Tarquinus

I can see the need for a single authority in the lands, as Muratus has defined it, and also the benefit. I am honoured to be nominated, but I have this to say: my interest is for the benefit of Loreroot as a whole. I will support my friends Firsanthalas and Princ Rhaegar, or any other, so long as the candidate in question has clear support from the general body of Lorerootians. I do not wish to see us divided on this issue or any other. May Loreroot prosper!

As many of you know, my primary alt (I have one other) is Keith Moon, who does have an account on the forum. I rarely use him to post here, but may do so soon, with reference to Legend-Speaker-related matters. I do not *think* I have ever used keith's forum account to vote in polls or to affect the reputations of forum posters: at any rate, if I ever did, I certainly shan't do it again, because I can see the obnoxiousness and potential for abuse in such practices. [b]Edit:[/b] [i]If the Keith Moon forum account needs to be removed, I have no problem with that.[/i]

Thank you. That is a workable definition of kingship. Ironically, we do not, in the main, disagree. I felt it necessary to call you to account for historical references, which I think have little place in MagicDuel, because your voice, whether you realise it or not, is loud and influential. I can see my error in conflating your English-monarchy reference to the rest of your post. I refer to the KO merely as the pre-eminent researchers and, to my knowledge, the only sanctioned scholars in this realm. I have long wanted to know more about the gods of MagicDuel, and my search has turned a moebius twist on itself, leading me to conclude, as I have in "real life", that there are no gods at all. Referring to your membership in the Order seems like a cheap shot, reading it over, and I apologise.

[quote name='awiiya' date='30 September 2009 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1254339422' post='43268'] What definition of King are you using? In England, which is the most classic example of Kings, the King was the military leader, at the back of the army but always fighting. In fact, sometimes entire battles would be settled by a King and his challenger fighting. ...But this whole dethroning business... it seems to me in a bitter spirit. People are throwing accusations that Yrthilian overstepped his boundaries. Did he really? Or did everyone just not realize what the title "King" means? ...But in the spirit of the Kingship, and what that means, I think Yrthilian is perfectly in his power. King's powers derive from the Gods, not from his subjects, at least that is the way it was set up in the past. You dare question someone who is appointed by God(s)? In short, Yrthilian's power should not end because he angered his subjects, and they hold a silly vote. No! It should end when there is a coup, a show of military strength that Yrthilian is NOT the strongest person in the world, and NOT appointed by God. But I'm not involved in this, so this is only an opinion. I am a member of Golemus now, true, but my pursuits don't change based on Kings.[/quote] I agree with you that a military coup is more appropriate (and realistic, for whatever that means in the context of Fantasy) than a vote in terms of resolving the issue of deposing Yrthilian. But there is a lot of specious reasoning and what I can only call error in your post. If England provides the "most classic example of Kings", then you of course realize that the doctrine of the divine right of kingship is only about 400 years old in England and has obviously faded in modern times, whereas the tradition of English monarchs is far older. How and why you pass over ancient, Asian concepts such as the Mandate of Heaven, which would admirably support your arguments, though not in a European/Western context, I do not understand. If Yrthilian is king by the mandate of the gods of MagicDuel, then you, as a member of the Kelle'tha Order, will of course be ready to instruct us who the gods of MagicDuel are... unless you mean Muratus and none other. If you do, then I must answer that Muratus has shown himself to be receptive to popular opinions [u]if[/u] such opinions are well-founded. If you do not, you are merely speculating. We can point to godlike powers who anointed Khalazdad; as an open question to which I honestly do not know the answer, which being or beings anointed Yrthilian? You use the phrases "what the title 'King' means" and "the spirit of the Kingship" as though there were definitive, unassailable meanings of such things. There are not. The meaning and practice of kingship on Earth has been as diverse as the means of communicating ideas with words. I have reason to think in one culture, the king was a symbolic embodiment of the passage of the year, at the end of which he was ritually killed and his entrails sown into the earth to entreat the gods for an auspicious harvest. Surely neither Yrthilian nor anyone else would want to be such a king. If you mean to talk about the meaning of kingship, I enjoin you to keep to the history of kingship in Magicduel, and not in imaginary places such as "real life". [b]Edited for grammar/typos[/b]

Children of the Eclipse: Military leader is Tarquinus. Second-in-command is shared by Karak (Captain of the Full Moon) and Sparrhawk (Captain of the Half Moon). The [u]true[/u] leader of the Eclipse is the Sibyl, Dark Mystic. I don't know if this information is helpful or just adds clutter. Do with it what you will.

