The Beacon

Daskalos

I play it ilke this:

 

Light is Light. It is neither good, nor evil, it just is. It can be both. It's sole purpose is to destroy Undeath. You can play it in a more evil fashion (destroy them all, burn a village to kill one) or in a more good fashion (convert them, help with the cure, et cetera) or something in between. I've played it both ways, and both ways are fun.  The problem begins when those who play 'Good Good' start deciding that the 'Light Evil' is a plague and should be eliminated, and that's honestly the problem with Enorian as a whole.

You've got too many people trying to tell other people how to do their jobs and play their role, instead of focusing on the similarities. Then they ragequit and you lose the strength and diversity of thought and spirit.

Raeche

I reckon what Daingean is getting at though is that Syssin Lighters are against Light, not so much that they are evil. Artifice = Shadow = Anti-light. So he would have no qualms with a "SMASH ALL UNDEAD" style of playing, but would be perturbed by people using phase, cloak, illusions, etc.

Though just as a point of interest,  I/Raeche once attacked Daingean on the basis that telepathy involves fooling your victim into thinking he has afflictions, to the point that your victim actually gets them. Daingean said it physically changes their mind, not just tricks them. And then I said it's telepathy, not telekinesis - everything is in the mind, not the brain; psychological, not physiological. So.. I actually would like to have that question answered one day.

Puts a bit of strain on the philosophy/lore side of the game, which I think is a nice dimension to test boundaries.

Nola

I think a part of that is that while the stance and mindset of the people in Enorian changed, the skills did not, from an older point in time, where things weren't so hardlined and constrictive, or when killing an entire village for one vampire wasn't considered a bad thing. 

An evolution of the direction and majority of beliefs, but without the ability to change your abilities to reflect that, stuck with old tools that had questionable uses to them.

Zun

Without question, the idea of altering Aetolia's mechanics to align with emerging roleplay is an important one to consider. I'm not going to wade into an Enorian debate - but if there is a substantial and justified incongruity, between an organization's ideals and the abilities that reflect those ideals, then a change should be considered.

Personally? I find the concept of fresh game design emerging from the actions of players far more compelling. Is a suitable alternative to hardball Enorian back to its original state (still not commenting that this isn't the case)? Absolutely.

Daingean

Daskalos said:

I play it ilke this:

 

Light is Light. It is neither good, nor evil, it just is. It can be both. It's sole purpose is to destroy Undeath. You can play it in a more evil fashion (destroy them all, burn a village to kill one) or in a more good fashion (convert them, help with the cure, et cetera) or something in between. I've played it both ways, and both ways are fun.  The problem begins when those who play 'Good Good' start deciding that the 'Light Evil' is a plague and should be eliminated, and that's honestly the problem with Enorian as a whole.

Green is how Dain sees it, sort of.

Orange is -not- how Dain sees it. That's a facet of the Light, as he defines it. Saying that light exists to destroy undeath is like saying shadow exists just to make more undead. That's way too narrow.

Yellow is a question mark. Who in the [great drawers of Damariel] sees it that way? 

 Obviously, I'm never ever going to say that a more zealot  and less paladin approach to the Light should be termed as some sort of 'evil' light, or 'dark' light. The Daru -are- pretty big on purity, which tends to translate into a matter of means where the Daru are concerned - meaning that the old way of burning down a whole village wouldn't be done if there were alternative means to be pursued. Does that mean that Dain wouldn't do it, if he felt that the cost of innocent lives was outweighed by the damage to his foes? Not at all. But the village vs one vampire scenario wouldn't fly anymore.

 The idea that bloodloch is evil and enorian is good is.. well, narrow and boring. The Light isn't good, just like Shadow isn't in and of itself evil. Dain sees them as two sides of the same coin - they ultimately want the same thing, if you shove the details to the side. They want to win. Which means that it comes down to means, for Dain. The Daru encourage members to seek strength, physically and otherwise. Ivoln defines undeath as, among other things, a way to strengthen the weakened mortal form. So two great enemies are both seeking strength. Does that mean that the concept of seeking strength is either light or shadow? No - but unquestionably, the means employed in seeking that strength can be defined as such.

Camille said:

I like Daingean's take on the subject and can see where he's coming from. The Syssin might not be directly drawing on Severn's power, but the skills were originally taught by Severn, which doesn't sit right with our friend Dain here.

100%. I want a spirit side syssin class, just like atabahi/bahkatu and sciomancer/ascendril. Even if it's -only- different insofar as aesthetics, it'd make all the difference in the world.

Raeche said:

I reckon what Daingean is getting at though is that Syssin Lighters are against Light, not so much that they are evil. Artifice = Shadow = Anti-light. So he would have no qualms with a "SMASH ALL UNDEAD" style of playing, but would be perturbed by people using phase, cloak, illusions, etc.

Though just as a point of interest,  I/Raeche once attacked Daingean on the basis that telepathy involves fooling your victim into thinking he has afflictions, to the point that your victim actually gets them. Daingean said it physically changes their mind, not just tricks them. And then I said it's telepathy, not telekinesis - everything is in the mind, not the brain; psychological, not physiological. So.. I actually would like to have that question answered one day.

With regards to point one - this summarizes Dain pretty well. Specifically, they're against his definition of the Light, as influenced by him being a Daru and seeing things through Zealot colored glasses.

With regards to point two - There's only so much room for the general philosophy of his life to fit into legacy mechanics. The comparison between telepathy and hypnosis isn't inaccurate - but obviously, he'd never see it that way. Ideally? I'd lose telepathy and get a skill that didn't force me to find some sort of explanation that basically equates to 'we re-wired them, it's not a fake thing anymore.' but, well.. legacy skills, not quite legacy opinions. Dain is completely against the mentality of 'bad things are okay if -I'm- doing them' so he'd -have- to define telepathy as something other than a sort of hypnotic effect.

