

5 minutes ago, ShameJax said:

Christ, I haven't watched Sargon of Akkad in ages. Still need to watch that Richard Spencer debate.

 

And no, you are. A claim is not an argument. An argument requires both the claim and premise, whilst you just have a claim. To use more debate jargon, you're ending that right there with a fallacious appeal to popularity.

 

As previously stated, lore bloat will be handled by the LT over the coming month. However, that does not warrant for the prevention of a trial. With all pieces of playable lore there are two votes required, one to give it a trial and the next after the trial.

0

Upvote

 

Idk what you're spouting about in the second paragraph at all but we clearly just disagree about the direction the server needs to go. I've said all I need to say in order to convince whoever needs convincing.

[Dromui 754]

Lore bloat sucks.

This is nicely written.

I don't think it's necessary, but I will ask a question. How many players would this type of thing reach?

Why not let the LT clear out the **** show they've made and once the waters have cleared and we see what they've done, then push for this?

Lore bloat sucks.

[chaotikal 2236]

Doesnt add anything new to lotc, nothing that impacts anyone on any other way the hundreds of other creatures do, in the very same way.

 

I will go ahead and minus 1 this. Hopefully you realize the problems with this piece and how it is redundantly dull when you look at the big picture of voidal horrors, archons, etc etc.

 

 

[ShameJax 1391]

8 minutes ago, iMattyz said:

 

Idk what you're spouting about in the second paragraph at all but we clearly just disagree about the direction the server needs to go. I've said all I need to say in order to convince whoever needs convincing.

0

Upvote

We do clearly have a fundamental disagreement on that, and it's far beyond the scope of one lore piece.

7 minutes ago, Skale said:

Lore bloat sucks.

This is nicely written.

I don't think it's necessary, but I will ask a question. How many players would this type of thing reach?

Why not let the LT clear out the **** show they've made and once the waters have cleared and we see what they've done, then push for this?

Lore bloat sucks.

0

Upvote

The amount of players that would play a Malakim  would not be under cap, and I intend to make a streamline system that allows anyone with the wish to become one to be given a shot. Other than that, it would affect just as many players as any group does. And this can be re-evaluated at the end of a trial to see if it is beneficial to the server in terms of other lore.

4 minutes ago, Chaotikal said:

Doesnt add anything new to lotc, nothing that impacts anyone on any other way the hundreds of other creatures do, in the very same way.

 

I will go ahead and minus 1 this. Hopefully you realize the problems with this piece and how it is redundantly dull when you look at the big picture of voidal horrors, archons, etc etc.

 

 

0

Upvote

A creature specifically related to the Veil, that is something new. Why don't you push for removing something as simple as liches? They affect less players than this would, so let's just get rid of them. They're useless, right?