[✗] [Lore Amendment] - The Alchemic Fault

[King_Kunuk 888]

I find this lore... intresting, though a tad bit confusion?

One of the alchemy regeants is actually liquid 'mana', and one of the most common ways to extract it is when a void mage produces it/from a void tear. Would such an alchemical reagent no longer be viable then if so due to the anti-material existence of that is the void?

Another thing I would think is important, though more so a personal flavor of mine: while alchemy is the pure material and the void being pure immaterial (which them not mixing well makes sense and I can agree with the lore), my 'dislike' comes from how it can counter that 'wizard' feel alchemy can bring to void magic rp

Some people rp void magic as more of a general wizard magic, not delving deep into the deep lore about how vile and evil the void really is, and I think that kind of rp is perfectly fine. Some of those people could though have alchemy, and this lore does not melt well entirely with that 'master wizard' vibe alchemy can bring to it.

Still, I personally love the additon of this lore despite my own disliking of how it can impact rp flavour at times. +1 for it.

[Ryloth 4312]

i have a love/hate relationship with this

it'll stop people from throwing potions willy-nilly but it also makes alchemy really almost useless in environmental areas. there's a bunch of ways you could toy with a voidal item to make yourself immune to all alchemy items used against you, and in reverse it'd be so easy to just pocket sand earth evo someone and wreck all of their potions

ando alur would literally become a wasteland for potion users. walk thru the portal? ur shits all destroyed

tbh tho i have never really seen ppl minmax using voidal magics + potions. if the problem is that alchemy is too op (it is 100% way too powerful in many respects) then nerf the potions and dont do this

if the problem is that apparently voidal mages are stacking potions, i guess do this. the choice between voidal items and potions is super easy tho -- potions take so few emotes to use whereas voidal items take a collection of emotes plus you cant be in melee, plus you cant be stunned or blinded by smokes etc etc to use them; the natural decision is potion stacking over voidal stacking and just maintaining distance.

then again i dont touch void magic MAs so idk **** about it.

edit: also i think that if this is passed, it should be limited so that spell tiers 1-3 and voidal mages tier 1-3 can use potions until they begin undertaking a greater connection. like ... me connecting to the void won't make my jar of maple syrup inert next to me. why potions? i can therefore understand a large connection could do this, perhaps? no reason why a t1 pocket sand spell could make my blasting potion explode on my belt tho

edit edit: also what if i cast a spell inside a potion store. do it go boom? you could easily pile potions up and just blow up a building 

[DISCOLIQUID 1956]

A voidally connected mage would influence a bottle within their meter range; if I come into that range while a mage casts, me wielding a Frost Oil sword, is the Frost Oil disabled? Even if it's already applied?

 

If so, does this mean that Voidal Feats, the trio like artificery, could use their innate obelisk abilities to disable nearby potions?

 

If this really is going to become the new lore status quo, what's the explanation for why liquid mana still works for potion bases? 

 

Maybe we could just limit people to carrying 3 alchemical potions at a time on themselves?

 

 

 

[PrinceJose270 678]

3 hours ago, UnBaed said:

 

 

but having every potion be affected by someone connecting to the void is just pointlessly weakening alchemy further and will only cause more headaches in conflict RP when potions are used against void mages 

I can already imagine someone beaming an alchemist fire at a connected mage so it's "unstable" so it can turn into a granade.

Quoting from the 50/50 chance of fizzling out or boom.

[AmericanSimp 510]

I like +1, I feel like if this is accepted it will start to create more of both an economical divide and bolster different styles of RP. When every mage has alchemy, there isn't a reason for them to seek an alchemist or buy their product because they can do it themselves. With this we will see Alchemy become more than just a feat, but a "magic" that requires a sort of commitment that will likely bring rise to larger alchemy based groups

[Delmodan 851]

4 hours ago, Sorcerio said:

 

 

I'm totally down to amend this, though the main idea is really just to prevent mages from going in guns-blazing with both their magic and like an entire arsenal of like 10+ potions. Not to mention, alchemy as it stands has little consequence at all for basically magic-tier versatility, which makes it even more viable for magic stacking. Besides, regular alchemists are relatively unaffected by this, and mages can still use alchemy, just not in tandem with their spellcasting. 

No offense dear, but all magic/creature communities do this. Not just voidal. It's a rather rampant problem where this lore seems to only put a bandaid on one instead of tackling the main wound. 

 

If you want to hit all lore wise, it's not exactly a stretch to say other others can cause effects when cast near a potion. Anything fire for one could unstable a potion. Or a divinity power being too intense where it causes a reaction.

 

But while this does make lore sense, it seems rather specific targeting. 

