Xarkly

Villorik of the White Comet did spare them some pity amidst his mediation. Beyond their walls and fog, it was not safety that awaited the Mystics.

Better & more balanced salt amendment, +1 I think mandating a requirement to keep a document of feeding is kinda op behaviour though, staff can just omni it as they would any other powergaming issue.

Valid niche and good idea, but don't think it should be under this magic from a balance perspective. Drazi already have lots of different utilities.

"Excommunicate this fool, brethren," Cardinal Villorik remarked with a sigh, "and then sever his head from his shoulders." "The jurisdiction of the Light is all under heaven."

Villorik is a misinformed old man. Alas.

Cardinal Villorik was minded to slay the Petrines and Balianese both. Words were wind, and titles little more.

This is sort of the point I was trying to make though, me and Madone ultimately ended in a 'worse' position when it came to not killing darkspawn. Look, yes, it's all to build a narrative, but when 4/5 of the guys you spare take the complete piss out of it and abuse it, it just gets disheartening. It's happened a few times where people are like "well villorik you spared XYZ and then they turned out to be evil again. who knew". Obviously, my character looking stupid isn't important and there has been some good RP with some darkspawn, but like I said it can just be frustrating.

Yes, they're absolutely two facets. The underlying logic of inquisitions against dark creatures will always make sense - it will always make sense that dark creatures should be wary when placing themselves in an environment fundamentally opposed to them, and it will always make sense that this forms a part of playing that character. The issue, as you say, is when people get too silly and start outright metagaming. I'm not opposed to this amendment on the grounds of metagaming, but rather because I don't think dark magic/creatures should be risk-free when interacting with their mundane counterparts. I understand where you're coming from in saying this only makes detection harder and not impossible, but I actually don't think there's much of a difference - the only way to justify 'significantly cutting' someone is basically if you catch them in the act or have prior knowledge. Since aurum's nerf, its testing value has become basically completely useless because you can't justify a deep wound for just general testing. Much like with aurum, it does make sense to nerf salt, but it just flips the switch to the other extreme. Because Corcitura only need to feed bi-monthly, my concern is that this would make it so that you can 'turn off' your CA/FA outside of these brief windows, which is my main beef. Obviously, there's a middle-ground to be reached somewhere. I don't really know what it is, but my preference would be for Corcitura to have some sense of progression restored (i.e. going from an FA -> CA after the 3 month curing period is over), because this would justify a lot of the objective weaknesses Corcituras have right now. I know ST will say "well it's a feat!!!" and "um well siliti didn't work so that means no other vampyre CA will ever work again", but that's obviously not really a helpful observation. __ As an extra bit of yap, I do think it's important to acknowledge the rift that exists between magic communities in general and 'low fantasy' human circles. This is a problem that goes much deeper to the routes of the server, and while it's definitely gotten a lot better over the last year or two, there's still very much a tangible polarization of "all humans are metagaming racists" vs. "all magic users are powergaming snobs". The reason I'm bringing this up is because, from experiencing each side of the fence, the rank-and-file of both sides tend to approach interactions defensively and prejudicial, and that translates into "ugh we better kill this guy before he hits us with a 1 emote atomic bomb spell" and "ugh here comes the metagaming humans, time to bail". This obviously isn't the case for everyone, just those bad faithers on both sides of the fence. Even for those who do try to set an example, though, it's definitely challenging to break down that barrier. When myself and @MadOne used to spare a lot of dark characters we caught, it usually only served to blow up in our faces and our attempts to set up a storyline resulted in that dark character going back to exactly what they were doing before, with the added advantage that they would say "hey I'm cool with the church now" to exempt themselves from further IRP suspicion. This happened probably 4/5 times. It's not necessarily bad faith for them to do this, but the frequency at which it happened made it genuinely very difficult to stay motivated to try progress crusader/inquisition RP. There's a good possibility that's because maybe the efforts we made weren't enough, but that's more or less the sentiment that was left at the end. It's a tough nut to crack since, like I said, it's a real deep-rooted issue for the server and it was one of the things that Canon Adherence hoped to address. I do think the gap between magic and non-magic is gradually improving (especially when compared to how it used to be), so with any luck this issue will fade in time, but I think the prejudicial context is worth noting. At the end of the day, it's an uphill battle to try make that change, and I hope the next generation has better luck at it.

