blackhand7

Azaryl, of House Thyone, signs this settlement's charter. (IGN: blackhand7)

Become individually named to be KOS in every single settlement in the world without dying

NAME: Azaril ITEM: Tapestry Relic BID: 200

Banger title

+1

This is Lowkey what I'm leaning towards tbh- it still keeps homuncs relatively easy to kill but requires some sort of skin in the game to do so, and it becomes more of a tool for tawkin civil wars than external hostile forces. I do think the fundamental issue of the Juliet's does remain though; which is that it encourages homunculi players to do nothing, as the stakes for failure are so high while the rewards for success are so relatively low, in a way that no other PK clause on the server does. Tbh I don't know the solution; maybe some sort of homunculi kloning/memory backup like golems have? But that runs into its own issues.

Yeah Tentoa and I talked about it over DMs and I think I'm gonna edit the amendment to go with this

To my knowledge, all of these interactions require a co-ordinated, hostile attack upon the enemy (requiring getting through their defences) or are methods of in-group policing. There is no encounter that can happen wherein a random wandering Pale Lord or Inferni can come across someone opposed to them who then force-feeds them a potion and instantly ends them. As thejack said, anyone with a Juliet's potion can PK a Homunculus. This amendment would still maintain a PK clause for Homunculi- one that can be easily spread and used effectively as a method of in-group maitenance, which is what I imagine the lore originally intended the potion to be. To be frank, I would not entirely opposed to this, but as I am not a part of any of those communities it feels like overreach to do so. I do think server-lore as a whole does seem to be moving away from those sorts of systems though. Mages have tools that can let them last for 7-10 emotes- but that is beside the point. Again, if mutations are the problem, they should be nerfed. Removing the Juliet's PK clause does not fundamentally alter a Homunculi's strength in combat- it only makes them slightly easier to deal with after the combat is done, after which point the player can simply return when their Tawkinist makes another Homunculus. Being able to force PK a construct after they are defeated does not effect their strength during the encounter prior.

Valid points again, but I would refer you to my response to Prima- I do think that other CAs/MAs are stronger without such a permanent death mechanic, and, if the issue is that Homunculi are too strong, then mutations or Homunculi should be nerfed in other ways. From a balancing perspective, the fact that a Homunculus can be PKed after they are restrained and have already lost a fight does not make them less strong during the fight itself. Again, a Tawkinist can simply create another Homunculus if the Homunculus is destroyed- the power level of the Homunculus is not substantially altered. To the second point, I understand how it might come across like that. But my intention with this amendment is not to run away from consequences; quite the contrary. I feel that the current lore, in fact, encourages that behavior. If a character knows that certain actions they might take would lead to their permanent death, it causes them to take no actions at all. Far from encouraging consequence-based roleplay that is dramatic and fun, it encourages personas to hide away and do nothing instead. Edit: As a response to the edit, I do agree that Klones also have a harsh PK clause; but, provided they have some sort of home, and have stored a vat there, they can never die from a one-off encounter. It requires a concerted effort from their enemies, or multiple deaths, to achieve such. The point about Thaniihum is a good one; to be honest, I have never personally interacted with it, so I did not consider its implications. I do think it is rare enough though that the majority of combat encounters do not revolve around it, however, and that other CAs (Ologs) can achieve a rough power level equal to Homuncs non-magically.

These are fair and valid points, but I would like to touch on a couple of them. You are correct in the first case- but there are other CAs out there that are far stronger with less restrictive clauses than Homunculi. Golems, for instance. A T5 voidal mage is capable of teleporting 32 blocks and shooting fireballs, and the only restrictions placed upon them at their death is the monk revival timer- same with most other magics. A voidal mage Klone can do all of that in addition to having 2 mutations, and does not run the risk of being pked upon losing a singular, random fight (no other creature really does). Not to mention Liches, Darkstalkers, druids, templars, the various demons, etc... Beyond that, this change does not fundamentally alter the power-level of Homunculi. In the current system, a group could simply create a new Homunculus every time the old one is PKed- a process that can be done in far less time than [2] weeks. The end result of the current system is a loss of character development and a focus instead upon spamming non-unique fighters. I agree with your second point partially as well. Currently, I can only think of one instance of a Homunculus being pked in the past couple months. But I also don't think that just because a gap in the lore hasn't been shown yet does not mean we should leave it there. Amendments ought to be proactive, rather than reactive.