Raeche

Daingean said:

Daskalos said:

I play it ilke this:

 

Light is Light. It is neither good, nor evil, it just is. It can be both. It's sole purpose is to destroy Undeath. You can play it in a more evil fashion (destroy them all, burn a village to kill one) or in a more good fashion (convert them, help with the cure, et cetera) or something in between. I've played it both ways, and both ways are fun.  The problem begins when those who play 'Good Good' start deciding that the 'Light Evil' is a plague and should be eliminated, and that's honestly the problem with Enorian as a whole.

Green is how Dain sees it, sort of.

Orange is -not- how Dain sees it. That's a facet of the Light, as he defines it. Saying that light exists to destroy undeath is like saying shadow exists just to make more undead. That's way too narrow.

Yellow is a question mark. Who in the [great drawers of Damariel] sees it that way? 

 Obviously, I'm never ever going to say that a more zealot  and less paladin approach to the Light should be termed as some sort of 'evil' light, or 'dark' light. The Daru -are- pretty big on purity, which tends to translate into a matter of means where the Daru are concerned - meaning that the old way of burning down a whole village wouldn't be done if there were alternative means to be pursued. Does that mean that Dain wouldn't do it, if he felt that the cost of innocent lives was outweighed by the damage to his foes? Not at all. But the village vs one vampire scenario wouldn't fly anymore.

 The idea that bloodloch is evil and enorian is good is.. well, narrow and boring. The Light isn't good, just like Shadow isn't in and of itself evil. Dain sees them as two sides of the same coin - they ultimately want the same thing, if you shove the details to the side. They want to win. Which means that it comes down to means, for Dain. The Daru encourage members to seek strength, physically and otherwise. Ivoln defines undeath as, among other things, a way to strengthen the weakened mortal form. So two great enemies are both seeking strength. Does that mean that the concept of seeking strength is either light or shadow? No - but unquestionably, the means employed in seeking that strength can be defined as such.

Camille said:

I like Daingean's take on the subject and can see where he's coming from. The Syssin might not be directly drawing on Severn's power, but the skills were originally taught by Severn, which doesn't sit right with our friend Dain here.

100%. I want a spirit side syssin class, just like atabahi/bahkatu and sciomancer/ascendril. Even if it's -only- different insofar as aesthetics, it'd make all the difference in the world.

Raeche said:

I reckon what Daingean is getting at though is that Syssin Lighters are against Light, not so much that they are evil. Artifice = Shadow = Anti-light. So he would have no qualms with a "SMASH ALL UNDEAD" style of playing, but would be perturbed by people using phase, cloak, illusions, etc.

Though just as a point of interest,  I/Raeche once attacked Daingean on the basis that telepathy involves fooling your victim into thinking he has afflictions, to the point that your victim actually gets them. Daingean said it physically changes their mind, not just tricks them. And then I said it's telepathy, not telekinesis - everything is in the mind, not the brain; psychological, not physiological. So.. I actually would like to have that question answered one day.

With regards to point one - this summarizes Dain pretty well. Specifically, they're against his definition of the Light, as influenced by him being a Daru and seeing things through Zealot colored glasses.

With regards to point two - There's only so much room for the general philosophy of his life to fit into legacy mechanics. The comparison between telepathy and hypnosis isn't inaccurate - but obviously, he'd never see it that way. Ideally? I'd lose telepathy and get a skill that didn't force me to find some sort of explanation that basically equates to 'we re-wired them, it's not a fake thing anymore.' but, well.. legacy skills, not quite legacy opinions. Dain is completely against the mentality of 'bad things are okay if -I'm- doing them' so he'd -have- to define telepathy as something other than a sort of hypnotic effect.

And that is exactly a characteristic of a zealot. Someone who ignores reality in favour of an interpretation that suits himself. I think you played it right there. Would have done the exact same.

Haven

Daskalos said:

I play it ilke this:

 Light is Light. It is neither good, nor evil, it just is. It can be both. It's sole purpose is to destroy Undeath. You can play it in a more evil fashion (destroy them all, burn a village to kill one) or in a more good fashion (convert them, help with the cure, et cetera) or something in between. I've played it both ways, and both ways are fun.  The problem begins when those who play 'Good Good' start deciding that the 'Light Evil' is a plague and should be eliminated, and that's honestly the problem with Enorian as a whole.

You've got too many people trying to tell other people how to do their jobs and play their role, instead of focusing on the similarities. Then they ragequit and you lose the strength and diversity of thought and spirit.

I disagree there. Assuming the problem we're talking about is the city's functionality (particularly the meltdowns), the problem doesn't begin with any particular one side doing <x>. Each interpretation of the Light is correct from a role-playing/player standpoint because of the simple fact that in this game the Light is literally open to interpretation. It means different things to different people because among other things, they each have their own experiences with it. You can flip it to mean just about anything with the right details and if you manage to get support for it then more power to you.

However, I'd say the problems truly begin when a resolution to any given conflict within the city isn't reached, temporary or otherwise. Whether it is because either side refuses to interact/work together any more or people being indecisive or the issue gets swept under the rug, the prolonged conflict essentially spoils and spreads into other things (especially the unrelated things! Funny how that works.). Then you end up just having a gridlock everywhere and nothing gets done because people don't/can't move on.

But that's a problem that occurs within any given organization both in the game and the real world. Luckily, this is a game and we have the means to safely try out our different ideas and try to have fun reaching these resolutions like when the 'Good good' regime tries their hand for power to take the city in a different direction than where 'Evil Light' is taking it by eliminating 'Evil Light'. That's not a problem, that's them playing the political part of the game as it's intended.