Jump to content

[✗] [Magic Lore] -- Weirhency


Lukariatias
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Lukariatias said:

Cannot be used with or by:

  • All Voidal Magics
  • Druidism
  • Shade
  • Ascended
  • Paladinism
  • Shamanism
  • Runesmithing
  • Chi Manipulation
  • Naztherak
  • Zar’akal
  • Fjarriauga
  • Machine Spirits
  • Undead Creatures
  • Soul Trees
  • Strigae
  • Afflicted
  • Izkuthii
  • Azdrazi
  • Fey Beings
  • Non-Descendants
    • Kharajyr
    • Hou-zi
    • Etc…

absolutely amazing, a magic that can be used by the greater 2% population on lotc

 

good luck with your player retention buddy

 

not to mention endgame mystics ARE undead creatures, should probably address that

 

 

1 hour ago, Ford said:

I thought that originally Weirhents were meant to be necromancers who are more keen on redirecting lifeforce to maintain a balance with nature and man

it was, but we had a divide so it was dropped completely and made an independent theme

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Abyssus said:

not to mention endgame mystics ARE undead creatures, should probably address that

 

 

I am aware of what a Wight is. I originally listed it seperately, but opeted to go with ‘Undead Beings’ due to the pending Necro rewrites.

 

1 minute ago, Abyssus said:

greater 2% population

 

Is this a joke? It’s limited in what magics it can be used with, hardly by races, and the races (Hou-zi/Kha) that it is inaccessible to may get changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could bang on about “this is just Druidism, but for people who don’t like the Druid community” all day, but I feel like you’re going to get enough of that. Really, did you talk to any Druids at all in this? It just seems poorly conceived. It conflicts with existing lore about the Aspects and such, like you haven’t really offered any explanation for how that works.

 

To move onto specific issues:

 

Quote

The Weirhent will undergo a noticeable personality change. Their emotions are leveled, and any previously influential aggressive passions will be lessened and become nearer stability. This tends to bring about a more tranquil sense of being, therefore making it more difficult to cause the Weirhent to become riled up, and emotional.

 There are already Druid philosophies which espouse this kind of behaviour. It’s actually very enjoyable for a character to struggle to adhere to tenets which encourage this kind of shift in personality, I don’t know why you’d just force it upon a character. Further there are people who just don’t gel with nature as a metaphysical thing, as an idea, but through this process that kind of conflict is just removed entirely, it just seems very “whoop I removed the angery part of your brain” which is like.. ???


 

Quote


Influence does not require focus beyond a simple connection to the flowing essence of the wilds, such that it does not require meditation, nor does it impede the Weirhent’s ability to move, fight, or speak.

 

This fundamentally breaks magic mechanics. One of the inherent weaknesses in casting is that it makes the user vulnerable, but this just removes that entirely with a very flimsy reason.

 

Lastly, literally everything this magic hopes to do is more easily achieved with Druidism, which is far more fleshed out(for better or worse) and established, stable etc. What niche in the server’s ‘narrative’ does this fill, that isn’t already filled?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lukariatias said:

but opeted to go with ‘Undead Beings’ due to the pending Necro rewrites.

this will probably be voted on before our rewrite even gets looked at

 

3 minutes ago, Lukariatias said:

Is this a joke? It’s limited in what magics it can be used with, hardly by races, and the races (Hou-zi/Kha) that it is inaccessible to may get changed.

 

you’re too restricting sorry

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lukariatias said:

Primeval

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lukariatias said:

Is this a joke? It’s limited in what magics it can be used with, hardly by races, and the races (Hou-zi/Kha) that it is inaccessible to may get changed.

The people who are interested in this are probably the same people who are interested in other magics and don’t want to play just one thing. Stop being so butthurt on practical criticism. 

 

26 minutes ago, Lukariatias said:

I am aware of what a Wight is. I originally listed it seperately, but opeted to go with ‘Undead Beings’ due to the pending Necro rewrites.

I find it hard to believe that you know what a wight is since they have literally absolutely nothing to do with necromancers and are pretty much the polar opposite of what necromancy is all about. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KiausT said:

I find it hard to believe that you know what a wight is since they have literally absolutely nothing to do with necromancers and are pretty much the polar opposite of what necromancy is all about. 

