Jump to content

Thulean Feat Update


Swgrclan
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Swgrclan said:


I'm not digging your high horse, big guy.
 


No, recent events surrounding Thuleanism in general had only incentivized me to get around to writing this -- because when you're presented with a situation where certain individuals cannot actually be stopped in weaving themselves into the group that exists to preserve the subject in question (Thuleanism), to the point where even murdering them is ineffective (redundant monk rules), having something like Thuleanism being loose and free doesn't go so well because conventional means to keep it as secret and coveted as it has been the past three years don't even work in the first place. So rather than letting the risk of Thuleanism being turned into, as I stated, a pass-around-magic equivalent, I'm suggesting these relatively forgiving terms to prevent that.
 


Mitto is someone who would be receiving the means to moderate the Feat, this is not just something I'll be touting around myself. I think I made it pretty clear what kind of people I want handling Thuleanism, Torkoal, and it's not people who cling to babying revival rules so that they can continue to make an effort to join into the thing they were killed to keep them out of IC in the first place. When I told you that PKing your character would have been a better route to take than doing what you have been, I also mentioned in regards to our event-related squabbling that you could attend everything resultant of Quillian's sacrifice on another character -- and that's the very same thing you could have done instead of sticking to your guns and casting consistency to the wind in order to get something you wanted. If another character of yours eventually became involved with the group controlling this method, and they didn't **** up that time around, then the situation would not be as unpleasant as it is.

 

Alright, I see why you made this amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

flamboyant dropping bombs

what a madman

Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, The Pink Lion said:

Why do you feel that thulean druidism, in its current condition, should remain a magic? Low numbers, people refusing to spread it, turmoil caused when people do try and spread it, et cetera. And tossing disconnection into the mix only seems like you want to control who gets it even further. Overall, it seems like a pocket magic at this point that has had its potential squandered and we shouldn't be allowing for such things to keep existing.

2

 

 

Why do you feel thulean druidism is more exclusive in it's current state than Soul Puppetry, or Strigas, or even Blood Magic itself? It's not like Cameron doesn't take students or doesn't recruit, but that is made doubly hard by the druids hunting people down for being in any way connected to his characters. If multiple people other than Cameron attain the disconnection feat (like Mitto and Eli), it wouldn't be in his pocket at all.

Regular druidism can disconnect people so to me it only makes sense that this form of druidism has the same availability, to me if thulean druidism were just a feat and not associate with a circle, it would make less sense. But it is associated with the 'Shadow Circle'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Swgrclan hey boi isn't this made redundant by the ability to unattune druids? asking for a friend

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Swgrclan said:

I think I made it pretty clear what kind of people I want handling Thuleanism, Torkoal, and it's not people who cling to babying revival rules so that they can continue to make an effort to join into the thing they were killed to keep them out of IC in the first place. When I told you that PKing your character would have been a better route to take than doing what you have been, I also mentioned in regards to our event-related squabbling that you could attend everything resultant of Quillian's sacrifice on another character -- and that's the very same thing you could have done instead of sticking to your guns and casting consistency to the wind in order to get something you wanted. If another character of yours eventually became involved with the group controlling this method, and they didn't **** up that time around, then the situation would not be as unpleasant as it is.

0

 

Are you seriously trying to shame a player for not wanting to kill off their character? That's just plain sad to see from an Event Actor.

If your events are so reliant upon someone else having to do exactly what it is you want perhaps you should try writing books instead of Roleplaying with other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GrimReaper98 said:

 

imagine when people break realism of roleplay and destroy an entire eventline because they meta-game like LMAO

 

 

just remove thuleanism and be done with it

 

Imagine people powergaming and getting away with it forever...... even if it's blatant... or the fact that death has no meaning on lotc and drives people away....

 

oh

 

wait

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jaeden said:

 

Pretty much this.

 

Thuleanism, as far as I've come to understand, is the merging of two magics -- druidism and blood magic. It's all fair, the lore's conclusive, and I don't mind what it is.

 

But I don't think it needs to have 'moderation'. Something like this doesn't make sense to have it be 'controlled'. Allowing the ability for teachers to strip people of a magical feat that was discovered more-so on knowledge and experimentation rather than its standalone magic just does not make sense. Nor do I think it's fair.


If killing someone solved the issue of their involvement in something worked, then I don't think this - or any moderation-oriented lore - would be necessary. Unfortunately, we have to take these steps in order to preserve something easily gained because of an immunity to death. If permanent death is the great equalizer, and there is a deliberate lack of enforcement in it, then it throws a lot of things out of wack. I would rather not lay down and have two years of effort slapped around and hijacked.