I mentioned this to Mori in DMs but this loops around back to the real problem with Corcitura - it was written as a 'bottom of the ladder' CA that was meant to progress to Siliti. When viewed through that perspective, the 'weaknesses' of Corcitura are a lot more contextual and balanced. While I sympathise they have the short end of the straw, the issue for me really is that every CA has so many strengths and ways to hide on top of revival mechanics in a lot of cases.

This is where the issue lies - I don't think you're conceptualising this correctly. Why does someone look "off" in roleplay? Is it because you've never seen them before? Is it because they're dressed strangely? In a world in which dark and hostile creatures are rampant, are these not justified reasons to be suspicious of strangers? This leads to a culture whereby townsfolk will regard strangers with scrutiny - they could be a vampyre, or much worse, bearing in mind that vampyres are a creature that is easily tested for, unlike the vast majority which can be basically hidden all the time. Why is it undynamic that 'normal' characters will be wary of strangers in this setting? This is not a secret. Ergo, as a dark creature, you knowingly put yourself into situations whereby strangers are looked upon with distrust. So, where do you go from here? Like I indicated in my last example, dress is a big one. Maybe start by befriending some of the locals or other normal Descendants who could 'vouch' for you. Invent a story to get you into the city without being vetted by the guards - pretend you're sick, or injured, and need to be taken to the clinic (I pulled this exact move in Balian; I jumped out of the clinic, onto the roofs, and then fed on someone along on the walls). And, perhaps most importantly, maybe you should avoid going to cities full of people who want to kill you unless you have a compelling reason (if you're answer to this is "but I want to rp where's it active!" then you should make a non-dark CA persona to alternate between when you just want casual RP). There's so many cooler ways of infiltrating societies as a vampyre (this is ignoring the fact a character who is already ingrained in society can just be turned), so advocating for "ok but what if you can actually never discover me unless I try to kill you" is definitely the lamest solution. Bearing in mind dark CAs are given fairly generous entitlements when it comes to lairs as a safe space where they can roleplay, so the natural duality is that it's dangerous to go visiting holy cities. Again, I'm not opposed to some leeway being shown, but this proposal is basically saying "unless a vampyre tries to kill you, they are totally risk-free". It's also not just vampyres, but it's a growing trend with a lot of CAs whereby they want to minimise their risk as much as possible. My issue with this is that it ultimately feels like the latest increment in a long saga of dark CAs campaigning to be able to access all hubs all the time without any risk of being caught, which I think frankly defeats the point of being a dark CA in the first place.

My entire objection here is the opposite, though, in that the threat and risk associated with being a darkspawn is literally entirely removed outside of feeding - this is, iirc, twice a month. Sure it exposes you to risk, still, but I think you're limiting the risk by basically 80-90%. You're saying there should be no risk for a dark creature to go into a holy and populous city. You're saying there should be no degree of strategy or preparation required. You're saying there should be no circumstances in which your CA is exposed in circumstances that are not tailored by you (i.e., feeding). That is so unbelievably lame and one-sided, and I say this as someone who plays on both sides of the fence. Without the degree of strategy required to infiltrate cities and feed, there would be no fun to playing my Corcitura whatsoever and I genuinely believe it fundamentally changes the entire point of the CA/FA. I would just play my character like a completely normal Descendant and then attack someone twice a month. The ability to 'turn off' your CA is something I profoundly disagree with and I don't understand why you subjected your character to a CA at that point. I would agree with the 'leeway' argument if the amendment proposed isn't reducing the ability to catch vampyres by about 90%.

Again, a huge objection to amendments like these. While I won't repeat the yapping I did on the Corcitura post, Mystics are - in my experience as someone who plays a darkspawn hunter - one of the most difficult schools of dark magic to test for. Yes, Siegmund's Candles aren't the rarest thing, but I don't think it's accurate to say they're really being spammed outside of very specific communities or circles (which, again, makes it very easy for Mystics to know where to avoid ...). The reason moreso is that justifying the use of a Siegmund's Candle on a dark magic that doesn't have many other tells is my point - I would be fine with a redline along the lines of 'you must have reasonable suspicion ...' to use a Candle; from my experience this is already the case, but I'm not as familiar with how widespread Candles are outside of Canonism. Also, I'm not sure if this is true so you might let me know - is it possible to subvert a Siegmund Candle through the use of Null Arcana?