 

Wights are undead beings. So are Morghuuls, and Liches, and Darkstalkers, and Dreadknights, in a very basic sense. Therefore, Wights, like Morghuuls, and Liches, and Darkstalkers, and Dreadknights, and so on, fit under the umbrella term of ‘Undead beings’.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Lukariatias said:

So are Morghuuls, and Liches, and Darkstalkers, and Dreadknights

those currently aren’t creatures on lotc

 

Just now, Lukariatias said:

Lickes

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a big fan of the “this is FAKE DRUIDISM!” comments flooding this thread with no regard for:

-The Aspects canonically having a group of followers which influence nature to their liking; their ideals and the work of the Druids in no way being the ‘natural order’ of things.

-Current Dark Shamanism lore (which I wrote and think is bad and have since submitted a rewrite for) literally letting you have plant telekinesis and no-one questioning it.
-Current Shamanism lore literally letting you manipulate biomes, plants and animals and no-one questioning it.

-Current alchemy lore literally letting you use plants and minerals to shape both plants and animals.

-Nature canonically being dependant on the natural flow of lifeforce and abuseable by previous generations of Necromancy.

-The inspiration/ ideology of this clearly being pulled from the ‘Way of Oaks’ which has existed and been RP’d since 2016 and Thuleanism which is slightly younger.


But... Yeah I guess sure “it has nature so therefore it’s Druidism” is a balanced, well thought out argument and a constructive piece of feedback. 

 


Image result for thinking emoji
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I miss the original iteration of this magic, but it’ll never fit LotC and will inevitably die and become as useless as thuleanism did. (If it gets accepted which it will not). This just has no place, especially pushing this pseudo-xionist angle that most people don’t appreciate. It’s a mismatch of Shamanism, Druidism and Necromancy meshed with things that make it seem like a messy piece in thematic proportions that don’t fir the LotC universe

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The King Of The Moon said:

I’m a big fan of the “this is FAKE DRUIDISM!” comments flooding this thread with no regard for:

-The Aspects canonically having a group of followers which influence nature to their liking; their ideals and the work of the Druids in no way being the ‘natural order’ of things.

-Current Dark Shamanism lore (which I wrote and think is bad and have since submitted a rewrite for) literally letting you have plant telekinesis and no-one questioning it.
-Current Shamanism lore literally letting you manipulate biomes, plants and animals and no-one questioning it.

-Current alchemy lore literally letting you use plants and minerals to shape both plants and animals.

-Nature canonically being dependant on the natural flow of lifeforce and abuseable by previous generations of Necromancy.

-The inspiration/ ideology of this clearly being pulled from the ‘Way of Oaks’ which has existed and been RP’d since 2016 and Thuleanism which is slightly younger.


But... Yeah I guess sure “it has nature so therefore it’s Druidism” is a balanced, well thought out argument and a constructive piece of feedback. 

 


Image result for thinking emoji
 


I’ll go ahead and answer these points since it seems you are either seeking this out or assume it was never thought about.

1. Yes and No. Within the canon lore as nature started to be created, it was primal, chaotic, destructive and to a point of unable to really grow or be viable to live on. The Aspects saw this and came down, each giving something to aid nature in finally balancing itself to where it can thrive and grow to what we see canonically today. As for the ‘ideal’ that more falls with each group or individual druid of how they see the balance of nature and wish to protect it. Though the magic itself does allow them to hear nature and go by how to aid if its disturbed. It is in the end with how a druid takes that, falling on an IC point of view.

2. Actually this was questioned and while it is ‘allowed’, your lore also states that if a dark shaman captures a lesser nature spirit, druids can feel the strain of the natural bodies being tormented which in short, being unnatural. 

3. shamanism and their abilities to do those things you listed have been questioned numerous times, however it is allowed because the spirit Freygoth and some of the other nature spirits are embodiment of nature itself taking on a physical form. This however doesn’t mean by what they are doing (which in alot of cases is force changing things from its natural state to something else under w/e the shaman wants) is by any means considered natural and is responded to accordingly. Now of course, this can be debated and usually falls by individual cases of what is going on as spirits are rather fickle and tend to do what they please. 