Changes are underlined. TLDR of Changes: The regular Juliet potion will no longer PK Homunculi, instead putting them on a [2] OOC week respawn timer. A Homunculi’s creator can make a modified Juliet's potion capable of perma-killing their progeny. The recipe is freeform, and, like any alchemy recipe, may be taught. Current: Proposed Changes: Reason for Changes:

In the vaults beneath Urguan, a dwarf clad in gold stands.

Somewhere on the continent, a butterfly that convinced an elf to practice medicine in the empire without a license laughs.

Isn't this just a worse blasting potion?

I don't know if I fully agree with this? Beyond just having it be that culturally, druids view unattunement as a fate worse than death and thus far worse a punishment than striking someone from the mortal coil, you could have them, as a byproduct of the anatunement ritual, get abudcted by nature spirits and sent to a torture dimension before being shot out in a random forest. Or maybe they are put in a cocoon as a byproduct of the unatunement ritual, from which they emerge weaker and stripped of their powers. Or maybe death cancels out the process of unatunement if it happens soon after, or is done by the druid who unatuned the other. Regardless, there are plenty of systems that exist in roleplay that do not make sense in the context of the lore and mechanics server. The prison capture limit. Monk revival. Soulbind tokens. All of these exist to improve player experience and roleplay. I think just because bad actors exist and will always exist doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to regulate things. I don't think the killing in this instance was done by bad actors, just that the server's lore and rules are set up in a suboptimal way and as such should be amended. I cannot think of a single instance wherein following the disconnection with an execution (excluding a PK) does not lead to worse roleplay and narrative for all involved, and as such I don't see a reason why not to put rules against it into place.

Yeah just to clarify my problem is not at all with like, chaos DC. I think its a good system, and I'm very in favor of consequences in roleplay. I am fully in favor of dcing people for petty or just flat out wrong reasons. From what I've heard, the one in this instance seemed pretty reasonable. I'm just saying that I think the system would be much more enjoyable for both parties and condusive to RP if there was some sort of rule or safeguard in place to prevent people killing eachother right after the dc took place. I think its very hard to build a cohesive narrative out of losing an integral piece of your character when you do not know nor can you ever know under server rules why you lost it. I don't think something as majorly altering to a character as disconnection should give the disconnector a get out of jail free card to escape any narratives that might arise from it.

I agree with everything else you've said (beyond the situation everyone is vagueposting about which I don't know enough about to comment on and I also don't think lone instances should dictate policy) but this seems, like, not a really good attitude to have or one that the server should seek to uphold? The entire point of being on the server is dealing with the consequences of your actions. That's where all the fun and interesting stuff is. I also think its foolish to build systems that rely on every person being good faith- that is simply untenable. Systems instead should encourage and force good behavior, and I don't think its unreasonable for staff or the lore to set up systems that guide towards that. Disconnection is one such system, in which staff (or players) may intercede and force a certain course of action, in order to keep the magic relatively coherent and encourage roleplay, in addition to expelling bad actors. I don't see an inherent problem with putting such a safeguard in place for the person being disconnected (that they may not be killed after disconnection), so that they have something they can do irp with losing their magic. Disconnection is an inherently hostile action, and if someone is not willing to deal with the consequences of such an act rply then frankly I don't think they should do it. I think your point about disconnection being a way to grow and to grow and make events for a character is a really good one; but that should apply to the disconnectors as well as the disconnected. You should have to deal with the consequences of your actions; there is no point in being on the server if you are not. Furthermore, if the disconnected person loses all memory of why they were disconnected, it feels near-impossible for them to build a storyline for their character about it.

