BonesOfTheEarth

I am honestly astounded that so many people are picking that holy mages should have 100% free reign. That’s a shock.

@Aethling My thoughts on that are simple. If someone is being toxic, that is not the fault of the lore. It’s the fault of the player. Server rules exist to stop instances like this. If I’m metagaming/doxxing/harassing dark mages OOCly as a Paladin, Paladin lore doesn’t deserve to get scolded for that. It’s out of character. It’s me. The correct course of action is to ban me. @ScreamingDingo I agree 100%. I like to think that this in particular doesn’t apply to the Paladins, though I’m a terrible self-judge. I wrote it without reading through our rival lores, but at the same time speaking to their lore-writers to discover how our interactions would be made. I believe @TheAlphaMoist and @Luv can attest for that. I’ve found a good enough system just to be, as mentioned in the post, to work with your enemies in the creation of the lore. I specifically mark this as the task of the “Holy” group, as they’re the ones who would be the aggressors. It is a slight annoyance to me however, that more often than not, “Dark” magics will write in holy as a weakness without specifically dictating which groups, or why or how. Even if it makes sense – like previous azdrazi writing that paladinism hurt them more than it did others, or shades writing in that contact with holy magic burned at their spells – it is still a laborious process on our end to do the research on that. @SquakHawk Boy oh boy. This one gets a bit into my own personal feelings on the matter. Imo, if something is not inherently dark, then do not label it “[Dark]” when writing the lore. Blood magic has always been a more neutral magic, I agree. But things like shades, where at any point you can have a take-over and lose control? Even if your character picks flowers and builds huts for the homeless and hates violence, that is still a danger. That’s how I determine dark; Is it dangerous, or does it require death to progress? Mystics count as this; Most of their creations required killing, and wights required 5-15 depending on if they were PK’s or not. Frost witches as well, requiring to feast on male flesh to exist. I feel this is a fair judge to determine dark or not. Don’t just label it dark because it has a theme of low hoods and black cloaks(Blood magic). Continuing with you, Squak. “Evil.” Yes. Holy mages should definitely exist with the purpose of destroying evil. Evil, however, should be defined. This is a case-by-case scenario, tying into my in-post comment on working with opposition. And to tie up your last point, I 100% agree as well that it should not be a predator-hunter scenario. I’ve made active efforts already to make interactions and conflicts with shades, paladins, and fw’s during their return relatively enjoyable on all ends.

I am genuinely curious on what the collective agreement is on “Light vs. Dark” conflict. The LT have taken the stance that Holy users should not specifically label dark magics/creatures such as shades and naztheraks their enemies. I don’t understand why. As I see it, the point of being HOLY is being good, and the point of being DARK is being bad. Good guys attack bad guys, bad guys attack good guys. I’ll say, I’m all for the magics themselves not dealing explicitly “More” damage to a fair number of dark entities, as it creates a “Good always beats bad” scenario rather than a dynamic where the bad can win. But that change has already been made. Why should playerbases be forced to tolerate the existence of such entities, on punishment of disconnection from their gods should they deny that? When you make a dark magic MA, you are agreeing to be dark. It’s a relative given that people will hunt you for that. Granted, this kind of conflict should follow the rest of the server rules and not be toxic or volatile, but that’s an issue that shouldn’t be dealt with by placing ridiculous restrictions on holy mages. Given if any hurt an innocent they risk disconnection, forcing us to view dark entities as “innocent” forces us to ignore them, and that ends with large amounts of people complaining that we dont do our job. I don’t really know the dark-mage side of this as well, but the few I’ve spoken to with the exception of two have all agreed that this kind of rule is lame. I’d argue that, in the “good faith” clause the server is going, this should be entirely up to two player-bases interacting. When writing lore, discuss with your opposition. State your stances, then compromise. If one can’t be met, either drop it or have the LT involve themselves. Anyways, I could write pages on my thoughts. But one person’s thoughts don’t matter. What matters is statistics. Take your votes! We got a poll!

I could dig but I dont care enough to search through the forums. I’ll take my L if others say it’s wrong. That’s how I learned her but I never got super indepth with it.

Lmao oof MeteorCringe

She never did anything but she was “allied” with him yes.

Let’s not forget that Metztli was Iblees’ friend

I cant tell who you’re mocking but good work I chuckled

There was a reason that you just elected to ignore, found in my most recent reply as well as a few of Zyth’s. I hand you my monocle sir, to search for the reasons why.

Why is there a need to get that far into detail? Why overexplain something that’s simple? The magic is for those of good nature who follow order, and give their focus entirely to the void. Dark mages don’t fall into this category. The general argument that “Spooks need to be treated like everybody else” is generally dumb and your replies seem to fall under that twisted line of thinking, unless I pull out a monocle and become an english teacher picking apart your replies. Your replies are geared towards allowing the lines of other magics to be the judge on if they can learn celestialism as well. Would you argue that shades get to decide if their magic is compatible with paladin magic? The magic requires a heavy focus on itself, on both the mind and soul. You’re nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, let them do their thing. Any magic can claim what they are and are not compatible with. They’ve given a reason, just accept it instead of demanding more than is necessary.

You can’t logically opt to play a dark mage and then cry that you’re not included in good-based things.

Frick! I was waiting to outbid at the last second, my dumbass forgot

*****

“What are the paladins, chopped liver?”

2000