ChonGojDragonski

I graduated today. Lots of time to think, and I realized I need to focus on making my life something I can look back on and be proud of. It was nice knowing some of you, I don't think I'll be back.

Just now, Slothtastic said:

Well I gotta defend my **** right? Also the reason I made them have that FTB **** is because otherwise they’d just be a re-skinned Cervitaur. Which now they’re quite worse than actually. 

Defend your ideas by addressing their arguments, not their character. And you literally just proved every single argument correct. If the ONLY thing differing Cervitaurs and Satyrs is FTB, I rest my case.

2 minutes ago, Slothtastic said:

You legit just wanted to make a worse version of Cervitaurs. At least they could have magic, but you barely knew jack **** about the Playerbase, came in and just said “I’m rewriting it”. And as I said with Flam, if you’re wanting to say this could’ve been a culture, practically any race on the whole god damned server could’ve been a culture. So honestly, please **** off. 

You ignored every single valid point he brought up and proceeded to make it into a personal attack. As for every race being a culture, that's pretty much not true. Humans and Elves are really identical, but Dwarves and Orcs both offer a host of differences that make them worth being different. And Hedge brought up a really good point regarding the actual Satyr community. This whole  FTB having sex argument is pretty much indicative of the kind of people that would likely use this creature.

No one is criticizing you, just your lore. IDK why you have to get so defensive.

What do you think of Toxic Ex-Staff Member Chon?

Amazing guide, Shamanism is what every Magic should aspire to be. But fr though, font change to white would be a godsend.

39 minutes ago, Slothtastic said:

-snip-

You're missing his point. He's already admitted that there are key errors with Dwarves and Elves, the issue is that we can't do away with/heavily edit the main Descendants at this point now can we? If we could go back in time, yes, changes to better differentiate and create meaningful differences between the races would have been implemented. It is what it is, we can't go back in time sadly. However, we can go forward into the future, and the fact remains that until you provide an addition to this application which will adequately create roleplay in a way that couldn't be replicated by one of the already existing creatures/races, it should stay shelved.

Can never have too many build slaves. +1

TBH, I'm inclined to agree with Templar as well in that Ferals shouldn't be able to practice any Magic. I think that'd do a lot towards dealing with the toxic community as well, as the vast majority of them are Ferals.

9 minutes ago, Total_Xanarchy said:

Saying it does nothing to fix the original problems in the feral lore is completely false. We took the original lore and reworked it to make sure that no ferals could just add abilities that aren't in the lore at all.

Except Feralism wasn't put up for a rewrite due to this reason. TBH, I'd like to see you articulate why you think the lore was put up for a rewrite. I think it'd provide some very interesting insight on the feral community.

9 minutes ago, Total_Xanarchy said:

We do disagree with Starfelt's work, however why is that a bad thing? If the feral community doesn't like the current rewrite being brought together by someone then they have the right to make a submission that goes against it to be submitted to the LT. We were told we could do so and that's what we did.

It's bad because it indicates the general toxic atmosphere and OOC bickering that goes on in the Feral community. I was willing to give Star's rewrite a chance under the assumption that it'd be a concentrated effort by the Feral community to do better. But if you and the rest of your buddies really don't see a problem with the way that Ferals have been roleplayed, then it definitely needs to be shelved.

5 minutes ago, Total_Xanarchy said:

What the LT asked to be changed.

Thanks for the feedback. Though we would really appreciate for you to say what's wrong with it instead of just -1 it. Its only been up for seven minutes and something tells me that you barely skimmed over it.

I genuinely read every single line, skipping the initial lore paragraph. What's wrong? It's incredibly vague, some of the writing intelligible, does nothing to address the previous complaints brought up against the Feral lore which caused them to be put up for a rework, and several other things. This rewrite also stinks of the current Feral crowd disagreeing with Star's work, and creating this so they could continue to roleplay the way they do.

EDIT: Wouldn't be against a soft shelf however, as Sky's comment is on the money.

The things I could say...

Literally a worse version of the rewrite that Starfelt put forth in every way. -1.

10 minutes ago, Sky said:

Overall, the rewrite isn't too bad- However, from the time I've spent away from the ""feral community"", I have noticed one glaring fact. Ferals add nothing unique or interesting to the server, at all. The creatures job/duty and overall feel, can be done (and better) by a handful of other creatures.

