NECROMANCY AMENDMENT / CLARIFICATIONS - THE HENS COME HOME TO ROOST.

[Samler 1047]

Gonna ride on classy's 'compable strength of a void mages, lists feature voidal mage can't due to weakness ' at least say slightly stronger or move down to leather/gambeson. :(

[Panashea 2644]

the premium roleplay experience is creating redlines to prevent dark CAs and magic users from romance and ERP!  Tbh i think its hilarious how every dark CA has needed this added into their lore - something that reflects more on the nature of how we spend our time on LOTC and our attitude toward romance on a kid's server than any actual lore submission. This is good, but romance rp should generally just be removed all together for everyone's safety/OOC experience.

[Damnit_Delmar 1064]

I stick by the fact that removing Tawkin compatibility is dumb

 

-1

[SlitheryC1 484]

+1
Friendships & the Bro Code over romance RP & hoes
Not sure why klones/tawkins is removed but im not necro-brained enough to understand

[Tabby64 1295]

44 minutes ago, Samler said:

Gonna ride on classy's 'compable strength of a void mages, lists feature voidal mage can't due to weakness ' at least say slightly stronger or move down to leather/gambeson. :(

Read the voidal connection lore "Mages who practice magic for one or more OOC months cannot wear full plate effectively, and at best are limited to half-plate or some light gambeson." Femurlord's lore says that after a certain tier they're limited to gambeson. There is no issue with the lore here. 

[wowj 2825]

7 minutes ago, Panashea said:

the premium roleplay experience is creating redlines to prevent dark CAs and magic users from romance and ERP!  Tbh i think its hilarious how every dark CA has needed this added into their lore - something that reflects more on the nature of how we spend our time on LOTC and our attitude toward romance on a kid's server than any actual lore submission. This is good, but romance rp should generally just be removed all together for everyone's safety/OOC experience.

[_Leyd 686]

Can I still ftb with my flesh golem??? 

[Bonito 2264]

the weekly alchemy reapplications for appearance should be scrapped imo. give necros a reason to use their draught of incite, which achieves the same effect. theres also no simple way to check if someone has actually been reapplying tawkin mutations properly and they are very easy to cheese, which would lead back to the problem of loopholing mechanics.

 

good stuff otherwise

 

to the people freaking over the romance, you can always just make a different character and do romance rp there if its so essential to your lotc experience. people pooping their pants over this should look within and reflect!!

[TreeSmoothie 4898]

+1 I've been scarred by seeing lovey-dovey SOL rp on necros, I want my therapy paid for by Evil Inc.

 

Only thing I'd slightly nitpick is a total disregard of familial relationships, but that depends on if they just completely forget abt their family/past or if they just learn to hate them over being mortal 

 

Still based ammendment 

[femurlord 2365]

17 minutes ago, TheNecroCapitalist said:

I stick by the fact that removing Tawkin compatibility is dumb

 

-1

 

8 minutes ago, Bonito said:

the weekly alchemy reapplications for appearance should be scrapped imo. give necros a reason to use their draught of incite, which achieves the same effect. theres also no simple way to check if someone has actually been reapplying tawkin mutations properly and they are very easy to cheese, which would lead back to the problem of loopholing mechanics.

 

good stuff otherwise

 

to the people freaking over the romance, you can always just make a different character and do romance rp there if its so essential to your lotc experience. people pooping their pants over this should look within and reflect!!

 

My reasoning had been Tawkin applications require Lifeforce in-order to fuel them in their lorepage, which Necromancers constantly lose due to the wound inflicted on their soul, I wanted to give more credence to relying on Necromantic solutions like the Draught of Incite which isn't lore conflicting

[Bonito 2264]

3 minutes ago, femurlord said:

My reasoning had been Tawkin applications require Lifeforce in-order to fuel them in their lorepage, which Necromancers constantly lose due to the wound inflicted on their soul, I wanted to give more credence to relying on Necromantic solutions like the Draught of Incite which isn't lore conflicting

 

i didnt realize there was a lore reasoning behind the choice, thats cool. maybe upping the longevity of the incite draught? a week vs a day (and the easier recipe) leaves tawkin mutations as the way more convenient choice

[NotEvilAtAll 9944]

17 hours ago, femurlord said:

Spoiler

Necromancers cannot sexually FTB under any circumstance.