[quote name='Akasha' date='27 September 2009 - 07:13 AM' timestamp='1254053607' post='42872'] Main question : who said Yrth had immunity to shades? i must find my words regardless the 'yrth controlled summoned army' subject..that is a very unreal excuse [/quote] I was hardly there. I would, indeed, like to know why Tarquinus and Amoran (what consequence is Amoran, who doesn't even hold a rank in the CoE?) were teleported to the location at all, and by whom. Jester reports above the Summoned Army attacked him: did it attack Yrthilian? Is it unreasonable to suppose the foreigner [u]who had declared war on Necrovion and who is destroying part of the soul of the [b]King of Necrovion[/b][/u] is in control of this monstrous army that appears if it does not seem to be harming him? Who is making excuses, and for what? It would appear to be consistent with the Adventure Log for the Shades/Summoned Army to attack if someone were messing with the Stone, as Liberty fought shades to allow Handy Pockets to do, but it is not clear to me upon reading that chat log what, in fact, was going on. The leader of the Necrovion Sentinels would seem, at any rate, to be a lower-priority target than the numerous outsiders present. There is no clear evidence trail for a definitive conclusion about the behavior of Shades, so again I ask: how could the Sentinels have known what to do, and why ever would they not defend themselves? [b]Edited for clarity[/b]

[quote name='Granos' date='26 September 2009 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1254019262' post='42820'] Why is it that the [i][b]King of Golemus[/b][/i] had immunity from the shades, wouldn't the shades kill him for [i][b]invading Necrovion[/b][/i] rather then attacking the Sentinels whom were defending their land? [/quote] A question well worth answering. I had the misfortune to be in the pitiable state known as "at work" while this event was happening; I was apparently teleported to the Stone [i]from Wasp's Totem[/i]; and I had little or no chance to act. It was not clear to the Sentinels present that Yrthilian did not control the Summoned Army: yet they are to be lambasted for assailing it? I think not. The burning of Khalazdad's cube is beyond doubt one of the ugliest episodes of the war, as its sequelae amply demonstrate: and it has not played itself out.

I, too, wish to add my congratulations. I think you are indeed worthy, and that we shall see good things from you.

Liberty killed me straightaway. I inflicted no casualties.

[quote name='pamplemousse' date='20 September 2009 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1253498722' post='42241'] Is this war going to be fought here on the forum like the last one? Or, will there be a system to record body count and kills and *gasp* ACTUAL fighting? [/quote] This will be an 'actual' war, O Brightest of the Stars in Heaven; and there seems little or nothing standing in its way. As to systems, the leaders of the parties involved have come to an agreement. One way or another, the war will be fought.

[quote]The Knights of the Bell and Guerilla Golemicarum have declared war on Necrovion without reasonable provocation or cause. Yrthilian is a power hungry tyrant who only wants to increase his influence, and Liberty is blinded by his hatred of the shades and will do anything to attack them or their land. As such, the Sentinels have allied with the Children of the Eclipse, and will defend Necrovion from this completely unjustified assault.[/quote] Sic semper tyrannis.

This is a new quest. We hope you will find it entertaining.

[quote name='Aeoshattr' date='12 September 2009 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1252775486' post='41618'] O.o i wasn't expecting so many answers. Question, Lucius, were there ANY games to support RP 30 years ago?... i thought there was only Mario back then XD [/quote] Only the grandfather of them all: Dungeons and Dragons. I was a kid. It confused the heck out of me. But we still played.