While literally no one appreciates this message as much as I do, I still think Ferals have some potential. I'll agree that pretty much everyone I've seen in the Feral community barring one or two exceptions are awful, but I think that this rewrite does have some merit and I'd like to give them a chance. If they still manage to mess it up, then shelf the damned thing.

I haven't known Lark for very long, but he seems capable and willing to actually communicate with the community. +1 for me, why not.

3 minutes ago, Starfelt said:

The community of current ferals is highly against PK systems,

I bet.

Pretty damn good rewrite actually, I'm impressed. I wasn't sure how you guys were going to fix Ferals but I'd say this rewrite addresses all the issues from before. I just hope that the players roleplay it well now. I only have one minor issue, why include the Wolfs Bane potion? Feralism is supposed to be a curse, which means the bad with the good. I feel like the potion is just a really convenient dues ex machina to getting out of situations where feralism would actually be really interesting. That's my major gripe with it, there is no reason to have that potion except for people that want a get out of jail free card of having to deal with their curse.

Overall, +1.

Sucks at building but good at roleplay. +1

https://www.politiscales.net/en_US/results/?t1=38&t0=31&c1=81&c0=7&b0=31&b1=48&s1=33&s0=36&p1=50&p0=14&e0=19&e1=21&j1=40&j0=21&m0=29&m1=38&prag=67&reli=67&comp=67

He can't roleplay but he can definitely build. +1

First. Eat that GM's.

The hero we needed, but didn't deserve...

Excellent choice, I'm pretty hyped about this actually. We might start to see some of the changes this server needs to be great again. IDK who did this, but massive +1 to them.

-1. From what I've seen of his OOC conduct and roleplay, both in person and through screenshots, I think he's far too sensitive for the job. I don't think he'd be able to adequately handle the nuances that come with being a forum moderator.

I don't know why this thread was made when we had a thread detailing all the problems with Holy Magic already. But alright, w/e, we can do this song and dance again. First off, no one is saying that Holy Healing expressly is a bad thing. I'm not against Holy Healing in principle, but I am against the way it has been implemented; and this is the majority of people that have a problem with the current magic.

1 hour ago, Snelfma said:

Healing magic isn’t a bad thing in of itself to have in fantasy. Why? It’s fantasy you come for fantasy and not real world practices, even the more mundane healing has some sort of spin in fantasy that makes the ordinary become extraordinary. Not to mention most people don’t know their tibia from your fibula much less the nuances of medical practice, so ‘magic’ is often a good way to avoid accidentally becoming a doctor and still have some good writing to explain how injuries are dealt with.

Basic anatomy =/= Nuances of medical practice.

1 hour ago, Snelfma said:

  Now, onto the arguments lotc is presenting for the most part: healing magic takes away consequences and provides bad roleplay. For the most part I genuinely floored that these two arguments are being made when the more famous healers on the server are either a.) people actually working in the medical field writing as their knowledge allows in terms of magic or b.) people who don’t understand jack about anatomy but make it up for by making their magic have flair. I honestly do not know where the “bad rp” part comes in until you look at the person being healed and not the magic or magic users themselves, which is something all rp healers discuss in ooc. So you can rest well knowing that we too bemoan about how people come to us after making some stupid decision, demanded to be healed, and then go away without so much as a thank you. Not our fault other people refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their actions.

This post here goes to show how out of touch you are with the rest of the servers roleplay experience. We get it, you're a healer and you see everything through this lense. The fact remains that the sheer amount of bad Holy Healers and the amount of people that use Holy Healing as an excuse to avoid all consequences is ridiculous. If you see the guy who gravely insulted your honor just walking around the city streets after you cut his sword arm off, how is your character supposed to react? This is fundamentally bad roleplay, and I don't understand how anyone can say it isn't. And even if you guys aren't intentionally taking away consequences, it doesn't change the fact that Holy Healing does.

1 hour ago, Snelfma said:

However, I do think healing magic could be changed so it provides rp, but not by nerfing it all.