 

Reasoning:

 

  Hide contents

Necromancy itself is a deplorable practice that breaches morals across many fronts, spending my time as one over the span of a year + I’ve watched many ways to subvert Lore which defeats the spirit of it. I wish to further cement Necromancy as a dark magic rather than a special flavor for an OC to allow proper antagonist narratives to be developed and their archetype upheld instead of spun by unspecified areas. This facet is better suited as the forfeit of their soul to achieve abhorrent, dastardly things and should be upheld to this standard.

 

My reasoning to remove Romance is thus:

 

Roleplaying as a necromancer and then venturing into romantic roleplay is downright absurd and jarring. Let's face it, necromancy is all about toying with death and raising the dead – a practice that's steeped in darkness and often carries sinister connotations. On the other hand, romance is a realm of love and emotional connection, about as far from necromancy as you can get.

 

The emotional clash between these two themes is nothing short of bizarre. Necromancy revolves around exploring dark, twisted emotions and power dynamics, which is light years away from the warm, affectionate emotions found in romantic storytelling. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Necromancer characters are often depicted as mysterious, aloof, or malevolent, which doesn't exactly set the stage for the tender, open-hearted, and loving dynamics typical of romantic narratives. The sheer incongruity of these character traits makes it seem like a bad joke.

 

While roleplaying allows for creative freedom, it's no wonder that pairing necromancy and romance can leave others scratching their heads in disbelief. The weirdness of this combination is a glaring reflection of the stark contrast between these two opposing themes, and it's hard to fathom why anyone would want to venture into such a peculiar and disjointed roleplay scenario.

Small problem: This proposed redline specifically bans Sexual FTBing for necros despite the reasoning behind it mentioning a total ban on Romance RP for necros. These are distinct things and it's entirely possible to do romance RP without sexual FTB (just do stork lore/retcon in children if you want to start a family lol). As such, there is a disconnect between the proposed redlines change and the rationale behind it.

 

EDIt: since this reply was made the redlines change was altered to add in a ban on romance instead of just the no FTB rule, thus fixing the disconnect between proposed change and reasonings for it.

[femurlord 2365]

12 minutes ago, Bonito said:

 

i didnt realize there was a lore reasoning behind the choice, thats cool. maybe upping the longevity of the incite draught? a week vs a day (and the easier recipe) leaves tawkin mutations as the way more convenient choice

This is acceptable, I'd have to think-tank the limitation, because they also affect undead.

 

9 minutes ago, NotEvilAtAll said:

Small problem: This proposed redline specifically bans Sexual FTBing for necros despite the reasoning behind it mentioning a total ban on Romance RP for necros. These are distinct things and it's entirely possible to do romance RP without sexual FTB (just do stork lore/retcon in children if you want to start a family lol). As such, there is a disconnect between the proposed redlines change and the rationale behind it.

Necromancers are infertile, incapable of having children as they rot in their own skin, so no minecraft sex on this children's server, sorry.

[NotEvilAtAll 9944]

14 hours ago, femurlord said:

Necromancers are infertile, incapable of having children as they rot in their own skin, so no minecraft sex on this children's server, sorry.

You completely missed my point. Take for example a roleplay wedding. That is an event based on romance that is not sexual FTB. Your reasoning for the redlines change mention that you're taking romance away from the necros despite the redlines change not actually doing that.

 

Edit: the proposed redlines change was altered to fix this, see above.

[Morigung-oog 2352]

… The sheer number of ftb and romance related comments says a lot about our community.