Jump to content

[Lore] Supplemental Naztherak and Inferis Amendment


dard
 Share

Recommended Posts

Now that I think about it, I do remember the self-immolation spell where an inferis can cover a portion or the entirety of themselves in malflame depending on how many emotes they channel. Furthermore, it was explained to me that the malflame from one inferis can burn another inferis, but they can’t burn themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dardonas said:

and it is nonheriditary for any children the cursed character may later sire.

I actually kind of liked the idea of it being hereditary.

 

That’s literally my only comment on this lore, since I don’t step far enough into the Naz community to have much say in it!

Edited by Gallic
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aethling said:

Swing and a miss. There are aspects of Dunstan and Zarsies’ submission I do and don’t like.

 

 

Would you like to share them with the rest of us?

 

1 hour ago, Aethling said:

Maybe you should have patched those things, then.

 

The two noteworthy issues you pointed out that were in the original magic or an LT verdict/amendment that I could have possibly “patched” are malflame and Zar’kiel having TAs.


Firstly, a core part of the magic that exists called malflame, which burns the soul when it comes in contact with flesh.  Zar’akal, which you took issue with being able to burn itself, has as one of its perks in the original Naztherak lore that they can burn their own flesh with malflame for maleus and have limitless supplies of rakir.  What is even more glaring is the fact that you clearly have not read the entirety of this amendment because if you did, you would have saw this caveat: 

 

As quirks, cantrips, or minor combative purposes, a Zar’akal, Zar’ei, or Zar’kiel may utilize minor amounts of malflame without burning themselves. 

  • An example of a minor cantrip would be a Zar’akal belching malflame in a small harmless wisp.  

  • A minor combative purpose would be an inferis can breathing malflame in certain breath attacks without igniting their skull in agonizing fire.

Huh, guess I did patch that.

 

On the second issue you had, and as I commented above in regards to, there is a lore amendment to prevent people from being enslaved to teach people against their will as well as prevent a Zar’kiel’s master from essentially having 3 more teaching slots.  I shouldn’t have to explain that people being forced to teach students they may not want to teach is a bad idea, and I also shouldn’t have to explain that there was a reason why teaching slots were reduced from 5 to 3 per TA.  It doesn’t requiring fixing, that is the fix — it’s already been done.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ThatGuy_777 said:

Quoted directly from the Naztherak Lore. What’s more, after searching through that, each amendment, and even the OG Inferi jazz, I found no reference of “Inferi are burned by Malflame,” let alone their own Malflame. Heck, Dunstan’s rewrite directly references the ability to self-immolate for Zekul. One can only guestimate that it's strictly the explosive properties of the Malice blowing up the minion, because...what does being born out of a tub of Malflame got to do with surviving explosions. Still susceptible to bleeding out, dehydration, starvation, disease, falling, getting the ol’ stabby stabby, etc. Don’t have to use magic all the time.

 

it isn’t written that they’re immune either, afaik, so somebody has to make the decision. a resistance would both make sense and wouldn’t result in inferi being able to wholly coat themselves in the stuff and just run at people so i personally like the sound of that.

 

7 minutes ago, PosidonX7 said:

Now that I think about it, I do remember the self-immolation spell where an inferis can cover a portion or entirety of themselves in malflame depending on how many emotes they channel. Furthermore, it was explained to me that the malflame from one inferis can burn another inferis, but they can’t burn themselves.

 

yes

 

 

Self-immolation, as the name suggests, involves coating the caster in malflame.

 

The size descriptor, rather than affecting how big the flames are, affects how much of the body is coated. The area coated is decided by the Naztherak, though cannot be moved after the spell is casted without re-casting the spell.

 

A Naztherak can use this spell to coat their casting hand in their chosen flame to little ill effect, though the rest of their body is ignited as normal.

It is, of course, not a particularly good idea to completely and utterly engulf yourself in flame, though those who have suffered persistent agony are often prone to poor judgement.

 

Finally, one can only self-immolate a part of their body with bare flesh, and not anything covered by clothing or armour. This does not stop the malflame from spreading underneath such clothing, however, after ignition.

 

sadly doesn’t go over inferi

 

 

also everybody explains everything differently so unless it’s in the lore i really don’t trust that

Edited by _Hexe_
Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ThatGuy_777 said:

I found no reference of “Inferi are burned by Malflame,”

 

Except for the fact that the primary way to subjugate an Inferis exists by using a spell called shackles which utilize burning chains of malflame?

 

 Instead, Malflame directly attacks the soul; it ignites the portion of the soul blueprint where upon it struck the victim, and then inflicts agonizing pain that wracks the body at that point and ebbs at the flesh leaving it blackened, sickly and burning with the Flame’s afterglow. 

 

Under normal circumstances, the Malflame would also burn and rot the hand used to draw it from the page’s notation but Princes are able to etch a sigil into the back of their casting-hand using the Rakir that provides protection from its destructive effects on the body.”

 

31 minutes ago, PosidonX7 said:

Now that I think about it, I do remember the self-immolation spell where an inferis can cover a portion or the entirety of themselves in malflame depending on how many emotes they channel. Furthermore, it was explained to me that the malflame from one inferis can burn another inferis, but they can’t burn themselves.

 

Malflame is stated to burn the soul.  Just like it doesn’t say directly for inferis, it also doesn’t specifically state it burns Santa Claus’s soul either so I guess Naztherak are weakest during Christmas season.