4. I don’t see how this is relevant, but alright. Alchemy takes herbs from the natural world and uses its properties to combine with others to form something new. This can go to the extreme as we have seen and create new forms of ‘life’ which then are questioned and some even seen as massively horrid works of nature. Chimeras a good example. But still, that’s its own thing there.

5. I don’t see how this is relevant either, but i’ll enlighten this matter. Yes, all of nature is dependent upon lifeforce, as with all living things of this world. While druids could manipulate this lifeforce with a bit of nature spice, necromancers were the masters of all lifeforce and thus was able to give and take it. This doesn’t mean it was exactly ‘good’ by any means, more just able to effect a living thing. 

6. Ah, Way of the Oaks. A very interesting ideology that I do definitely see within this lore submission. But that is what it is, a viewpoint and a very neat one that I actually did enjoy reading, but in the end, this doesn’t really have anything to do with what people are trying to state with this lore submission.  I don’t deny the existent of the Old Lords though, but again you linked an IC viewpoint. 

While dark shamanism, shamanism, and alchemy have their own forms of messing with the natural world, it is still unique in their own way of doing things. Hope that answers all your bullet points and if you have anymore questions, feel free to pm me or poke me on discord. 

As for what people are trying to state with this lore, It isn’t really so much that ‘Oh its dark druidism again, lame’. That is an assumption that is immediately stated without looking at the overall issue with this lore. There’s nothing wrong with someone trying to make a Dark Druidism or a druidism that doesn’t have a deity. HOWEVER, with any magic, you need to have a uniqueness to it. What others are trying to state here is that this is a lore submission of a magic that is almost mimicking another and barely any differences other than ‘it lacks a deity’. Which unfortunately isn’t going to cut it when its up for review. Other issues are state with its race lock to specific races. That immediately will be a deny as we, the Story Lore Team Sect, have stated in our lore submission guidelines when one makes new lore. Then we have the list of abilities. Abilities that for the most part, can be done with druidism as current or is a twist to what abilities they have. Which doesn’t exactly give a defined uniqueness to this lore. If you want this  to take off or be accepted, it needs to show how it stands out from the rest. Not only have minor differences or slight twists in abilities just so it fits a ‘viewpoint’ some have regarding nature and the realm. 

 



 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I think you misinterpreted my comment a little bit. The list you’ve made in response to mine is full of objectively correct information for the most-part. It’s also unironically very useful and informative lore clarification in some parts.

 

The point of the list wasn’t supposed to say “dark shamans, shamans do stuff similar so why can’t Weirhency?” the point was moreso that, from what I sarcastically wrote at the end and could’ve been clearer on:

6 hours ago, The King Of The Moon said:

I guess sure “it has nature so therefore it’s Druidism” is a balanced, well thought out argument and a constructive piece of feedback. 

The argument I’m seeing a lot of people give in the comments seems to be fuelled by the presumption that “it use plant and animal and wild stuff so druidism but druidism already do?” and the problem I have with that argument is that ‘nature’ as a concept isn’t something that shouldn’t be thought of as exclusive Druidism lore, especially given the examples of how it (as all lore in the LoTC should) has its own unique interactions with other ‘areas’ of lore to keep compatible with the wider canon. This is part of a broader issue of magic/ deity/ creature lore having little continuity due to various submissions centred around a theme without taking pre-accepted lore into account but that’s a whole other can of worms not worth discussing on this thread, that hopefully explains “why it’s relevant” when using necromancy/ lifeforce as examples of nature not being druidism-exclusive.

 

The IC ideology I mentioned (specifically Weirhency and the Way of Oaks) is also relevant because, to put simply, that’s a group of people who’s ‘RP niche’ (which everyone seems to keep rambling on about) isn’t fulfilled with current lore. I think this is explained well in Luka’s piece but a lot of people are either choosing to ignore it or are simply (and understandably, especially in recent months) ignorant of that ideology.  

 

42 minutes ago, Delmodan said:

‘Oh its dark druidism again, lame’. That is an assumption that is immediately stated without looking at the overall issue with this lore.

That is exactly who my reply was supposed to address. I think there’s enough comments on here which are stating exactly that in the hypothetical circumstance you’ve given.

 

42 minutes ago, Delmodan said:

What others are trying to state here is that this is a lore submission of a magic that is almost mimicking another and barely any differences other than ‘it lacks a deity’.