[ShameJax 1391]

I have no idea how you've changed alchemy and magic in like the last 5 years, so won't comment on how this works out lore wise. But this seems like way too big of a thing for what should be a small problem.

 

If players are learning magic and minmaxing for the sake of combat, they're going to find a way to do it whether you do this or not. I mean a telekinetic mage can still throw alchemist's fire with their mind if they use a stick under this amendment.

 

And I want to add that you need to keep in mind that a lot of what people do on this server is inspired from fantasy material. It is a very common trope for the wizard/witch person to be an alchemist, or generally ONLY for magic users to be able to be alchemists in media. Honestly this just seems like it would disappoint people.

[gameingg 603]

This is the dumbest **** I have ever seen, as if voidal mages need to be nerfed MORE

[ronin_champloo 5951]

oh yeah baby wooo

 

 

[Mavromino 513]

9 hours ago, Sorcerio said:

• Damage caused to the wielder of the potion can be anywhere from benign zaps of static energy to fatal explosions of whatever element the potion is made of. This cannot be weaponized by magi as the explosion occurs almost instantaneously following connection.
•  

Big man you should probably define what potions cause what effects. Other then that I can't wait to disable an alchemist's entire arsenal by having three voidal mages surround me at all times who just connect to the void whenever someone throws a potion at me. Also does this means I can just throw fireball rings at alchemists and detonate all their potions at once?

Edited July 16, 2021 by Mavromino

[Gustando 1453]

[The King Of The Moon 5116]

12 hours ago, ScreamingDingo said:

tbf this does actually make sense in the 'lore-verse' with whats been established with the material alphabet.
 

The idea of the immaterial (the void) being stable and allowed near things that are innately made of the purest form of the material plane is something that can be confusing sometimes and what this amendment does is something that does make sense.

 

Speaking from the perspective of having written the Material Alphabet singlehandedly, and the current Alchemy lore with additional input and support from others, I personally feel this is an unnecessary change that causes far more problems than it solves. At the extreme opposites of the scale alchemy and void magic should be incompatible, yes, which is why I wrote such for Afflicted. For the core potions though it's just drastic overkill and a misinterpretation of larger scale clashes in lore being applied to the surface level. 

I wrestled with this exact concept when I was writing the current Alchemy, on the back of the concepts set out with the Material Alphabet, and decided against it in the first place for two main reasons.

Firstly, I came to the conclusion that not only would the lore argument that 'alchemy and the void cancel eachother out completely' be a pretty big stretch due to both the five or more years of precedent set with old alchemy, but it would also invalidate the existence of one of the five elements of alchemy - Aether - which represents mana and most if not all things 'magical' in existence. The existence of which, established in some older lore by Phil, being a direct consequence of the void's corruption on the material plane. 

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, I realised that in doing so I would have been actively weaponising my own OOC distaste for the RP of most void mages and their attitudes to alchemy, as well as my own IC-based beliefs about who 'should' and 'shouldn't' use alchemy, to invalidate the RP of others. Something I think - subconsciously, I hope - this amendment will also bring bring about.

Yes, the esoteric high-brow minority of alchemists might vocally want this change, and to some extent so do I. I understand it's difficult to grapple with seeing the lore you care about most on the server - and oftentimes, lore you yourself wrote - be misused, or poorly represented by a community of 'quirky' anime elves that brag about walking on the surface of the void whenever they're not ERPing, I really do. Though we ultimately need to take into account that that is the vocal minority on the other side of the spectrum, and what this amendment strives for will hurt a far larger portion of the community in a very misguided way.

I believe the real solution to the 'lore' arguments for the material and immaterial clashes brought about by void magic and alchemy should be building on what we already have at the extremeties of each area of lore.

For instance, when Hexe and I rewrote Affliction, I came to the conclusion that as beings who inherently understand the world through the laws of equivalent exchange and the material alphabet, afflicted individuals should in turn be unable to comprehend the void, if not actively discomforted by it and the material alphabet's antithesis - moonspeak. I also came to conclude that Red Oil, as the fuel for Smoggers and a manifestation of the material's raw energy potential, should in turn be subject to volatility in the presence of voidal connections. Therefore, I personally would love to see amendments made on the other end of the spectrum with voidal extremes. Some offhanded suggestions might be Atronachs being incapable of learning alchemy, or practitioners of certain voidal feats being incapable of learning further alchemy. You get the idea.

In light of the aforementioned, I wholeheartedly feel this sort of blanket destruction of alchemic creations that is being added in this amendment is not only grossly inconsistent with the years of RP precedent, but it is also - in my opinion, and I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings here - a perversion of my own lore in stretching one concept to bring a mostly IC ideological divide into the OOC realm of lore factionalism and group gatekeeping.

