IsaaKc

what has it been like to go almost 7 years without any sexual activity?

Good catch. I'll be sure to adjust that. Thank you!

Current lore: Water makes wet whatever it touches, even after it vanishes back into the Void. Not unlike fire evocation, once it is soaked into something, it will not simply vanish back into the Void. If not soaked in, however, it will simply vanish. Proposed amendment: Water makes wet whatever it touches and may absorb into surfaces. However, should the Water Evocationist lose line of sight or disconnect, the remaining water found absorbed and on wet surfaces will vanish back into the Void. Purpose Prior to Pundimonium's Lore Games Era Evocation rewrites, the proposed amendment is the logic that Water Evocation lore previously abided by. The only Magic that followed the logic found within the current lore prior to Pundimonium's rewrite is Fire Evocation, which simply makes sense considering fire is something that spreads assuming adequate surfaces allow it to. However, water does not spread like fire does and occupies an unchanging amount of space. The current lore opens up confusion and loopholes as to whether or not water that has "soaked in" may be consumed/provide nutritional benefit, as well as if it can facilitate biological processes such as water carrying nutrients into a plant once it soaks into soil. Furthermore, the notion that Evocation spells can become apart of the natural world by merely making contact with it challenges years of precedent regarding Voidal spells being temporary. The proposed amendment would eliminate this loophole and simplify the lore by adhering to what was the widely used logic before the Lore Games. Citations

ITS MORBIN TIME

The idea of combining evocations/spells in ways that make something entirely different and new hasn’t ever been possible. I understand the intention, this shouldn’t be possible for the same reason that a Mage can’t cast both fire and earth simultaneously to make lava.

I'm really disappointed that this is what people wanna add to an already very versatile and quirky Magic that can promote a lot of roleplay. The point of Brisk Step is that its inefficient mana-wise and is best used once or twice in a scenario. This just opens the door for more confusing CRP and gives LT further reason to cripple Voidal Magic even further. Who hurt you, Salty? If a Mage uses it a bunch consecutively and don't emote exhaustion, they're powergaming. There's literally ratios in my lore that can be used as a guide. Yeah it's technically a "powerful" spell, but it's no different than a 15yo human squeezing out a sentence long *dodges emote. If you spam it, you use all your mana.

dude who the hell made this feedback what i didn't know housemagery had a monopoly on the complex and elite concept of moving objects out of combat for flavor this is even funnier once you realize that housemagery was adapted from noncombative domestic voidal magic. any of the housemagery spells that were adapted from domestic voidal magic should be easily possible in the hands of any mage. to the LT that wrote this, as the author of the currently accepted tfig lore, this was 100% the intention of that red line. i only put a limit on the weight as to further emphasize on the spell being noncombative (e.g. so you can't throw around swords and the like) whoever wrote this feedback clearly had to come up w/ some sort of reason to vote a N strictly because they don't like voidal amendments or clarifications like yeah dude i hate Jenny's MArts too but man, its too funny that this was used as an actual reason for denial

An unaccompanied 'ame wonders why Magi have such an obsession with forming and joining "guilds."

me when trickster magic

im gonna pull all my toe nails off after seeing people equate this feat to venom. y’all didn’t read the lore. edit: overall I support this write, but I think there’s a lot of trimming that could be done, plus some thematic change to make it all fit well together w/ current voidal lore. I hope the LT won’t deny this strictly because of that, since all the potential issues I see in this are easily fixed

An argument that I often see in lore is: "why are you complaining? it's harmless!" I'm not saying that this is the argument you're perpetuating, because that's not entirely the case, but I thought that this thread was a relevant place to bring it up. Although harmless additions are harmless additions, I think it's important to keep a sense of core concept and unchangeable "red-lines" in mind when writing anything that expands on a magic/existing lore piece. An example of this is how the current Aura lore that @Sybbyl0127wrote allows for multi-color auras. Yes, it's "harmless," but it compromises several years of precedent. The "appeal to tradition" argument isn't always valid, but breaking these established rules isn't good for long term world building, even if the change is "harmless." The rule broken in this submission is obviously the fact that spells cannot remain unattended by a Mage unless means of Transfiguration or Obelisks are used—both of which are not present in this lore. This sort of thing is also already possible with a MArt submission too. Not throwing any shade, and I apologize if I come off as abrasive, but I wanted to use this as a plug to express that a harmless addition isn't inherently good just because it's "harmless."

i think you misunderstood the flavor text, as he said. there isn't any powercreep intention in this post as far as i can see. that being said i disagree w/ the lore thematically since the material alphabet crosses into alchemy too much, and i think its best if the aesthetics within this lore are just left as options under current aura lore vs. canonized via acceptance.

so the tl;dr of your comment is "make abjuration actually useful." that's an awesome idea. unfortunately the LT think that making the counter-spell magic actually practical in combat is the most evil and appalling idea ever. feedback noted.

can't wait for LT to deny this one for the same arbitrary reasons

Myself and too many people I know have been victim to losing their weapons due to the guard logging off. There really isn't any harm in this because I don't think people actually break the whole clause. It's just a nonissue in my opinion. Sad gorilla tbh

It's a pretty straightforward function. I think it makes sense to have a way to remove Voidal Taint, but it should have uses beyond closing tears and the like. I'm not a fan of lore being drafted strictly to counter something with no further use or practicality.

>people emoting fatigue in melee combat energy potion is literally no different than ye old mana potion. neither should be allowed considering that they're just bland, undefined power boosts.

Well, there is. It's called Warding and Abjuration, and it's built into Transfiguration. However, current Warding/Abjuration is pretty much purely ornamental since the Lore Team made sure to remove it of any practicality back when I was getting Transfiguration passed for lore games. I brainstormed a few times with a standalone 1-slot Voidal Magic that had some dynamicity to it, but never got anything onto paper. This probably won't pass considering that there's a lot of issues with the mechanics in its own, but I won't state any of them because they'll get burned into your cerebral cortex when the Lore Team sends you your feedback. It's neat to see that someone had a similar idea to mine, even though, quite paradoxically, it's nothing like what I had in mind.

i really don't understand the obsession w/ submitting this, this is like the 3rd time i've seen a holocron post. you can already do this within current accepted lore.

There’s plenty you can do with voidal magic right now that doesn’t necessitate a CA. All of Squak’s feats and world lore have allowed a wide range of leeway for MArt creation; within current voidal magic lore, you can do some really crazy ****. Adding more fuel to the fire doesn’t make an uncreative community suddenly creative. The tools are there, more people just have to catch on. You also drastically misunderstood me and Johann’s vision of what we wanted a CA to be. What we were writing at one point had only a couple similarities to original “archons” and were otherwise 100% conceptually different. I’ve got like 3 Google docs I can send you to prove this. Your proposition here is stronger than anything Johann and I ever created. Passive connection, immunity to fire and sharp weapons, increased speed, the ability to “learn more magic” as is described in the last few paragraphs. You claim to have written a CA that emphasizes the detriment of the Void, yet what you’ve made is unironically just as strong as Phil’s archons.

no more archonposting. im 99% sure this is a joke but voidal CAs are harmful to the voidal magic community. I would know

“I’m not a fan of identity politics, sorry,” commented Lhindir.

where’s the CA endgame that gives you an extra magic slot

cool and good