I’d argue similarity in abilities to Druidism, albeit far weaker and without the deific involvement as well as a stark difference between ‘controlling’ and ‘influencing’ nature is sort of the point of the piece, at least from my reading of it. I’d also argue that it has abilities that are unique and unobtainable through Druidism. I would however agree it could do with more unique abilities and better fleshing out that which is already unique on there.

42 minutes ago, Delmodan said:

If you want this  to take off or be accepted, it needs to show how it stands out from the rest.

Guessing this was addressing @Lukariatias and not me because by no stretch of the imagination is this my lore, I just gave Luka some feedback on emote counts and redlines that needed more detail, as well as point him to another (denied) lorepiece of a similar concept by Zarsies for inspiration and I wouldn’t want to steal Luka’s spotlight for the good parts of this submission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The King Of The Moon said:

a stark difference between ‘controlling’ and ‘influencing’ nature is sort of the point of the piece

Druidism in no way ‘controls’ nature though. While yes, the skill is called Communion and Control, what is actually happening is a conversation between a druid and the subject.

A request, if accepted, is carried out to the best of the subject’s ability/want of effort.

A request, if denied, is not.

 

I.e.

Example- A druid doesn't ‘control’ a tree, and make it lower its branches

A druid asks a tree if it could lower a branch, so we might gain a vantage point. The tree agrees or disagrees, depending on the tier of the druid and the way they make the request.

 

If a druid starts CONTROLLING and FORCING nature to do things, it starts turning it’s back on the druid, and refusing outright.

 

(Next part more a general statement on the lore, not specifically directed at King of the Moon)

 

I think that’s one of the main things that this lore gets wrong in that it’s origin stems from a misunderstanding on how the magic works- A druid doesn't CONTROL nature. It doesn't get bent to our will and whim, in our view of ‘ideal’ nature- 

The job of a druid is essentially janitorial, trying to keep things as the chaotic nature, the balance and cycle of life and death- righting the wrongs caused by descendants influence.

One of the main misunderstandings I’ve seen in this lore piece in general is that it generalizes druids as tree-huggers who spread flowers everywhere, which is not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The King Of The Moon said:

The argument I’m seeing a lot of people give in the comments seems to be fuelled by the presumption that “it use plant and animal and wild stuff so druidism but druidism already do?” and the problem I have with that argument is that ‘nature’ as a concept isn’t something that shouldn’t be thought of as exclusive Druidism lore, especially given the examples of how it (as all lore in the LoTC should) has its own unique interactions with other ‘areas’ of lore to keep compatible with the wider canon. This is part of a broader issue of magic/ deity/ creature lore having little continuity due to various submissions centred around a theme without taking pre-accepted lore into account but that’s a whole other can of worms not worth discussing on this thread, that hopefully explains “why it’s relevant” when using necromancy/ lifeforce as examples of nature not being druidism-exclusive. 

 

You’re misunderstanding the points that people are raising.

 

The issue isn’t “we’re Druids, we don’t like other people touching nature” it’s “We’re Druids, this is virtually just Druidism in every way.”


Shillelagh is already done with Druidism, we use Blight Healing to restore life to wood and can then manipulate it with Communion and Control.

Floral Sway and Faunal Sway are literally the most common things you see a Druid do with Gifts.

Extirpation is just Blight Healing, even its aesthetic ‘cleansing chaotic fire’ is also possible in Druidism.

 

Just stop for a second and see how this submission isn’t just touching on nature, which no one worth their salt has a problem with, the problem is that it’s fundamentally a magic based around a ‘guardian of nature’ which is what a Druid is. This offers nothing new, except I presume it won’t function like the Druidic Order and be restricted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OhDeerLord! said:
6 hours ago, The King Of The Moon said:

a stark difference between ‘controlling’ and ‘influencing’ nature is sort of the point of the piece

Druidism in no way ‘controls’ nature though. While yes, the skill is called Communion and Control, what is actually happening is a conversation between a druid and the subject.

A request, if accepted, is carried out to the best of the subject’s ability/want of effort.

A request, if denied, is not.

 

I have yet to see a Druid RP nature politely refusing their ‘request’ but... if you say so.

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...