[✗] [Amendment] Harvesting

[Suzzie 866]

Spoiler

 

in all seriousness i do not think these changes are the answer to your specific problem nor are they really needed imo

[wytch 870]

29 minutes ago, Werew0lf said:

 

ye dont argue with me. ur wrong. okay?

you're right you're right, forgive me, werew0lf 🙏

[Random 1697]

14 hours ago, wytch said:

-Any blood obtained from someone under the age of 16 is not enough to sustain the corcitura, save for completely draining the victim and killing them.

Im sure this will make it much more enjoyable for children targeted by corcitura, because there is a lot of development to be gained from dying and losing your memories

[King_Kunuk 3025]

 

[lemonke 6014]

3 minutes ago, King_Kunuk said:

 

this is indeed funny. Made me chuckle

[wytch 870]

54 minutes ago, Dr Random K. said:

Im sure this will make it much more enjoyable for children targeted by corcitura, because there is a lot of development to be gained from dying and losing your memories

you're welcome to give constructive criticism rather than pointless comments. :) Provide alternative ideas! That's why edits are allowed

[Mescaffier 6197]

15 hours ago, _AzureLexi said:

 

Hunting children is just as IRPly optimal and logical as it is OOCly. After all, why wouldn't evildoers go after the most vulnerable targets? If toxic behavior is the IRPly most logical course of action, lore should be changed so it isn't.

Child soldier squads is IRPly just unnecessary cruelty, and is more transparently OOC bad faith, not just "doing what makes the most sense".

 

 

Spoiler

agreed tho, I just did a doubletake at that first sentence LOLL

 

 

 

[xo31 4013]

13 hours ago, lemonke said:

Damn, the Thorim Blackheart nerf just dropped 

[DizzyGrey 1229]

As someone who has absolutely taken the soul of a child character, confused why I could, this is a good amendment.

[MysticalWeasel 915]

-1,

It is my pride and joy whenever HAense bring a kid into battle to order my demons to target it first. This amendment seeks to give a certain barrier to players who play as children, instead of rely on rp elements such as ya know. Sticking inside safe guarded cities, not wandering off alone. You wish to remove punishment on a player's choice. They choose to play the child, they choose to linger into dangerous situations, they choose to be without proper protection. 

I am not a fan of letting someone being granted protection simply for poor choices and decisions. it does not help, I see these individuals WALK up to us repeatedly, and not act afraid at all. A child literally tried to fight a zekul I had summoned and was shocked I proceeded to maul them to death. Player chose to play something weak, should expect to have to RP with the mindset they are weak. 

I've read also the amendment is from a more rule stance, and even still. This will validate the belief that players can be given protection for a conscious choice to be a weak thing. As well stated by unwillingly, this would just make it so spooks will be encouraged to kill rather then simply take what is required and scar the child for life. MAYBE EVEN INSTILL COMMON SENSE AND FEAR INTO THEIR CHARACTER FOR FUTURE TIMES!

[Borin 7646]

3 hours ago, wytch said:

you're welcome to give constructive criticism rather than pointless comments. :) Provide alternative ideas! That's why edits are allowed

Werent a pointless comment, were a valid opinionated statement

[megavoltar 1634]

I liked Lojo's better....  can't blame me for thrashing those crayon eaters

[Qctho 301]

Perchance, folks IRP should be more careful with their children running around entire cities unwatched-?

[Xein000 264]

18 hours ago, King_Kunuk said:

Haven't read all, but this sounds very true.

[wytch 870]

This is a good opportunity to yet again state, with the edits I just made to the amendment, this absolutely does nothing to stop you from hurting and antagonizing random fantasy children you find in cities. You can still be evil bad guy doing evil bad guy stuff, just because you're losing a usable resource from doing so, does not mean the reason IRP of targetting the weak changes.

 

Unless, of course, you'd like to continue proving my point in the value of antagonizing children specifically is for the resources. Stop ignoring half of the amendment, and understand the point of it, rather than arguing the same point I've already clarified. And please, the memes are pointless, and not what this is meant for.

 

The IRP reason makes sense, as you CANNOT perform alchemy, magic, or anything feat related until your character is 16. This follows that same logic, as I have stated, to follow lore. If following lore isn't necessary this can be omitted completely and handwaved away to just prevent targetting kids for ST RESOURCES, NOT prevent the antagonizing and harming of them. But please, keep proving my point.

Edited February 22, 2025 by wytch
I even made the font bigger for you, so you can read.