Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: Dragons: A theorem

  1. #41

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    When Spitfyre on Skalkaar talks about the 8 mages, he refers to the entire group as "meddlesome bipeds" and is pretty condescending about the Ritual, which makes it sound like it was purely a biped effort to me.
    Very good point, you could also take it as if there were dragons involved they made it a point to cover it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I agree with Awdz's outlook on the mechanics vs. lore thing too. Just because the mechanics change doesn't mean that your character's back story is suddenly undone, it just means there was a change in the current situation. E.g., the devs increased the base armor dragons got per level in the past, but they also explained it in the game as recent development ("Our scales seem have hardened of late, perhaps a surge of Prime is to blame?" or something like that; I'd have to go read it again).
    For a single point, such as the reasoning dragons armor suddenly increased, using the mechanic for lore purposes is fine. The point I'm trying to argue is using multiple points for a single mechanic for lore purposes isn't okay. The example of that would be stating that dragons armor was inferior to the lesser races so they had to strengthen it. Multiple points and factors brought in over one mechanic, where if that mechanic changes now the basis of that entire theorem is gone which if you were basing RP on it would suddenly be less realistic as now you're stuck back pedaling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The Academy of Draak had been established for thousands of years at this point, and the undead weren't even a thing until several hundred years later. I highly doubt they were preoccupied with teaching any bipeds either--the splintering of magic did not occur for another 200 or so years, and why would you be trying to teach magic to a population that had just fought against you and declared themselves free of your rule?

    For this stuff to almost get to the point of dragons killing dragons, I really do think the argument of how to handle the bipeds was pretty much the foremost dragon concern for this period of time.
    Because that's a blink in the eye of dragons history, a mere 150 years which you could postulate as not even an entire generation's worth of time progressing as dragons as a race live well into the hundreds and thousands of years mark. Another case to bring up is that of Helian philosophy, they are to guide the lesser races- at what point do you think they would begin trying to steer them back to the correct path, hundreds of years afterward to ensure a generation or two have passed before retrying with the possibility of deep seeded hatred and disrespect from the previous generation, or the instant they notice the lesser starting to consider going down a wrong path averting the disaster entirely?

    I would also point out that previously mentioned events hadn't reached a conclusion- or one that had been mentioned in the lore as an actual resolution. We still have a petrified city with a dragon researching it, and we still have dragons working with schools and cities across Istaria- all of which would have been there for the hundreds of years when those incidents occurred. Why would they have stopped to fight about something they themselves have already sacrificed much trying to research and correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    "Jack of all trades, master of none" is what Primal magic makes me think of. To me, anything with a generalized use cannot have the utility that more speciliazed forms do. This is reflected in-game with the amount of spells that bipeds have vs. the amount of spells that dragons have.
    That would be backward, "specialized" implies they have a specific purpose and eliminate focusing on another other than what they specialize in while "utility" implies it's usage in multiple situations which is what a generalized tool is designed for.

    Furthermore I'd simple restate my case- if the lesser races are forced to splinter magics that produces such high yielding results why would a dragon- something that lives for hundreds if not thousands of years- continue to watch this proven fact be repeatedly demonstrated and not have a definitive agreement or rebuttal? If they state that it is "lesser", that implies a negative drawback or a shortsightedness as they don't use phrases implying a religious disagreement or hatred outside the lunus who are anticipating the need for violence.

    On the contrary, dragons speak of lesser races as children and tend to be worried over their future and that of Istaria, and with the lore demonstrating time after time a lesser race misusing magic or abusing the other lesser races as letting them do as they are continuing to do requires a change, one that the dragons are so conflicted on to the point of violence demonstrating the severity of their continued offenses.

    Where I am having trouble with your thesis that "splintered magic is superior to primal magic" is that if it were the case why haven't the dragons been the ones subjugated or a lesser race able to best them at their own game at any point during the long history of the lore? The sleeper's banishment wasn't an all-out assault against dragon-kind that they were defending against, it was another thief-in-the-night moment where a few individuals capitalized on the continued grace dragons showed them and made a huge mistake at the dragons expense. The second the dragons as a whole become involved seriously, everything but them is killed, burned, or forced to yield to them with a few exceptions on an individual basis. To state that the lesser races hold more power than them and other than saying "we're not under your rule anymore" not demonstrating their independence or returning the favor toward dragons is a huge hole in that theory, if splintered magic is truly superior a force of magic wielding lesser races would easily stop them at any point since it's development.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    A character being a character can believe anything the player wants that character to, and in turn your own characters are able to disbelieve or believe whatever you want them to. But it also very important to remember that players can have different beliefs and interpretations also, and just because a view is different doesn't make it wrong.
    Wrong, no. Incohesive to the point it ruins the RP? Yes. If it can be avoided, why not do what you can to nip it in the bud instead of letting it wreak havoc on your good time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    This is very true. No matter how much discussion there is, sometimes there is just not going to be an agreement on what interpretation of lore/mechanics is "correct."