The Holy Healer doesn't want their Magic nerfed. Right. You make the argument that Holy Healing is important so people can do healing without having to know too much about being a doctor, but then proceed to ask for Holy Healing to be much power powerful than a simple doctor. Sorry but it seems like there are some contradictions here.

1 hour ago, Snelfma said:

I actually believe that the cap for what can be healed (regenerating limbs, restoring blindness, or injuries that cannot all be healed at once by a tier 5) needs to be removed and replaced with the stipulation that the injury can be healed in three-five sessions depending on the amount that needs to be healed AND all the sessions need to be conducted with the same healer. This means that that person who desires to be healed must form a relationship with the healer, which in my mind would be far more interesting in terms of handling egregious wounds and healing rp in general. As for the lesser injuries, I actually enjoy the idea of the person being healed having to pray with the healer and/or not deny aenguls or the specific aengul of the healer.

Except we already addressed this in the previous healing thread, and you just ignored it. How in gods name are we going to monitor a system like this? It's impossible, and entirely arbitrary. I wouldn't be fully against a suggestion like this if it wasn't for the fact that it'd be impossible to implement it properly.

1 hour ago, Snelfma said:

So! A town gets raided by the likes of Oren. The raiders decide they are going to cut off everyone's right hand just because they can. Is it stupid that a populace that gets ganked will suddenly get ganked by a group that will always have the larger number by sheer virtue of people preferring to start off with human characters? 

That sounds like amazing Roleplay. Shame it'd be ruined by Holy Healing regrowing **** tbh.

45 minutes ago, GildedDuke said:

One does not simply regrow their limbs though through Holy Magic. For example, Ascended can't heal the stump of someone's arm, and regardless if we did when it's in an early stage, we would simply transmat a mortal wound which would easily kill us. Losing a limb is both a traumatising and painful experience, coupled with extensive blood-loss and sensitivity. Something often misinterpreted is that Holy Magic can heal even the most extensive wounds. It can't, it has limits and ultimately there are things which healing cannot undo.

Except the current lore does nothing to properly express these limitations besides a few minor lines. I've seen Ascended replace hands, fingers, eyes, ears, even some limbs. Rework the Lore to be clearer and less able to be powergamed, and we won't have a problem with it; but at the moment it's in horrible shape.

43 minutes ago, Snelfma said:

Still, the argument you're using would mean the runed limbs are just avoiding consequences. I'll use another example then, with the same rp (finding someone+using whatever heal thingy they bear) is a regeneration potion avoiding consequences? Yes, you do have to kill someone for it, but you also have to find a holy mage to heal you for the sessions I recommended.

Alchemy is also avoiding the consequences, yes. Replace a limb, don't just grow it back like nothing happened.

TL;DR: No one is necessarily arguing against Holy Healing, just the horrid way it's implemented atm. You want to fix Holy Healing? Remove all combat applications, and limit its overall power by SPECIFIC redlines and guidelines in the actual Lore.

5 hours ago, Lark said:

You are correct that people want to roleplay within their own clique, it's a server...of roleplayers. People will gravitate towards those they want to roleplay with. Birds of a feather flock together, etc etc.

No one is suggesting otherwise. The problem comes in when all roleplay done from people outside this group is looked down up and somehow deemed less valid and acceptable.

5 hours ago, Lark said:

You're right, people do want the convenience of Monks healing them, and it is bs for some people, but like...okay? We've been around for 7-8 years, at this point most people have gotten used to it/put up with it.

Clearly that's not true. Look at all the recent posts and protests on the Ascended and Holy Healing thread. Also, saying we're used to it is a **** argument that doesn't address the pros or cons of the new proposal in comparison to the current system.

5 hours ago, Lark said:

I mean, when I got my ******* finger cut off by the flays @Jakesimonson, they cut off my middle finger for i don't remember. But I thought it was good rp at the time and chose to keep the injury. I didn't have it healed by monks, (also they tossed it in the water, so i was **** out of luck anyways) and it became a vital marking of Lark Steelwall.

A story that perfectly explains the benefits of not using the horrible Monk's fix everything system.

5 hours ago, Lark said:

The ability for people to pick and choose what happens to them...is kinda bad, but also kinda good. Why? If **** happens, and it will--people can just kinda slide on by and move on with their lives. Dragging **** out with a ban report only causes more drama and sometimes it doesn't change anything at all. Congrats you got someone banned, did they learn from it? Sometimes. 

