osumanduas

hand cannons at least, look how cool this guy is

i can only give general Lambert my best wishes.

i am destroyed

I enjoy the lore, though the Naztherak have always confused me as to where they actually come from. So to that end and for the sake of argument I decided to go back through the creation lore to double check what actually is Iblee’s realm. As I wasn’t sure if it was entirely different plane of existence or what. I now have come to an understanding myself of how this works (or how it might work) But it would probably be better addressed outright. This is the running lore description of Iblee’s personal domain drawn from Benboboy and the Creation lore posted by Flamboyant: Thus the running and current canon for Iblee’s realm is of course: (for clarity purposes, not informative ones I’m aware y’all know the lore) That Iblees did not have his own realm to begin, and that when he ascended upon the Mortal Plane he created his own realm deep within the physical world known explicitly as the Nether. What needs to be made clear then is how this current definition fits into this new piece that has been created. The language is primarily the thing that makes this notion a problem, that problem being that: The lore directly opposes the prior approved establishment on the subject. The thing that displays this the most clearly being this passage right here: At the same time however, the references made in describing the world go in the opposite direction, which creates confusion as to the actual goal of the piece. We have two ideas here that actively in opposition to each other: This notion that Moz Strimoza is not the Nether itself; but a patchwork of realms taken by Iblees and attached to the Nether. Yet in opposition it is also expressed that all these realms are just attached to this Moz Strimoza which is the core itself: The result is something all too unclear when really digging into what these places are and the significance of them as places within the world. It’s confusing terminology and I think in order for the piece to truly be complete it has to be specified (maybe at the beginning). That A: the entire realm is like Outworld (Mortal Kombat) where every plane conquered is amalgamated as one big conglomerate known by many names (High Hells, Moz Strimoza, the Nether, etcetera.😞 OR this, specify that Iblee’s realm at the center of this Moz Strimoza periphery is the Nether itself, which is linked to these conquered realms and sewn together by this blood magic referenced in travel there. (Like the Twisting Nether from WOW, or from DOOM Eternal: Because the previous pieces of Canon direct Iblee’s realm as being physically buried in the center of the world I would say it would HAVE to be something similar to Outworld where everything is merged to become a physically connected and composited world. Not just linked in space and time but physically part of the Nether itself. Ultimately this remains a problem with LOTC lore in generally basically things need to be reconciled in good spirit with other sects of coinciding lore or they need to completely separate all together. Food for thought, continuity has always been a very important part of creative world building for me, particularly on a server where most of the lore is concocted by players.

grrrrr kaedrin grrr

amen brother

I mean considering we’ve been at this for over five months I can assure you that isn’t the case. We’ve been steadily increasing due the environment being provided. Squash beef, provide good rp, chill in the vibes. Kaedrin’s going to be fine regardless but it would be nice to have the progress we’ve made acknowledged formally y know?

ten for ten breaking my balls here

Personal experience on a critical issue isn’t something I recall incorrectly. I was there going over the document in cooperation with him at the time and in voice with one of you, the amount of arbitrary and easily manipulated facets couldn’t even be finished in that one session. Had to be finished in the following session there was so much to change. People care about their work, they don’t like when it’s besmirched I understand that. However, trying to speak as if someone else’s experience of the situation is somehow delusional and that the big bad admins swept it all under the rug, that even speak well on the point trying to be made. It actually makes it look worse. If you can’t see whats wrong with those initial points I mentioned at all: the already arbitrary and run on nature of the rewrite itself, then really those dishes were already shattered and all Telanir did realistically was take it into the backyard to put it down. Discussions on policy are hardly so agreeable, nor is this dismissal, which is far less easy to utilize when it originates from having been in voice, making real changes, I probably even still have the doc in my google drive. Point is, this is a critique not an attack. It’s an important distinction for healthy debate. No the origin of the critique is far less important to me personally than the solution which should be put into effect. It’s an insane policy to me for instance, that conflict rules be informed by an amalgamation of all the failed policies that came before, empirically it’s actually regressive. Ultimately what would be productive under the current rule-set would be a true expansion according to the current nature of the policy. Namely a set number of clauses that moderators must insist that each party agree on. That way the moderators can have their scrap of policy and players can abide by a set of rules that they mutually agree on. Essentially provide points on the contract that all parties must be forced to agree on. If wars and raids are to be more principally driven then the semantics can’t be left to breakdown a debate. The moderating presence must take charge and provide a logical settlement. The tools necessary for that to happen should be expanded. The most effective and critical part about the new system is that players need to negotiate with players first, and then moderators, it’s gone a very long way in weeding out problem players, (I.E. it’s very hard for players to carry hardcore OOC grudges if the rules themselves indirectly demand that said apprehensions need to be set aside for conflict to occur). In all cases the server will keep chugging along regardless, but it can run certainly run better or worse.

The argument is concrete, a concept concocted by players should not be abused and bastardized based on ill-concocted policy or shortsighted staffing.

I like Lasombra too, the Darwinism is a bit on the nose though.

