[Amendment] no more unwilling enchantments

[xo31 3979]

Add to TRANSFIGURATION - ENCHANTMENTS. (bold and underlined)

 

Enchanting Red-lines:

- Enchanting cannot be performed in combat (the non-combative labels on the spells are not to be confused with the enchantments themselves. Enchantments can be combative, they just may not be created IN combat.)

- Enchantments are very susceptible to warding. If it were to come in contact with a ward, regardless of whether or not the enchanted object is active, it will stop as if it was blocked by a barrier, though it does not do any damage to the ward itself unless the enchantment is active. 

- Enchantments are very susceptible to abjuration. If the Enchantment were to be struck with an abjuration, its magical properties will be rapidly stripped away, rendering it permanently useless.

- You may only enchant with magics that you know at the given moment or through the use of Entrap Spell or Co-Enchanting. You cannot enchant with a magic that you have dropped.

- Only one enchantment may be applied to an object. Anything more will require the submission of a MArt.

- You may not enchant living matter. It must be performed on dead matter or non-organic material.

- Cannot enchant non-voidal magics.

- Enchantments will have their charge interrupted and any further casting disabled should the user dodge, parry, melee, or otherwise participate in melee combat. Dodging at range is unaffected by this.

- You may move up to 3 (Three) blocks maximum while activating, charging, and casting an enchantment.

- Enchantments may not be used to lower the amount count of spells. The trigger acts as the connection emote, followed by the charge, then the final cast emote.

- An Enchantment’s artificial mana pool cannot be used to fuel a mage’s mana pool.

- You are not immune to your own enchantments.

- Enchantments represented by mechanical MC items require a description of what it does, the emotes to activate it, and a Story Team signature.

-Constructs who do not bear a soul are unable to utilize Voidal Enchantments, as such are recharged by drawing from one's own soul. Examples include Animii, Homunculi, Golems, Anthroparions, etc. 

- Enchantments must be activated willingly. One cannot be forced or tricked into using the trigger of an enchantment, and it must be done intentionally and knowingly, or else the enchantment will not activate.

 

 

you'd think that this sort of thing would be a given......

[BonesOfTheEarth 2252]

Feels like a non-issue to me, as enchantments require an action to utilize. Someone else saying the trigger word etc doesn't force me to take my action. If I simply do something else with my action, then boom the enchantment isnt working because Im not actively manipulating it.

 

I'm very curious about what situation you were in to bring this up? Spill the tea, sis. Name drop. Who did what and why did they think it was a good idea? I'm nosey

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

11 minutes ago, BonesOfTheEarth said:

Feels like a non-issue to me, as enchantments require an action to utilize. Someone else saying the trigger word etc doesn't force me to take my action. If I simply do something else with my action, then boom the enchantment isnt working because Im not actively manipulating it.

 

I'm very curious about what situation you were in to bring this up? Spill the tea, sis. Name drop. Who did what and why did they think it was a good idea? I'm nosey

People were producing enchants that would both spark a trap and inflict voidal weakness on the person who triggered the trap which is NOT why enchanters sickness was added during almaris -> aevos 

[BonesOfTheEarth 2252]

1 minute ago, PrimnyaQuorum said:

People were producing enchants that would both spark a trap and inflict voidal weakness on the person who triggered the trap which is NOT why enchanters sickness was added during almaris -> aevos 

bad faith from whoever was creating that enchantment and should result in the blacklist of the appropriate MA's

1. If the person holding them did not spend their own action(of which nobody can dictate for them. Doing someone's action for them, is textbook powergaming definition), then the enchantment simply wont activate.
2. Secondly, enchanters sickness applies to the person who activated the enchantment. If you activated it why would someone else take the sickness?

None of this 'someone abused lore so lets change the lore' BS. The appropriate channel is to punish the offenders. Name drop them. Do it.

[_Leyd 1010]

34 minutes ago, BonesOfTheEarth said:

If the person holding them did not spend their own action(of which nobody can dictate for them. Doing someone's action for them, is textbook powergaming definition), then the enchantment simply wont activate.

i think thats the point. It's not redlined out, and u cant tell these guys 'common sense or ur powergaming' because no one wants to argue semantics 

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

47 minutes ago, BonesOfTheEarth said:

bad faith from whoever was creating that enchantment and should result in the blacklist of the appropriate MA's

1. If the person holding them did not spend their own action(of which nobody can dictate for them. Doing someone's action for them, is textbook powergaming definition), then the enchantment simply wont activate.
2. Secondly, enchanters sickness applies to the person who activated the enchantment. If you activated it why would someone else take the sickness?

None of this 'someone abused lore so lets change the lore' BS. The appropriate channel is to punish the offenders. Name drop them. Do it.

the issue is none of this. the issue lies in that
A trap enchantment that the trapped individual sets off and thus inherits the enchanter's sickness is not how enchantments function. Enchantments require knowledge and intent to use and cannot be accidently set off.

