Welcome to The Lord Of The Craft

We're currently the #1 Minecraft Roleplaying Server, fitted with custom plugins, a unique crafting system, custom character cards and an incredibly active and passionate community; We're serious about Roleplay and we're always eager for new faces!


Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Old Fart
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,709 Divine

About Esterlen

  • Rank
    works like a demon

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    All sorts of things.
  • Minecraft Username
  • Character Name
    Arleth Torena/Othmar de Capua

Recent Profile Visitors

29,338 profile views
  1. Moon Guard US for WoW and Tarnished Coast for GW2. Haven't played in years for both of them, though, I always think about going back but never end up doing it!
  2. Welcome, my friend! I too am a former WoW and GW2 RPer. The communities are very different over there, but I still like them all the same. What are you planning on roleplaying?
  3. Consequences for players, protagonists or antagonists, who are thwarted, are absolutely necessary for the progression of dynamic role-play. +1
  4. Sorry, administrators - not buying it! This is an absolute disgrace and you've done nothing except confirm the accuracy of the sentiment expressed in the feedback post. If a business isn't competitive enough to stay afloat on its own, the government shouldn't be obligated to bail it out. If you have 20 players in your base, and you decide it's a good idea to team up with a coalition to make war on a base of 200 players, they should have the right to utterly destroy you. Where you err completely is denigrating legitimate RP, in Oren acting in our national interest against one group which aspires to grow to the point of harming us, as senseless 'warmongering'. I haven't seen anything on this server as disgusting and against the principles of RP as this 'admin response' in a long time. You should be ashamed!
  5. It's funny because it's true. This server has been held back by reactionary staff bureaucrats for years now, and it pains me as an old veteran to see it continue. I've said it countless times before, and I'll say it again: RP needs to be free-form and dynamic. Staff intervention of any kind has no place in legitimate, rule-abiding RP except in some very fringe cases such as rape and pedophilia. I think part of the issue is that staff demographics primarily find their origin in fringe, niche groups, i.e the Druidic clique of Menarra back from 2015. Most people who become staff these days aren't from the large communities, they're not in the thick of it, they don't know what the people want. Their opinion for what is best for the server is so dramatically divergent and far-removed from what the players actually desire to see happen that they're totally unrepresentative of their interests, and in some cases, RP in general.
  6. In contrast to- Coercive power does not translate to a coerced PK. The reason I said re-read it is because you're either misunderstanding (In which a re-read should clarify) or just deliberately misquoting what I said. Without PKs or consequences that monks can't immediately solve, you have no ability to exercise coercive power. To have RP, entities must have the ability to exercise coercive power, if they're strong enough to feasibly do so. I'm not talking about one entity and not another based on their affiliation or identity. What I'm saying is simple - if you can in roleplay, if you are strong enough, whoever you are, you should be able to exercise coercive power. And to do that, there's got to be consequences for actions, and thus limits on monk RP.
  7. Re-read it. I said certain entities (By this I mean every single entity with the IC capability or 'strength' to do so, within common sense and roleplay) need to have the capability to exercise coercive power over other entities. That means they need to have the ability to, if they want to in RP, use force as a way to get what they want. A PK is a fundamental and constituent part of coercive power, they are not synonymous. What I mean is if you are being attacked, and you kill that person, that person is no longer a threat - you have exercised your coercive power in order to get them to do what you want. But if you are being attacked, and you kill that person, and they can come back an infinite amount of times to do it again, you have no coercive power. This is what I mean about it being purely voluntary.