No offence but as someone who was on the team at the time I can tell you the reason why it was thrown out and it wasn’t just because of some hand of god/(telanir). The entire rewrite from what I recall was too specific in all the wrong areas and multiple people pointed that out. Knox particularly hit on the fact that a lot of it was simply illegible and horribly worded. Which is why nobody complained that much from my knowledge when it was tossed into the bin. The main issue that there is with Telanir’s new status quo is that it requires the moderator actually knows how to think for themselves and make a call on the situation, instead of running to a handbook to railroad the entire process. Adaptable GMs are a boon in my opinion, but in every discussion about the rules after the complaint was always: ‘I can’t make a call without some thirty page document that tells me exactly what to do.’ The problem with meticulously drawn out rulesets is that they’re made to be broken and when players inevitably find loopholes the team will thus be unable to cope with or account for said loopholes, and thus make bad calls in the moment. It is far more reasonable to train people to be adaptable, and to unequivocally support them in their calls after the fact. The basis of our current ruleset is fine, it doesn’t need to be broken down by adding a bunch of failed experiments into the mix, nor do many aspects of the current ruleset need /fixing up/. The ultimate premise is good faith. If players cannot keep good faith with one another and offer respectful conflict than these stated players are in violation of the rules and should be offered infractions. There are semantics that should be debated like cooldown times, raid numbers, no conquest, etcetera. But these things don’t require an overhaul. I am of the opinion that the only real solution to the incompetent handling of conflict under the current ruleset is to make moderators a truely competent third party in the discussions between conflicting parties. Make people come to the table, enable the discussion, or leave them be because in this last scenario all that occurs is a waste of oxygen. That's my two cents on the issue. Bastardizing the systems of the past only bastardizes the systems we create in the future.

@Zarsies @Archipelego Your both plebes CAMBRIA CAMBRIA CAMBRIA CAMBRIA CAMBRIA CAMBRIA CAMBRIA All day

People on the internet can be cruel and ******* twisted. Yet despite that you’ve always been very cordial and understanding, the complete opposite in every instance I can remember. You’ll always have my respect. You’re an outstanding person; thank you for speaking out and telling your story.

The Haeseni then find himself put upon by a Rhoswenii, who shot the man full of rounds with his 44. before taking off his aviators. “The game was rigged from the start.” Uttered the man, shaking his head before shuffling back off into the Canyon.

Lots of people always have a lot of petty shite to chat, bitter things to say. It was really a privilege having you around though in my own opinion and I wouldn’t have been able to hold the ship together for as long as I did during those long ass final exam days without your dedication. You’ll go far comrade outside this mineman microcosm and it’s really an incredibly wise decision to leave it behind. Sooner or later we all need to take the same look at our lives and make that call. Looking forward to many ck, hoi4, and eu4 games after this mate. From me and everyone back in the ol’ Commonwealth, bon voyage brother. And good luck.