 

@AstrophysicalYOU signed some of these 🫵

[Ardory 2978]

9 minutes ago, PrimnyaQuorum said:

the issue is none of this. the issue lies in that
A trap enchantment that the trapped individual sets off and thus inherits the enchanter's sickness is not how enchantments function. Enchantments require knowledge and intent to use and cannot be accidently set off.

 

@AstrophysicalYOU signed some of these 🫵

[Animael 1500]

Made that enchantment. Put it on the floor irp. They stepped on it after it was emoted being put down on the floor. It's like willingly stepping on a beartrap.

They even pm'd saying, yeah didn't think it would do anything so the char just stepped on it. Willingly. Idk what you want from me. But I'll start using beartraps instead if it makes you feel better.

This wasn't bad faith. This is just trying to do something other than mindless sword swinging rp, and being creative. I didn't force them to step on the trap and even said oocly they can re-emote not stepping on it in the first place. They said, I'll give you an ultimatum and you can take it back or I'll play my Wight in an OP way that bends the lore because it is so poorly written, then they simply emoted it not affecting them anyway. Now two of that persons chars are targeting mine to death, along with their families, separately in addition to this amendment. 

[BonesOfTheEarth 2252]

Ahem. So after more research and consideration, my thoughts for this are:

 

@xo31@_Leyd The amendment itself does not hurt anything and should pass. A player has abused the lore in bad faith, and as such that should be taken into consideration for the future. While I personally think making the amendment is a non-issue, that does not mean that making it will hurt anything and its benefit does exist, albeit minor.

 

Continuing and branching off from that, the root point of what I was getting at is my distaste for this weird culture of how people approach bad-faith interactions on the server. People look for sweeping changes to try and stop things in the future, and that's alright. But nearly nothing is done about actions that have already occurred. In this instance, a player actively engaged in magic-lore with bad faith intentions, seeking loopholes and rule-lawyering Transfiguration poorly into a trap that already broke basic roleplay principles(Powergaming, forcing an action on a player). While I don't mind seeing an amendment like this passing, it is commonly known that this player actively engages in similar situations often. If this gets patched, this player will actively seek a new way to similarly bend what is possible. And we will continue making amendment, after amendment, after amendment, and letting them get away with it scott free each time.

 

I think that's horse-shit and the player should receive an infraction each time. And players should, hand in hand with an amendment like this, drop a dm towards an ST-Manager. A simple message like "Hello, I would like to report potential lore abuse." Worst case scenario, nothing is lost. Best case scenario, the offender receives punishment. But people don't. And then they make these posts and those players get to continue searching for new ways to break things.

 

Otherwise, +1 to the amendment. I was moreso taking the opportunity this amendment presents to put forward the above argument, as I've unfortunately witnessed magics and CA's be denied outright due to so many patch-fixes without punishing the people causing those patches to need to exist, and seeing it in live action here leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[KeiaTypeBeat 3277]

2 hours ago, BonesOfTheEarth said:

Name drop them. Do it.

Lol you're such a pot stirrer 

 

ST, please accept this amendment bc this is something I would do if I ever got transfig 😁

 

[Cheese 8883]

1 hour ago, Animael said:

Made that enchantment. Put it on the floor irp. They stepped on it after it was emoted being put down on the floor. It's like willingly stepping on a beartrap.

They even pm'd saying, yeah didn't think it would do anything so the char just stepped on it. Willingly. Idk what you want from me. But I'll start using beartraps instead if it makes you feel better.

This wasn't bad faith. This is just trying to do something other than mindless sword swinging rp, and being creative. I didn't force them to step on the trap and even said oocly they can re-emote not stepping on it in the first place. They said, I'll give you an ultimatum and you can take it back or I'll play my Wight in an OP way that bends the lore because it is so poorly written, then they simply emoted it not affecting them anyway. Now two of that persons chars are targeting mine to death, along with their families, separately in addition to this amendment. 

No one asked you to embarrass yourself with a name drop 😭

[FlemishSupremacy 6115]

ngl voidal weakness landmines do go pretty hard...

[Travisty 1020]

idk why you name dropped yourself but thanks for the amendment ig

1 hour ago, Animael said:

This wasn't bad faith. This is just trying to do something other than mindless sword swinging rp, and being creative. I didn't force them to step on the trap and even said oocly they can re-emote not stepping on it in the first place. They said, I'll give you an ultimatum and you can take it back or I'll play my Wight in an OP way that bends the lore because it is so poorly written, then they simply emoted it not affecting them anyway. Now two of that persons chars are targeting mine to death, along with their families, separately in addition to this amendment. 

 

[Morigung-oog 5697]

+1 - Tricking people into activating stuff without their consent with void stuff is extremely bad faith and should not be happening anyway as it requires concentration to do so.

[sam33497 7356]

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

No one asked you to embarrass yourself with a name drop

this mean girl shit REALLY doesnt suit you my old friend