While I definitely appreciate the perspective, I really strongly disagree with this amendment. As a brief contextual note for this - I have a Corcitura character. I don't play him actively at the moment, but my point is my objection here is also grounded in experience. There's a few elements as to why an amendment like this would be a really bad move for role-play. For starters, I want to clarify that since MadOne PKd his pontiff, 'sporadic' testing has become a lot less common. Even in the height of MadOne's Canonist inquisitions, sporadic or 'spam' testing was mainly prevalent in places which were very publicly targeted by inquisitions (i.e., Kaethul, Hohkmat, etc.) and these inquisitions were generally extremely telegraphed by public treaties. In short, if you were caught in a sporadic test in a place like Kaethul, generally you only had yourself to blame because you deliberately put yourself in a situation where you were likely to be discovered. This isn't spamming or inorganic RP; on the contrary, it has a distinct narrative and timeline (place has a reputation for dark magic activities -> place becomes targeted by inquisitions). As someone heavily involved during the height of these Canonist inquisitions under MadOne, very rarely was someone ever completely tested randomly. As MadOne himself often pointed out, suspicious characters tended to dress suspiciously (dark robes, hidden faces, black armour) which in turn made them targets for inquisitions. This is, again, an organic product of roleplay because these characters genuinely made no or minimal effort to hide the fact that they might, in fact, be evil-aligned. This will be a recurring theme for my criticism of the amendment. As a side-note, while I know there are other 'inquisitions' and sources of testing (i.e. Celia'nor), I'll speak from the majority perspective of Canonism. On a more general note, as you rightly imply, it's fairly known which places a dark CA is likely to be tested in. Ergo, by visiting a location of your own will, it's hard to see how you're not subjecting yourself to that risk. This doesn't deprive you of visiting that location, it just means a certain level of strategy is required if you want to remain undetected. Like I mentioned earlier, dressing in skins or disguises that fit in with the nation in question is generally going to spare you from a huge amount of suspicion - a lot of dark CA races neglect to this and (rightfully) stand out as a sinister character. This is a dynamic factor of dark CA roleplay that I think genuinely makes it very fun; if, for some reason, you have to go into a city of Canonists who hate and hunt vampyres, you should naturally be required to take steps to get around that. "But I want to roleplay in [insert active city]!" is probably the main response to the above point, to which I answer - why are you playing a dark CA? If you're driven to roleplay in a hub city and avoid the consequences of a dark CA that you voluntarily applied for, why did you undertake that CA in the first place? Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying "lol shouldn't have made a corcitura, idiot", because dark CAs are a huge source of narrative and activity on the server. What I'm saying is this: the risk of being tested and hunted is part of being a dark CA. It should be a part of your character, and it should be a driving force of your roleplay. Why on earth should that aspect be removed? Why on earth does it not make sense for you to have to plan to avoid suspicion if you're going to voluntarily go into a major hub city, especially if for no particular reason? I think this sacrifices a crucial part of what it means to be a dark CA and have your curse form a meaningful part of your character. What this amendment is essentially advocating for is that the only way you should be realistically in trouble as a Corcitura is if you're caught red-handed in the fact of feeding on someone, and I think that's silly. Spam testing, both in low-effort and good-faith RP forms, has organically evolved from roleplay. It's evolved from the prevalency and notoriety of Corcitura as a CA/FA. It's evolved from the rise of Canonist inquisitions across the land (which are now, however, on the decline - the Raguel/crusade stuff is not really targeted at rank & file dark CAs like this). It's evolved from many dark CA characters failing to actually take steps to engage with their CA, and instead expect themselves to be free of suspicion at nearly all times. While I'm not saying this is what you're advocating for here, this amendment does represent a trend of what I see as "my character is a dark CA, but only when I want it to be". I'll also add that Corcitura is one of the last frontiers of dark CAs that is not already extremely difficult or impossible to test for.

Admins should rly consider a sort of grace period where metaplay is given infractions instead of bans. Seems way too heavy handed to come out with really long bans as soon as the rule is introduced and people haven't adjusted.

The feeling was strange to Villorik. Those who had once followed him as greenhorns, now declaring their own hunts. He wondered if they truly fathomed the capabilities of the Shadow, but he supposed it mattered not; it was their destiny, as sons of Joren, to face hardship after hardship until the calamities foretold by the Scroll of Auspice had come to pass, and Paradise was born from the ashes of the World. From his balcony in Lemon Hill, Villorik's winged helmet stared off across the sky - tinted orange by the setting sun - in the direction of Haense. He pressed a fist into an open hand, and bowed his head. "Light preserve," he muttered in prayer to the hunters, "and prevail."