[quote name='Aeoshattr' date='11 September 2009 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1252651681' post='41504']Answer to Lucius I was hoping not to have to argue with you, but it seems i have to. 1. There is a stargate game about to be launched. I don't think you can play an ascended in it, but you will most probably be able to in a sequel. 2. 99% of the players are things that "are not implied by the Magic Duel setting" 3. I've been RP-ing for... 12 years. You? 4.Yes, i took that weapon from the "His dark materials" series. Would you make a list of your weaknesses in your pages? I lied, as part of the RP. DUHH!! you would hide your weaknesses as well. actually i don't think i've ever seen a list of weak spots in ANY PLAYER PAGE. and i read the papers of all players i meet. 5. Yes, RP-ing "roleplaying should consider what a character cannot do as much as what s/he can do" I agree with that.[/quote] 1. I'm not saying there are NO systems I know of that can't accommodate your character - GURPS can, if it is setup a certain way by a GM friendly to such ideas, and it's not the only one. I'm saying the majority of systems don't accommodate such characters... and if you re-read my post carefully, I even give you MD as being ambiguous enough to allow it. 2. That's a rather high overestimate. I'll give you 60-75%. 3. Thirty. 4. Zlei answered this pretty well, so I won't re-hash it. But Lucius' weakness is not hard to figure out if you read his papers carefully, because it is implicit - but not explicit - in the papers. 5. Hurray! We agree. [quote]In my opinion, you all are so caught up by this "mechanics RP" because you are so frustrated that players won't do what you want them to do. you are trying to manipulate us, by using your influence in this game and what you have best here. Not like anything's wrong with that, but it's just the most annoying, self centered thing I can think of.[/quote] That's not really fair, and several players have objected with good reason. I favor mechanics-based RP because that is the way I have handled conflict resolution [u]in every other RPG I have ever played[/u]. Some, notably Guybrush Threepwood, have indicated that the MD dueling system isn't perfectly suited to RP simulation. I think that's a slightly misleading argument. All RPGs must resort to abstraction somewhere. The question is not "can the system simulate [x action] perfectly?" because no system can. Hardcore "simulationist" RPGs have limited appeal, also. The point is that a system of conflict-resolution exists somewhere in any RPG, and MagicDuel has one. Therefore the question should be, "How can we use the dueling system to simulate [x action]?" I'd rather see attempts to integrate the dueling system than free-wheeling, god-mode prone chat-fighting RP with no system of conflict resolution. Zlei is one of the best RP fighters around, and he gets a lot of respect from me: but his system requires maturity, imagination, and trust. Players who exhibit such traits don't god-mode. It really is that simple... and that difficult.

[quote name='Aeoshattr' date='10 September 2009 - 08:52 AM' timestamp='1252590740' post='41403']and how exactly are you gonna back RP-ing up with mechanics? RP-ing offers infinite possibilities in how you express yourself. [/quote] I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Roleplay does NOT offer infinite possibilities for how you express yourself. It offers a range of possibilities dependent on the setting. Your energy being character cannot be played in the majority of roleplaying-game systems with which I am familiar... and I have been roleplaying now for quite a bit longer than you have been alive. There is nothing in the MagicDuel setting to imply your "energy being" character could exist; that's okay, given that the MagicDuel setting is rather ambiguous... HOWEVER, combat actions in MagicDuel should not ignore the combat system entirely. There are not two games here, a roleplaying chat room and a dueling game off to the side. It is one game. If you want to look at a roleplay character who does not god-mode, ever, then take your cues from Innocence. Finally, saying the Subtle Knife is the only thing that can harm your character, yet it is in your possession, is god-moding twice over. You've basically taken the Excalibur of the [i]His Dark Materials[/i] series and given it properties suitable to you; and somehow, your non-material creature can hold it? I will repeat: roleplaying should consider what a character can[u]not[/u] do as much as what s/he can do.

[quote name='Guybrush Threepwood' date='01 September 2009 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1251866518' post='40735'] Here's a serious flaw with lack of history. Who the heck made this place? Someone had to. It's supposedly a rich country, inhabitants are unknown. Not necessarily non-existant, the sign to the new world specifically says, unknown. No history to a place makes no sense. I get it, I could see why Mur would like it, but there is no such thing as something with no history. On that note, making up random and terrible history is a bad idea as well. [/quote] A place with no memory is a riddle of itself. Imagine the Semitic or Babylonian tales of creation being literally true: once a place was not here, and now it is. The question, "What is its history?" is meaningless, for it has no history. A more meaningful question might be, "What is its purpose?"