A good way to convey the issue in the situation would be this: I play a Druid. Maybe one day, this Druid gains interest in shapeshifting. Shapeshifting is a rare thing to see among Druids, and is afforded a degree of secrecy based on consistent IC actions to covet it. I proceed to become involved in the right channels to work my way towards gaining Shapeshifting-- and then someone who oversees who get it IC comes and kills my character.

However, I do not allow my character to die, and even moreso remain involved in the situation that had led to my character being able to progress toward getting Shapeshifting. Everything the individual trying to keep me from Shapeshifting does is futile, as without the incentive to PK, I'm able to learn Shapeshifting through another source and completely abandon the more respectable route of PKing my character, thus allowing the consistency in the roleplay to flourish.

 

6 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

 

Are you seriously trying to shame a player for not wanting to kill off their character? That's just plain sad to see from an Event Actor.

If your events are so reliant upon someone else having to do exactly what it is you want perhaps you should try writing books instead of Roleplaying with other people.


A lot of my insistence for PKing here is mostly based on personal belief, but even then, the situation here wouldn't have spun out of control if Torkoal had stayed away from the Thulean deal all-together, and understood the idea that to persist in any roleplay ultimately connected to the one who killed her character to prevent her involvement was disrespectful, inconsistent, inconsequential and blatantly disregarding of the roleplay itself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Heed my words, Struggler. Soon a rain of blood, the likes of which you cannot imagine, shall fall down upon you. It will be a storm of death, but take head, Struggler. Struggle, endure, contend, for that alone is the sword of one who defies death. Do not forget these words". - Skull Knight

 

Consequences are essential in roleplay. This is a collaborative story, and characters who deal with consequences and the **** creek of roleblay are all the more interesting. Death should hold consequence, and while people might not want to PK, it should be reasonable that they will be barred from certain groups/activities if they decide to come back.

 

Take Mordskov, for example. For people who didn't want to PK, there was a 2 death you're out rule. If you died twice, you were gone. No more involvement with the event. Mordskov was one of the best events due to the intensity of the situation. If no one died, if there everyone kept coming back and faced adversity like it was a joke, what do you think would happen? It would make the event way less interesting and intense, and overall feel meh. Think about it, if you know you're going to be fine no matter what, there's no excitement. There's no risk or reward for making it out to live the next day. Barring someone from this Thulean Event, while it may seem shitty, is somewhat understandable. 

 

I am not invested in this situation, nor do I know much about it. I'm just throwing my two cents in. 

Though, I do wonder. How will you deal with the possibility of Thulean Druids rampaging and disconnecting each other, given disconnection is something you pick up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty pathetic that you wrote a whole amendment just to get rid of one player that didn't PK at one of your events. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Zarsies said:

@Swgrclan hey boi isn't this made redundant by the ability to unattune druids? asking for a friend

 

Why not unattune the druid? They can't be a Thulean if they aren't a druid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>>>>>>>>>>>OOCLY CONTROLLED MAGICS<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

Also "rarity" should not be an excuse for something to be OP. That might be ok for games like skyrim, but in a sandbox multiplayer roleplaying environment like LotC it just means whoever's writing the lore gets to be cooler than everyone else.

Edited by AGiantPie
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Nobody can force you to permanently kill your character. If you permanently kill off your character you have 7 days to reverse your decision. "

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Jollybee said:

It's pretty pathetic that you wrote a whole amendment just to get rid of one player that didn't PK at one of your events. 

From an outside understanding it’s not that they didn’t kill off their character it’s that they took no consequence from the actions that lead to their death and kept pushing forward acting fine and dandy like nothing went wrong. Would you like someone throwing off something you worked hard for because they didn’t care for consequences of their actions? Then again this being a server turned to a play pen where everything is wrapped in foam and everyone gets a gold star it’s not far off to say this has become the norm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lynx said:

From an outside understanding it’s not that they didn’t kill off their character it’s that they took no consequence from the actions that lead to their death and kept pushing forward acting fine and dandy like nothing went wrong. Would you like someone throwing off something you worked hard for because they didn’t care for consequences of their actions? Then again this being a server turned to a play pen where everything is wrapped in foam and everyone gets a gold star it’s not far off to say this has become the norm.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, ElevenJellyBeans said:

"Nobody can force you to permanently kill your character. If you permanently kill off your character you have 7 days to reverse your decision. "

 

This is an issue with the server, through and through. It destroys any sort of continuity of any sort and allows situations like what has happened, to happen. People ignoring death, people meta-gaming, just a plethora of disgusting actions which destroy the environment of roleplay for selfish reasons. These 'witty' zingers and defending someone who's power and meta-gamed time and time again, ((with them also being banned for meta-gaming too)). The amendment is definitely not the best way to go about it, but it just highlights an issue with the playerbase as a whole on all sides.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...