[✗] [Amendment] Evil Sprite Agenda

[Fleur___ 200]

Suggested changes to the "Promise of the Pixie" ability within the Sprite CA lore

 

Old Promise of the Pixie tenets

Spoiler

I. Promises must always benefit the sprite in some capacity, such as serving their fascination or pushing forward their personal goals.

II. Promises may never involve descendant currency, such as minas or other mina alternatives, as rewards.

III. Promises cannot be made to kill, maim, or otherwise severely harm individuals that pose no threat to the sprite.

New tenets

Spoiler

I. Promises must always benefit the sprite in some capacity, such as serving their fascination or pushing forward their personal goals.

II. Promises may never involve descendant currency, such as minas or other mina alternatives, as rewards.

III. Promises cannot be made to kill, maim, or otherwise severely harm individuals that pose no threat to the sprite. Promises to kill, maim, or otherwise severely harm individuals must be based on a perceived threat to the sprite.

 

 

 

 

 

Old Promise of the Pixie redlines

Spoiler

- Both the sprite and the promise-partner must OOCly consent to making a deal before a promise can be made.

- Punishments last [3 OOC Days] minimum before fading away on their own, although they may be kept for a longer duration, even indefinitely, at the discretion of the affected player.

- Punishments cannot cause physical harm, alter memories, induce positive emotions, nor dull senses like pain. One cannot exploit punishments for combat advantages by doing things such as ‘removing fear’ as a punishment. They ought to be whimsical, mildly inconveniencing, and RP-enhancing.

- The punishment does not need to be stated in roleplay, but it does need to be decided by the sprite at the time of creation. The punishment must be OOCly told to the promise-partner after the promise has been made. If no specific punishment is decided upon, then the punishment will default to the example table.

- The side-effects of punishments are never strong or distracting enough to interrupt casting focus.

- Promises cannot be made with conditions that bring harm or torment to other characters, such as having another person killed.
-The logic behind the terms of the deal are subjective to the sprite’s understanding of them when being applied to the promise.

- Sprites may not circumvent tenets by OOCly playing stupid to prevent themselves from realizing they've broken a tenet. Sprites can be foolish, but no sprite will ever be that ignorant about the tenets of promises.

 

New redlines

Spoiler

- Both the sprite and the promise-partner must OOCly consent to making a deal before a promise can be made.

- Punishments last [3 OOC Days] minimum before fading away on their own, although they may be kept for a longer duration, even indefinitely, at the discretion of the affected player.

- Punishments cannot cause physical harm, alter memories, induce positive emotions, nor dull senses like pain. One cannot exploit punishments for combat advantages by doing things such as ‘removing fear’ as a punishment. They ought to be whimsical, mildly inconveniencing, and RP-enhancing.

- The punishment does not need to be stated in roleplay, but it does need to be decided by the sprite at the time of creation. The punishment must be OOCly told to the promise-partner after the promise has been made. If no specific punishment is decided upon, then the punishment will default to the example table.

- The side-effects of punishments are never strong or distracting enough to interrupt casting focus.

- Promises cannot be made with conditions that bring harm or torment to other characters, such as having another person killed.

- Promises may include conditions that bring harm or torment, even death, to other characters as long as the sprite perceives the target as a threat.
-The logic behind the terms of the deal are subjective to the sprite’s understanding of them when being applied to the promise.

- Sprites may not circumvent tenets by OOCly playing stupid to prevent themselves from realizing they've broken a tenet. Sprites can be foolish, but no sprite will ever be that ignorant about the tenets of promises.

 

 

 

Purpose

I think not being able to make promises including violence or death is a silly restriction looking back on it. Considering how sprites often have very foreign concepts of morality, it doesn't really make sense for them to be a monolith against the concept of hurting people through their deal-making. It would be a valid rule for a more powerful ability with abusable benefits or significant consequences, but that is not the case here. Both parties have to agree to the promise OOCly and IRPly, with only a short-lived inconvenience as a punishment for not following through. The ability is barely more than a pinky promise.

A big part of this ability is playing around with how the sprite perceives the terms of the promise in fun and creative ways to perhaps confuse the other party (in roleplay) into triggering a punishment. There could be some good roleplay coming out of these types of extreme promises. As long as the sprite views the target of a violent or deadly promise as a threat, then they should be free to make said promise.

[Agy 756]

I think that is a nice balance all things considered! The requirement for the "target" to actually need to be a perceived threat to the Sprite does ensure that Sprites cannot be treated as basically... Mercenary/Hitmen contractors (as funny as it would be).

 

And IRPly speaking, it would be a perfectly reasonable method for a Sprite to defend its little, wittle self from any damnable bullies!

[Islamadon 9158]

This lore has been denied.

We brought this to a vote in amendment chat and the vote did not pass . . .