((This is one of my favorite topics. I will break my own tradition here and speak entirely out-of-character. Roleplay is as much about what a character canNOT do as what she can do. A character's concept is defined by the player's imagination, but should also be informed by the setting. In most RPGs, the setting is explicit and very narrowly defined - very few people play D&D or World of Warcraft expecting to portray Wild West gunslingers or 20th Century Mafia dons. Because MagicDuel does not force the matter on players, we see a very wide variety of characters in the game. That's fine. It might even be good, if we were to develop a meta-plot about how the realm of MagicDuel entraps entities from other worlds. But all players should understand something: [u]if your character had powers in the world where you conceived him, he almost certainly no longer has them in MagicDuel[/u]. This is not a blow to the character, but an opportunity for character growth, a chance to demonstrate roleplaying skill. Do you fancy yourself a good roleplayer? Good. You're normal. Play that role and make it convincing. Look at LunarGoddess - here's a deity who has lost her power. Here's an immortal who has fallen in love with a mortal man. She has a story to tell. I run a lot of tabletop roleplaying campaigns. If you sat down at one of my D&D games and told me that your character is a half-demon with spell-like abilities, I'd laugh in your face. Why? Because the game includes rules for those kinds of things, and you can't just declare that you want them. If you can have them at all, such as the demonic heritage, the spell-like abilities will come gradually. When everyone is a super bad-ass, the game is BORING. What is interesting? Uncertainty; bluffing an entity you are sure can kill you; holding your breath as the GM rolls the dice, knowing the result could mean the difference between life and death for a beloved character. Don't bore us with magical powers you assigned your character. We have no reason to believe in them, because the game has a system for magical powers. Those who have magical powers worked hard to get them. Don't tell us about your awesome gear or unstoppable fighting ability: the game has a fighting system and gear. If you are a super bad-ass fighter, word will get around. Roleplay fighting almost invariably fails because it has no system of governance. It is therefore my opinion, after months of experimentation, that it has no place in MagicDuel. Sparrhawk makes an excellent point: if you're just sparring, you should be willing to take a beating now and again. If you're only going to win every fight, you will be boring... and you will end up being ignored by people who are actually using the system to fight with each other. The very idea! Outlandish roleplay almost invariably fails because it sets too few (or no) limitations on itself. For every Innocence, a really brilliant character with amazing inventiveness that has nothing to do with combat, role-played or otherwise, there are twenty demon-heritage warriors with elemental magic that has no in-game effect whatsoever. If you are a roleplayer, [i]do not ignore the system[/i]. Use its limitations as a springboard for your creativity. Have you noticed that no one bleeds in MagicDuel? That the sun never sets? That stacks of gold magically replenish themselves over time? How will you explain these things? What will they mean to your character? What will your story be in this world? We are waiting to be entertained. Some of us are ready to entertain you, too.))

[quote name='Grido' date='12 August 2009 - 06:04 AM' timestamp='1250075090' post='39259']Grammer[/quote] Grammar.

[quote name='Burns' date='09 August 2009 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1249819316' post='39023']unlike Tarquinus, i don't mind the init at all, since any boost of init will almost surely give your creature the first strike, and that's a nice strategic effect to use, it's more the lethal more-than-10k-attacks that bother me with the tokens...[/quote] I see Burns' reasoning here. My complaint about the high initiative bonus has to do with the combination of that bonus with a high Attack bonus - with the right tokens, some rituals really seem undefeatable as things stand, unless one is willing to load massive amounts of xp on a creature and sacrifice it for the principles that will provide bonuses of a similar level.

I personally like the concept of tokens - that they add a new dimension to tactics in the game, and allow more casual players to become competitive in battle - but feel their implementation has resulted in some perhaps unforeseen circumstances. I notice a large number of fights ending in round zero; I see a lot of duels in which one side deals 100% damage while the other deals 0%. The culprit seems to be the massive bonuses given by principle charges to such skills as Attack and Initiative. Though your first revision to these bonuses brought a much-needed mitigation - a fraction of the principle charge as a bonus rather than the full charge - it has proven inadequate, since huge principle charges seem to be rather common among certain players. The result, as you surely know, is that a small yet significant number of players has the ability to inflict multiple thousands of points of damage in a single attack. In a thread on the subject, I saw a suggestion for a scaled progression of bonuses, wherein the first chunk of principle charge provides a significant bonus but each successive increment provides a smaller one, with the result that even vastly inflated principle charges will not produce such bloated bonuses. Some experienced players and skilled duelists have complained that tokens have taken the strategy out of dueling. I reluctantly agree, and find this result distressing since it seems to be the precise opposite result that tokens were intended to provide. I have spent a fair amount of credits on tokens, learning how they work and what kinds of bonuses they provide, and though I have not become competitive with the "best" of the token-equipped duelists, I do find that my attacks are significantly more lethal than they were, and that, given my relative numerical value of skill statistics, the lethality I have gained from tokens seems inappropriate.

Happy Birthday!