This is all without going into the semantics this lore suggests about CRP, wherein there's no real reason mages won't be given immunity to alchemy, and realistically no logical way in which you could balance this to just be the intended 'no mages carrying potions for combat' without them also being fully protected against potions in combat. You simply could not explain away such niche caveats with lore and this would ultimately serve better as an OOC rule than a piece of LoTC canon. Again, this is all without taking into account the existence of Aether as a concept in alchemy, as well as potions intentionally designed to work in a certain way with magic such as Auric Oil or, as a historic example, Ruibrium. 

I'm also somewhat disturbed about the anti-minmaxing argument. Whilst I know for a fact there are plenty of min-maxy mages I'd prefer stayed away from Alchemy, the problem of potions being used to minmax CRP extends far beyond voidal RP. In fact, I'd argue the amount of problem players when it comes to alchemy are underrepresented amongst the voidal playerbase. Void Mages are really the tip of the iceberg and this amendment does nothing to address the main problem that's arisen from 'technicalities' in magic slots and CA loopholes.

We all know, to the extent I don't have to name names, the real minmaxers are Chi, Kani or Necromancy wielding Heralds of Azdromoth with Affliction or other mutations, carrying around a stockade of blood magic items, armour made from bullshit supermetal #23 atop being alchemists desperately trying to get their hands on Tawkin, Golemancy, Animii Crafting and other slotless intricacies, who carry around every combat potion and every event item they can get their hands on at all times. I am speaking from experience as I've fallen into one or more of these categories before.

These are the true manifestations of minmaxing, that avoid void magic like the plague because they want to do their big muscles RP, and this amendment will do nothing but empower them more when contrasted with the magic playerbase. 

[Farryn 812]

I'm back so how about this

 

Hard cap the number of potions to three to four and they must be ST-Approved and in the users inventory.

 

No lore targetting/limiting a group, no lore stating a group will face backlash, just a hard bloody cap. Not everything and its mother needs a lore amendant to say who can do what and not, just state oocly there's a hard cap on how many potions you can carry because people are carrying inventories full of potionsd leave it at that. That way, it ensures everyone is limited to having specific potions, having to think what potions they're carrying on them, and affectes EVERYONE.

 

[Edit] Here's another idea - Allow Alchemists a chance to stablize their potions! If their potion starts acting up while in the presence of a connected voidal mage - let the alchemist have a chance in making sure that vial doesn't explode on them and a chance to still use it. Make it a roll requirement of above a 10 or 15 depending on if its a beginner potion or a master potion. Just give the Alchemists a chance to be able to prevent a disaster, as they should have the skill to prevent it!

 

This lore is targetting one group - not everyone, not addressing or fixing the issue, it is targetting one group. It's like slapping a bandaid on a life-threatening wound - it looks like it's helping, but it isn't. Can we just please stop with lore that outright restricts a group for a problem that is happening with every single bloody group!

 

7 hours ago, Delmodan said:

No offense dear, but all magic/creature communities do this. Not just voidal. It's a rather rampant problem where this lore seems to only put a bandaid on one instead of tackling the main wound. 

 

If you want to hit all lore wise, it's not exactly a stretch to say other others can cause effects when cast near a potion. Anything fire for one could unstable a potion. Or a divinity power being too intense where it causes a reaction.

 

But while this does make lore sense, it seems rather specific targeting. 

 

This is why I love you, Delmo. THIS ^

 

If this lore amendant doesn't look like specific targetting, I'm not sure what will. Holy magic and dark magic should also affect a potion, if we're going down this route. Deity magic isn't natural and is bound to conflict with the potions the same way Voidal conflicts, as with some dark magics.

 

So, for the love of this old alchemist player who would rather see Alchemy made avaliable for everyone to enjoy - as I am sure Jistuma himself would too - don't put this bloody restriction on voidal mages.

[IsaaKc 1225]

1 hour ago, The King Of The Moon said:

Speaking from the perspective of having written the Material Alphabet singlehandedly, and the current Alchemy lore with additional input and support from others, I personally feel this is an unnecessary change that causes far more problems than it solves. At the extreme opposites of the scale alchemy and void magic should be incompatible, yes, which is why I wrote such for Afflicted. For the core potions though it's just drastic overkill and a misinterpretation of larger scale clashes in lore being applied to the surface level. 

I wrestled with this exact concept when I was writing the current Alchemy, on the back of the concepts set out with the Material Alphabet, and decided against it in the first place for two main reasons.