  8. The thing is, it's all about coercive power. There needs to be consequences for actions, and certain entities need to have the capability to exercise coercive power over other entities, that's the only way that we can actually have a RP server that is enjoyable and intact in its advancement of a dynamic, character-based story. My issue with the monks is that they effectively destroy, or at the least vastly diminish, any official and enforced capacity for coercive power to be exercised by any group. There is absolutely no mandate for people who are killed in RP to PK. Currently, coercive power is entirely voluntary on an OOC basis - very fortunately, I've had the opportunity to be part of a community (Oren) in which the vast majority adheres to a philosophy of absolute PKs, meaning, if you die in RP, regardless of the circumstance or how unhappy you are at having to lose a character, you PK. If you are maimed in RP, you stay maimed (Or get a hook or a metal hand or a magical gyro or something, if you're into that). Incorporation of the monks into RP is highly, highly discouraged. And hang me, but I think that's a good thing. To have a functioning server where roleplay is of a high quality and people enjoy themselves, there needs to be the capacity for coercive power and consequence. Currently, like I said, that capacity is enforced on a purely voluntary basis, and I do think we need to create some rules which prevent the significant use of monk RP. As a presently unlimited mechanism by which to essentially avoid anything happening to your character that you might not want to happen OOC, it needs to be restricted, and that's why I agree that they should by no means be able to heal all wounds.
  9. I find it interesting how people can't cope OOC with Mr. Collins down the street bashing his wife, and yet are perfectly fine on that same OOC level with- Unleashing a spirit of disease to scour the world of life. Serial killers and psychotics who literally enjoy bathing in the blood and innards of their victims. An undead menace wishing to kill, defile and raise every living thing. Being burnt alive/impaled/dismembered/enslaved. I mean, none of us would support any of these things if they came up in real life, they're all objectively bad, but from the relative perspective of a fantasy roleplay server nobody bats an eyelid. We don't try and insert our contemporary OOC morality and sense of political correctness into these circumstances. Similarly, we have our own opinions about racism, xenophobia, homophobia and spousal abuse in real life, and yet when some people see them in game, they feel the need to complain about how it's not 'PG-13' enough and 'offensive'. See the double standard? Call me sexist, but I think Mrs. Collins getting a black eye from her husband every now and again is actually considerably less bad than, you know, becoming an Orcish sex slave or mindless undead abomination. It's just part of the virulent 'grr Oren grr' narrative which tries to wrongfully insert contemporary political correctness into roleplay, where it has no place. Get over it.
  10. It's a thread designed to holistically address the inveterate flaws of the staff team you preside over. The dead baby article is only a mere expression of part of those flaws. The laziness of the WT, the imperiousness of the WT in dealing with us poor lowly contributors, the nonsensical arguments of our detractors who persecute us on the WT - it's all only a fraction of a far greater problem, which no, you have not addressed. Your team is for the most part inept, and you need to reform it. If you can't, or won't, get out.
  11. Unfortunately, you're not wrong, but we're just focusing on one at the moment.
  12. If you actually believe this, you need to have a good, hard look at yourself as a lore moderator. If the perspective you maintain is that 'characters are pointless', and yet pages upon pages of articles about the flora, fauna and mysterious magic-gods of Axios are somehow more constructive, then I'm genuinely disappointed in the culture the LM team must be breeding. This server has always been about the characters and their stories, weaving together to form a complex tapestry that we can all enjoy, period. Though it might act as a prop by which to supplement characters, the server isn't about a particular type of herb you might write a 3,000 word lore post on.
  13. I will say it was the truth because it was the truth. If you'd like me to dissect it word by word and cite everything I can, I'll happily do so, but this really isn't the forum to be doing so (Not to deflect or anything, I want to put this issue to bed not try and obfuscate it). I chose the wordings that a professional Wiki article quite feasibly could have used. Everything mentioned in that article was, sadly, fact. Was I involved in the events it describes? Absolutely. Does that mean my opinion of the events therein are liable to be biased? Of course. Does that make the article biased? Not necessarily. It regales a series of facts and quotations from others and is written in a neutral connotation, not a negative one. The wording was perfectly neutral and written from a detached perspective, and anything that was not was clearly identified as quotations from others. See this professional and public Wikipedia article on Michael Dukakis: (Click to zoom) Is this paragraph, then, biased against Michael Dukakis because it establishes certain facts that aren't favorable to him, writing about him in what you'd call a 'negative connotation'? If the answer is no: would the knowledge that George H. W. Bush wrote this article (He didn't actually, obviously) influence your opinion about it being biased? Refer also to this excerpt from Dan Quayle's Wikipedia article: Same deal there. This is not to mention that I was doing twenty times the work of your average WT member. Croleo was clearly looking for a reason to get rid of somebody who not only rivaled him, but surpassed him in capability.