looking Gucci

There are a couple things that I’ve taken as simple standards that I think have come across fairly well. The first being that if the date isn’t specified new lore should not be based in that period. So I’m glad that gotten through. The second is that I perceive ill intent. Now because this a lore post intent is irrelevant to the question. The lore itself already suggests that the point of this piece is that it be an ‘evolution’ of current Striga. The idea that I’m personally VERY OFFENDED isn’t something you have to worry about; this is a game after all and nothing about writing is personal outside of the road to get to a finished product. What I am is passionate about the subject itself, and continuity in particular. The concern in my view is really the nature of the theme as I explained previous and how this piece utilizes one set of prior structures to create a new (and frankly lesser continuity). If that wasn’t the case then yes, Striga lore would not have to be involved at all in the slightest it’s perfectly feasible using preexisting blood magic structures to create vampires. (Which would be fine btw). Expanding on that the problem and I’ll again iterate, is in how the prior lore is being used. If what your referencing in your own work can’t reflect the spirit of the first it shouldn’t be mentioned at all. What needs to be done is to prioritize the use of existing structures something the lore piece definitely doesn’t do. If the goal is to create a different variant of vampire it should logically also reflect how that would be feasible within the sphere of associated lore. The primary material should be referenced and built upon. What I’m getting at here is that vampires aren’t at center stage here. What is glorified seemingly is Malgourn and blood magic instead, not how both this dragon and his field of study can add to and change the vampire niche as a whole. What is instead the case is that Hazm is the deus ex machina. The only tentative connection this piece has to actual vampires on lotc. If this indeed to be looked at in any other light than catching a ride then that probably needs to change. As for the Dreori I had an epiphany after having a talk with Joel in the Lore discord which really changed my mind on the subject. The lack of a background actually proved to be a boon in my opinion, because the variety of stories which could be conjured to explain them was so vast, and thus also the possibilities of how they could be accept in role-play. There was a lot more opportunity for growth, for example then there is here. They could have been of a weaker generation, they could have evolved down a history completely different and that was frankly really cool to consider after the fact. Instead the only actual vampire in the story is used as a crutch to explain how Malgourn created his own Striga 2.0 without the aid of the Unseen. Which conveniently segways into my clarification of the third minor point I made quite nicely. That is that there are no other acceptable examples of lore being used this way. It is unacceptable for example, that someone be able to manipulate nature without a connection to the Aspects. It is also therefore similarly concerning for Paladin-ism to be used by someone without a connection to Xan. Equal to those, as it stand to reason: it is a concerning thing that creatures born of the Unseen (by blueprint, or blood-magic whatever term of the month is being used), can have vampiric boons without being beholden to the implemented standard (I.E. the curse itself.) Even Thuleanism (which is a turbulent example I know) required someone to be connected beforehand. All these points are ultimately spurred on with one focus in mind. New lore in this segment should compliment the continuity we have, new mechanics can fit into the existing vampiric pre-conditions. There doesn’t need to be an evolution of one into the next. The second topic I’ll contest, but I do think it’s funny since distance has taken sort of a back seat. Distance and interaction over time is very important in my view, and needs to be purposefully addressed. If something is ambiguous it should be meant to be that way, at least where story telling is concerned. Mechanics have a generally increasing need to be specifically fleshed out, and that’s something that is very hard to get right. Ultimately something I enjoy a lot, as it’s something that’s been accomplished very well. If the story itself breaks the suspension of disbelief it’s no longer a feasibly enjoyable story for a wide margin of folks. This is mainly the problem I have with this, because we’re talking about a span of time essentially now in (like 1070s) to essentially when Helgraen would have begun taking disciples, which if not practically date-able, would have been during Aeldin’s antiquity in the Second Era (which is there for you to find in the wiki). I had to do a lot of condensing for the accepted rewrite, the old one which described humans in the era of Helgraen’s ascension as being little more than heavily tribal. They were essentially then, from that measurably Neolithic. Like just barely agricultural. That means a few certain things, because these variations of growth have certain attributes: no nation-states, no really unique cultures, and really just living day to day to grab what you can nab. It was a little ambiguous to me whether Hazm was an Elf or Human. But my point was really that in either case the likelihood that he would have been experienced and yearned again for magic would be low given those circumstances. It’s confusing to jump multiple places and times. It’s far more sensical to have one place be primary and branch out from there. It’s one of the key themes that are evident in the beginning of a creature in a far off place. In vampiric society our own setting is the frontier which people travel to, and this one of the more critical things to understand when trying to conceptualize the grand narrative. The linchpin of command and reverence isn’t with us ourselves, unique specimen make their way here from other places for their own goals and ambitions and build from there. That’s the heart of lotc if ever there was one. There is the potential for all manner of bloodsuckers spread out from Aeldin, or from migrants to another land. Maybe Hazm searched the world, started his own lineage and then some of them made their way here to begin a new life. Instead the vein of the story reflects what will be considered widely too: That one vampire followed a red-herring, got butchered by a dragon, who then used his blood crystal pop out his own variant that was kind of the same thing but not really. Maybe it’s a difference of direction, or a miscommunication of how things should be handled, but /expansion/ rings far more with me personally than anything else. An expansion that builds on the lore that came before and encompass far more in the future, not to create some weird adjacency. Idk, in the end I’m just here to make a few good points and a few decent quips.

By the by; just noticed the lack of sailing my b. The autistic classicist in me took a leap and bound there. Whats tickling me now is the use of the lore. I’m thinking now just as an example: Taking the Strigae out of this. If it was a Druid, Paladin, ext. In most scenarios it wouldn’t fly in their place to take a specimen from one piece of lore and reverse engineer them into another existing pillar of server lore. Food for thought. I’ve never seen it legitimized in regards to any other community, Thuleanism being probably the accepted equivalent example of this. So I suppose a more reasonable question is why is this piece is acceptable by comparison to other projects which at a minimum had to achieve a synergy with existing standards.

Continuity. Striga have no place using magically induced portals to go just about anywhere. I’ve wrote it all up in another response on the bit of lore I have the most of my problems with. You would have had me there if your own lore didn’t state that the character y’all conjured up SAILED to meet this Setherian toe-licker. That said I did have the courtesy to compliment what additions you’ve made. I know you couldn’t have personally written an origin story that riddled with plot-holes and creative cop outs.

The changes that Zaries has made to the mechanics of the lore are pretty solid, the origin behind Siliti/Drakul is still as terrible as before however. A continent hopping mess quite ironically without any continuity. Dreori were leagues better in this regard, because they had the courtesy to try and be a separate thing despite being mechanically similar.

Excellent lore all in all, save the needless inclusion of this guy above who is newly fashioned. I’ve given my two cents on the Archon post here: Despite that though, and I’ll just say this. The only thing you could probably do obtain his soul would be to have your dragon eat him (putting aside the incredible dubious circumstances under which how he’d actually manage to get all the way from his homeland to get there.) I do love the lore, but for the love of GOD please keep my cute boys with fangs out of your dragon fantasies. @Zarsies