"Fight well, Conan of Solgaard," Villorik bid unto him from afar. He knew well the might of the Dragonkin, but so too did he know the strength of the Thegn.

most helpful lore manager input

Main issue is just inconsistency. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to which anon or shitposting gets warned and which doesn't.

Is there a way to kill these creatures permanently?

As Ailred dissipated into dust within the burning interior of the Holy See, his hammer began to fall. Before it clattered to the ground, though, the gauntleted hand of Villorik clamped around it. Through his visor - burnt and blackened from their onslaught against the Dragonkin - he stared at the Boomsteel weapon for his Cardinal-in-arms. Villorik did not know for how long he stared at the hammer, clutched in his grasp, as the cackle of flames and groans of the wounded echoed throughout the cathedral. The mores of light, a mark of Ailred's departure, lingered in the air a moment longer, swirling around the hammer. He closed his eyes, and released a slow breath. He remembered well the day Ailred had introduced himself to Villorik when he was but a child, and how he stoked within him the zeal of a holy warrior. It all felt so long ago, like it was a lifetime past. It felt impossible to remember how the decades had past, leading to this day, when they both stood as Warpriests, grey and grizzled. " ... You fought well," Villorik said, voice low and hoarse, "and you died well." He could feel the dragonfire lick at his back, still; searing his skin. "Watch over us, Blood of Ruther."

The Second Messenger stirred within its carrier. The time was not yet right. But it was close.

The Second Messenger ruminated. On this, he and Justice were of one mind.

All Prayers require the use of Sacred Aurum. It's one of the magic's in-built weaknesses, because the weight of Sacred Aurum translates into a mobility debuff. You can't any any Prayers without Sacred Aurum, except while standing within an area of Consecration (which is to prevent a soft lock scenario where if, in some wild scenario, all Sacred Aurum catalysts were destroyed; this allows new ones to be created). This is under General Mechanics for Sacred Aurum (I can't add an image of it on my phone for reference, unfortunately). Lothar's Warcry isn't technically a stun; if you're hit by the direct sound wave, it interrupts ongoing actions (charging a spell, drawing a bow, preparing a potion, etc.) but doesn't incapacitate you from acting in your next turn. Thanks a lot for the input Wavey, very much appreciated Yes; I personally think this state of affairs is OK. Malflame (and by extension Aurflame) is easy to defend against it you're prepared, but excels in ambush scenarios. Even if fully armoured, you have plenty of recourse (hands, helmet, etc.) where a player can't reasonably say they have a layer underneath. Also in the context of fighting dark magics, there is another balancing factor in that some variants are unable to wear heavier armour and may often have an exposure to Aurflame. I'll reply to your big comment when I get home from work later.

Thanks, this is something we discussed during writing. We originally had lots of aesthetic blessings and other miscellaneous cleric aesthetics, from a confession spell, to a vow of silence spell, to an alms giving spell. The issue we ran into is the heavy LT pushback against the overall spell count. I think this was really unfortunate and fairly strongly disagree with the LT interpretation; while it's obviously ridiculously to assert that we should have 30 superpower combat spells, this wasn't the reality and a huge proportion of the spells in the WIP #1 were non-combat or aesthetic rituals. We had to make a decision whether we wanted to limit this to a purely flavourful magic that capitalizes on the 'blessing' aspect, or promote a magic with a greater degree of utility. We eventually went with the latter, primarily because this magic has the current objective as establishing itself as a mainstream holy magic that rivals various dark magics, and that means it needs certain tools (such as combat spells). Because of the arbitrary focus on the overall spell count and not the actual content of those spells, we had to cut many spells we liked and didn't really have a problem with in order to keep some spells that were more integral to the magic. Who knows, though. Even now I'm forming the opinion that I do want to see more high level 'blessing' spells like a river or whatever and shave off a few more combat spells, but we'll see how this draft goes first.

This is up to RP completely. It's not the place of lore to, for example, grandfather Druids who are not part of the existing Druid community. Other Druids can come to exist based on what a TA holder decides to do in roleplay, and how other characters react to that decision. The same should be true for Canon Adherence. The lore stipulates what the factual criteria are for someone to learn the magic (unaltered soul), but asides from that it is up to a Teacher to decide who they teach. As it is, the lack of a binding religious creed (which, subject to LT input, may have to be added in a future draft) already makes this magic very accessible in terms of eligible students. I would also disagree that Canonist humans hold any particular power, other than the fact that they're just more numerous than any other type of character on the server. I don't see how that forms a basis for prejudice, though, and you can make that argument about any magic - should Canonist Templars incur a similar penalty?