Then can't you just punish those people? I feel like that's an obvious attempt to get around the rules oocly.

To give my three cents as someone who has never played a druid or anything for that matter that can be disconnected forcibly: I do think that chaos systems are fine. I'm genuinely in favor of greater irp consequences and I think lotc as a whole often suffers from rp consequences being totally meaningless (cough, soul binds and monk revival, cough) but that's a conversation for another time and I know that my thoughts on those things are not shared by the playerbase as a whole. However, I do feel as though, in principle with the give and take rule, there should be some redlines around not killing someone after they are disconnected unless it is a PK. Getting forcibly disconnected, even for a frivolous reason, can be great character development; your persona loses the thing they've likely structured their entire identity around, and must redefine themselves in the void of its absence. That is the "give" to the take of losing an MA. Jamie Lannister has tremendous character development after losing his swordfighting feat (hand). But this development doesn't work if you are killed directly after, as the player loses all memory of the events and actions they chose that led them to being disconnected. They just wake up one day and their connection to the thing they have structured their entire character around is gone, and they rply will never be able to figure out what they did to deserve such a fate. Imagine if a chapter of Game of Thrones opened with Jamie Lannister just waking up with his hand gone, with no idea how it was taken from him, and no way of ever finding out. It's just way less interesting, for all parties involved.

[PK] Just Another Civilian The day began as a good one. Ak’ar rose early and had a mug of ale at the tavern, as any good dwarf should. Then he had a couple more, as any good dwarf should. He swung his pickaxe in the mines, attended a meeting, surveyed his notes, and then- on nothing but a whim- he decided to go to the Imperial Protectorate of Caurost. Little did he know how fatal of a mistake it was. A passing Kurai Kuni Marine let him hitch a ride, and before long, the orc’s mighty steed had brought both to the elvish princedom. To the squadron of imperial knights that waited in the town square. The knights were demanding four volunteers from the city's elves to come with them. “Will it result in the death of these volunteers?” an elf asked. The chief of the Protectors of Caurosts' response was but two words. An order to his men: “Seize them.” The true test of character is not what one does when they have nothing to lose. A rich man may give a crust of bread to a beggar, and hunger naught for it. A mighty lord may give a hut to a peasant, and care not, for they will still sleep in a castle come the night. A group of knight in shining armor may defend a noble lady from a lone brigand, and suffer no wounds in her defense. No, dear reader. The true test of goodness is not what you do when you have everything but what you do when you have nothing. When you are a dwarf with no weapons, in commoners clothes, staring down a squadron of imperial knights, wielding weapons of carberrum and boomsteel. Ak’ar did not pass this test. As the knights surged forward, he stayed silent. Unfortunately for him, he was not the only dwarf in the square. Two others had joined him, one his kinsmen. And that dwarf had a heart of gold. “Now now lads, nae need tae get dramatic ere.” the other Jewelbeard spoke. “Sir Redgar,” their leader proclaimed, “Kill that dwarf.” Ak’ar finally intervened. He reminded the leader of the friendship between their peoples, the fine people he had met in the Orenian capital. He apologized for any offence caused. Some of the knights protested their orders, but when the time came, they still followed them. “WHY DO THESE DWARVES STILL BREATHE!” - “SLAY THEM ALL!” their commander roared. And Ak’ar, bearing no weapon and wearing naught but cloth, was cut in two by the knight's axe. “Yeh cannae fight teh whole world, imperial. Yeh cannae kill teh whole world, nae matter how hard yeh try” what was left of Ak’ar sputtered. “The Empire will reign eternal. Die knowing you meant nothing in its ascension.” “T-ats wot evereh empire sa--” The knight’s axe claimed the final word.

-1 this is terribly written lore