You basically said it's good because people are used to it, and it's bad because the person bad won't always accept that they were in the wrong. Sure it's lengthy, but even if no one bothers to report them, we'll just be back at square one and it'll be like nothing ever happened. All of these things are minor issues that would represent the minority of cases, instead of being outright cons to implementing a new system. There will always be ways to skirt the edge of the rules, doesn't mean we're not going to implement something that is genuinely good for the server.

3 hours ago, Snoop said:

The only way to ever actually interact with anyone involved in magic is to be involved in their OOC skype/discord circle. Same way for anyone to get taken as a student for any type of magic. This is why magic users seclude themselves from a majority of the server, because if it isn't done their way then they won't interact with you.

Someone that doesn't want to interact with Magic users is complaining about groups not wanting to interact with others. This statement is also just false. Go get injured in the Dominion, or anywhere else active. Healers will throw themselves at you.

3 hours ago, Snoop said:

Meaning if you want a quick heal badly because you were attacked and mutilated by bandits the day before and have an important RP you have to do that day your screwed because that mage is too busy RPing with their friend circle or already has a group of friends lined up to heal first via paragraph RP.

It's called dynamic roleplay? Show up to the event mutilated, it'll lead to more roleplay. This is the same as someone not wanting a rule that will promote roleplay to be passed out of convience. Similar arguments were made for fast travel, though we all eventually realized how **** a suggestion it was.

9 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

if you didn't agree with certain RP mutilating your character.

What does this mean? Were they powergaming? Were they metagaming? If so, report them. If they weren't, how can you not agree with roleplay? This is one of many things that go towards proving my point. A vast majority of people that don't support things like this only want to roleplay within their own clique and have no interest in interacting with other people on the server, unless it goes exactly their way.

11 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

Having to find a healer is a poor, and annoying, replacement. Certain holy groups are inactive or they'd rather RP in their house with one another than RP with others. I've had cases of letters requesting help outright ignored by individuals. Not to mention the Monks didn't try to harm you if you were different.

Heaven forbid people have to...dare I say? Roleplay on a roleplay server. Your argument can be boiled down to, "It's more convenient to say the Monks healed me, so keep it in place."

13 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

Not to mention how would this even be enforced? 

We gonna start reporting and banning people over what physical state their character is in? 

It's bad enough that people who don't want to PK in a situation are already shamed and targeted until they do PK (the ridiculous calling someone 'undead' just because they were revived by the monks). 

Yes, we should start reporting and banning people who essentially powergame injuries and acting as if nothing happened. As for your complaint regarding calling someone Undead, I'm not sure what you want people to do IC? If I killed someone the other day for doing X in a city, and then the very next day I see them in said city trying to do something, OFC I'm going to assume they're Undead. And often times, these people you kill will continue trying to roleplay with you, completely negating any of the conflict that happened earlier.

15 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

This server has an annoying amount of people who happily mutilate and/or kill without a second thought.

Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe because there are no consequences to mutilating or killing someone? Why shouldn't my character kill someone if he knows they'll come back to life? Can you give me a reason?

15 minutes ago, Aelsioln said:

An amendment like this also doesn't account for the amount of people that will attack the character of someone they OOCly don't like for no real IC reason.

This would be against the rules, and if it happened, report it. You're against arguments that put down X Magic because people powergame it right? I've seen you tell people to report the person doing something like this instead of getting rid of the whole system. That same argument applies to this right now. Just because one or two people might try and abuse this rule doesn't mean the entire rule should be removed. This is literally what 501Warhead did with the capture rules, and you also said that it was a poor change.

13 minutes ago, Lark said:

Thats fair, but what if it doesn't stop it?

Stop what? The issue regarding a lack of Roleplay continuity and seeing someone you killed walking around the next day? Regardless of whether or not it'll completely solve the issue, it will remove the excuse of "The Monks" and lower the amount of times it occurs. There is no downside to implementing something like this, so any benefit we get, is worth putting this amendment into place. If it doesn't do the job admirably enough, we'll re approach the issue and see what other steps we can take.