Firstly, I came to the conclusion that not only would the lore argument that 'alchemy and the void cancel eachother out completely' be a pretty big stretch due to both the five or more years of precedent set with old alchemy, but it would also invalidate the existence of one of the five elements of alchemy - Aether - which represents mana and most if not all things 'magical' in existence. The existence of which, established in some older lore by Phil, being a direct consequence of the void's corruption on the material plane. 

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, I realised that in doing so I would have been actively weaponising my own OOC distaste for the RP of most void mages and their attitudes to alchemy, as well as my own IC-based beliefs about who 'should' and 'shouldn't' use alchemy, to invalidate the RP of others. Something I think - subconsciously, I hope - this amendment will also bring bring about.

Yes, the esoteric high-brow minority of alchemists might vocally want this change, and to some extent so do I. I understand it's difficult to grapple with seeing the lore you care about most on the server - and oftentimes, lore you yourself wrote - be misused, or poorly represented by a community of 'quirky' anime elves that brag about walking on the surface of the void whenever they're not ERPing, I really do. Though we ultimately need to take into account that that is the vocal minority on the other side of the spectrum, and what this amendment strives for will hurt a far larger portion of the community in a very misguided way.

I believe the real solution to the 'lore' arguments for the material and immaterial clashes brought about by void magic and alchemy should be building on what we already have at the extremeties of each area of lore.

For instance, when Hexe and I rewrote Affliction, I came to the conclusion that as beings who inherently understand the world through the laws of equivalent exchange and the material alphabet, afflicted individuals should in turn be unable to comprehend the void, if not actively discomforted by it and the material alphabet's antithesis - moonspeak. I also came to conclude that Red Oil, as the fuel for Smoggers and a manifestation of the material's raw energy potential, should in turn be subject to volatility in the presence of voidal connections. Therefore, I personally would love to see amendments made on the other end of the spectrum with voidal extremes. Some offhanded suggestions might be Atronachs being incapable of learning alchemy, or practitioners of certain voidal feats being incapable of learning further alchemy. You get the idea.

In light of the aforementioned, I wholeheartedly feel this sort of blanket destruction of alchemic creations that is being added in this amendment is not only grossly inconsistent with the years of RP precedent, but it is also - in my opinion, and I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings here - a perversion of my own lore in stretching one concept to bring a mostly IC ideological divide into the OOC realm of lore factionalism and group gatekeeping.

This is all without going into the semantics this lore suggests about CRP, wherein there's no real reason mages won't be given immunity to alchemy, and realistically no logical way in which you could balance this to just be the intended 'no mages carrying potions for combat' without them also being fully protected against potions in combat. You simply could not explain away such niche caveats with lore and this would ultimately serve better as an OOC rule than a piece of LoTC canon. Again, this is all without taking into account the existence of Aether as a concept in alchemy, as well as potions intentionally designed to work in a certain way with magic such as Auric Oil or, as a historic example, Ruibrium. 

I'm also somewhat disturbed about the anti-minmaxing argument. Whilst I know for a fact there are plenty of min-maxy mages I'd prefer stayed away from Alchemy, the problem of potions being used to minmax CRP extends far beyond voidal RP. In fact, I'd argue the amount of problem players when it comes to alchemy are underrepresented amongst the voidal playerbase. Void Mages are really the tip of the iceberg and this amendment does nothing to address the main problem that's arisen from 'technicalities' in magic slots and CA loopholes.

We all know, to the extent I don't have to name names, the real minmaxers are Chi, Kani or Necromancy wielding Heralds of Azdromoth with Affliction or other mutations, carrying around a stockade of blood magic items, armour made from bullshit supermetal #23 atop being alchemists desperately trying to get their hands on Tawkin, Golemancy, Animii Crafting and other slotless intricacies, who carry around every combat potion and every event item they can get their hands on at all times. I am speaking from experience as I've fallen into one or more of these categories before.

These are the true manifestations of minmaxing, that avoid void magic like the plague because they want to do their big muscles RP, and this amendment will do nothing but empower them more when contrasted with the magic playerbase. 

ug mordu comment ug must upvote ug ug

[Sorcerio 4594]

After some consideration and thought on community feedback, I have decided to self-deny this piece as it does not serve the best interest of the players nor the lore. Though I believe the concept to be viable, the intricacies need to be ironed out and, should I even persist with such a project, totally revamped and resubmitted. That said, the formulation of certain responses certainly left much to be desired in terms of feedback and were rather disheartening if anything. Though I appreciate your fervor for your playerbase, I think there are more respectful means in which your thoughts could be relayed. To those of you who did provide valid and respectful feedback that lead me to this decision, thank you.