 

This is why this amendment exists: this magic is a mess and need clarifications on how it interacts with its own creatures.  You aren’t immune to malflame just because you’re an inferis.   The way spells are within the lore and with how things have been roleplayed, the lore indirectly supports the notion that inferis can be burned by not only their own malflame as Naztherak can, and also that it in general burns inferic souls like it would any other soul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, _Hexe_ said:

zar’akal aren’t inferi

Zar’akal are inferi.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, _Hexe_ said:

sadly doesn’t go over inferi

 

 

also everybody explains everything differently so unless it’s in the lore i really don’t trust that

Perhaps because an inferis can not burn itself with it’s own malflame?

I don’t think I can trust your word on this, and I definitely don’t support this amendment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dunstan said:

Zar’akal are inferi.

 

the amount of times ive been told they’re half & halfs lol

hhhhhhhhh

Edited by _Hexe_
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PosidonX7 said:

Perhaps because an inferis can not burn itself with it’s own malflame?

I don’t think I can trust your word on this, and I definitely don’t support this amendment. 

 

I imagine you probably don’t when there is an entire section devoted to clarifying that inferis cannot be uwu demons that can run on all fours the at the speed of cheetahs.

 

It doesn’t matter whether or not you trust his word on it or not, the fact of the matter remains that because this very argument is being had there are clarifications to be had.  This is my interpretation of what should be done to be a healthy step forward for making Naztherak magic more concise, and there is absolutely no reason why inferis would not be effected by malflame.   Having Inferis immune to malflame just nullifies the complete entire reason as to why Malflame exists in this magic in the first place: to subdue demons.  Malflame is objectively a bad combat magic compared to something like Electric Evocation.  Its one purpose is to offer some offense and to help shackle demons, ergo, it has to effect demons, ergo, it burns them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dardonas said:

I imagine you probably don’t when there is an entire section devoted to clarifying that inferis cannot be uwu demons that can run on all fours the at the speed of cheetahs.

 

It doesn’t matter whether or not you trust his word on it or not, the fact of the matter remains that because this very argument is being had there are clarifications to be had.  This is my interpretation of what should be done to be a healthy step forward for making Naztherak magic more concise, and there is absolutely no reason why inferis would not be effected by malflame.   Having Inferis immune to malflame just nullifies the complete entire reason as to why Malflame exists in this magic in the first place: to subdue demons.  Malflame is objectively a bad combat magic compared to something like Electric Evocation.  Its one purpose is to offer some offense and to help shackle demons, ergo, it has to effect demons, ergo, it burns them.

It would seem that you are now attempting to jab at me about something that happened a half a year ago, I stay by my point in not trusting any of this and still dislike this amendment.
Also, let me remind you of something: 
 

2.  Measured criticism is welcome. Provocation, insults, and personal remarks are punishable.

  • Targeted, abusive behaviour is not tolerated.
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dardonas said:
14 minutes ago, PosidonX7 said:

Perhaps because an inferis can not burn itself with it’s own malflame?

I don’t think I can trust your word on this, and I definitely don’t support this amendment. 

 

I imagine you probably don’t when there is an entire section devoted to clarifying that inferis cannot be uwu demons that can run on all fours the at the speed of cheetahs.

  

It doesn’t matter whether or not you trust his word on it or not, the fact of the matter remains that because this very argument is being had there are clarifications to be had.  This is my interpretation of what should be done to be a healthy step forward for making Naztherak magic more concise, and there is absolutely no reason why inferis would not be effected by malflame.   Having Inferis immune to malflame just nullifies the complete entire reason as to why Malflame exists in this magic in the first place: to subdue demons.  Malflame is objectively a bad combat magic compared to something like Electric Evocation.  Its one purpose is to offer some offense and to help shackle demons, ergo, it has to effect demons, ergo, it burns them.

Hey bro your being a bit dense here.
You see, inferi are effected by malflame but inferi are not effected by there own malflame.
Bob the demon can hurt Frank the demon but Bob the demon can not hurt Bob the demon.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

imagine being the naz community in 2019

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dunstan said:

Hey bro your being a bit dense here.
You see, inferi are effected by malflame but inferi are not effected by there own malflame.
Bob the demon can hurt Frank the demon but Bob the demon can not hurt Bob the demon.
 

 

I don’t agree with that in terms of references in the lore or just as a straight balance issue. 

 

Bob the demon immolating himself with his own Bob-colored Malflame and going to do a linebacker charge into a crowd of poorly dressed druids sounds a bit busted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dardonas said:

Bob the demon immolating himself with his own Bob-colored Malflame and going to do a linebacker charge into a crowd of poorly dressed druids sounds a bit busted.

Unless Bob the demon tightly hugs one of the druids, it wont do anything. Malflame only burns someone as long as it has direct contact to them. As such, I wouldn’t advise running straight into a crowd. That’s a good way to get put down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dardonas said:

Bob the demon immolating himself with his own Bob-colored Malflame and going to do a linebacker charge into a crowd of poorly dressed druids sounds a bit busted.

That is very much a weaker attack than standing at range and burning a crowd of poorly dressed druids alive.
You see, theres this thing called risk factor. When you enter melee range you are subjected to the risk of getting stabbed. This is something that can not happen while standing ten meters away from behind a chest high wall, and contrary to popular belief. Some mages do have the brain wrinkles to use cover, and chest high walls do exist. Along with the ability to crouch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...