    When situations in RP come up where there is a conflict between different interpretations of the lore, I find it is much better to try to come to some sort of compromise than it is to try to convince the other player that I am right and they are wrong, because all that leads to is an argument. How exactly the situation is handled would depend on exactly what the issue is, but I would doubt that there exist too many situations where two players can have such vastly differing views that there is not any way to work around it in the RP.
    "Correct" lore is a combination of plausibility and general acceptance. If the majority of the players agree that Istarian dragons are from the realm of Fire, what happens when someone brings in a dragon that isn't from the realm of fire? For many, the RP is instantly broken and they simply move on, for those trying to help them they get into hours of debate that ends exactly as you've stated. How are we able to avoid this? By giving them the option of "hey, check out the theorem" and leaving it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    Having discussed the lore with devs in support of my book, I can assure you that it none of the timeline lore was hip-fired. There is definite history they adhere to and will not change.
    Hip-fired lore isn't timeline lore, sorry if I ever made it seem that way. My example was to that of the khutit form, developed so the mechanics would allow ancient dragons to fit into crafting areas and the shady back story of runes that didn't even make it into the timeline and nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    The artifact was a dryad thing - why would dragons even have known about it?
    Unless it were hidden and with the express purposes of the dryads to remain not to public knowledge, why wouldn't the dragons who worked alongside the dryads throughout history not be trusted with it's knowledge? What would the dryads have gained from hiding and employing it on their own, or would it have been crafted from their deity with the express instructions to use it at the time it was used?

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    Dragon magic affects pretty much everything. Bipeds could not master it, so they took individual aspects of it and pushed their limits on the single aspect, "splintered" magic. The splintered magic does not affect everything equally well - this is reflected in game mechanics where somethings are resistant to and others are susceptible to a given magic type, but basically everything is affected by primal magic equally well. Because the "splintered" magic is only effective against specific circumstances, dragons eschew it as lesser.
    Pretty much my theory to a T. Why "fix" something that isn't broken, or rather break something that's "whole" with the interpretation that there isn't a drawback like this. Primal magic exploits the weaknesses of the elements employed against it, and strengthen itself where necessary for specific effects as needed, otherwise why would denizens of the realm of fire choose to live here if the elements of fire could be stronger than that of the prime?

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean by a theorem. Something like, if it is a game mechanic or official lore, it is real to the characters, if it is not conflicting with a game mechanice or official lore, it is a reasonable character perspective, and if it conflicts with game mechanics or official lore, others should consider the character somewhat crazy for believing it? Good luck getting all roleplayers to adhere to one theorem; it's worse than herding cats.
    A theorem is a collection of theories, conflicting or not, that are put together side by side and elaborated on here. In another day or two I'll recap what has been established, make it easy to reference and be pretty on the eyes, and we'll start again- hopefully with more input from more RPers. This way we stay within the realm of in-game lore and mechanics yet define a set of common "truths" that will help any new RPer easily fit in with the generalized play style and realize what areas are open for exploration and individual flare and what areas are more controversial and attempting to change them becomes more detrimental to the RP experience.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    That would be backward, "specialized" implies they have a specific purpose and eliminate focusing on another other than what they specialize in while "utility" implies it's usage in multiple situations which is what a generalized tool is designed for.
    No, what Raptress said is correct. Utility simply means usefulness. Raptress said: "... anything with a generalized use cannot have the utility that more speciliazed forms do." A general tool does not have the same the utility (usefulness) as a specialized tool in the area said tool was designed for. They both have utility, one just has a higher utility in the specialized area.

    In the case of magic, primal -may- be able to heal, but the splintered healing magic will do it better at the expense of not being able to do anything else well. Healing magic has a better utility at healing than primal magic does, and this is what Raptress is saying. Utility does not imply generalized use.
    Avatar is of my character Akrion, snipped from Hrae's Hoard of Creatures by the excellent moss loving artist Nambroth. <3

  3. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Washington, land of shivering in June.
    Posts
    1,313

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    For a single point, such as the reasoning dragons armor suddenly increased, using the mechanic for lore purposes is fine. The point I'm trying to argue is using multiple points for a single mechanic for lore purposes isn't okay. The example of that would be stating that dragons armor was inferior to the lesser races so they had to strengthen it. Multiple points and factors brought in over one mechanic, where if that mechanic changes now the basis of that entire theorem is gone which if you were basing RP on it would suddenly be less realistic as now you're stuck back pedaling.
    I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. The example I gave was a dev explanation, not a player one. With some thought, there is generally a plausible explanation in RP for any change, even if it seems to conflict with your backstory at first. If you could give me an actual example of a scenario where a mechanic changing unavoidably messes up a story, maybe I would understand your point better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Because that's a blink in the eye of dragons history, a mere 150 years...
    It's still 150 years. Look at what humans can accomplish in 150 years. Just because dragons live a long time doesn't mean that 150 years doesn't matter. The world keeps moving on. Things change quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    That would be backward, "specialized" implies they have a specific purpose and eliminate focusing on another other than what they specialize in while "utility" implies it's usage in multiple situations which is what a generalized tool is designed for.
    I was speaking of the magic schools on the whole. Biped magic has many, many more specialized spells, thus bipeds have more options, thus more utility. For example, dragons have Primal Attack, but bipeds have Ice Attack, Flame Attack, and Energy Attack. Some mobs are weaker to those elements, meaning a biped will be more effective at killing them than a dragon would.

    A creature with more tools in its belt has more utility than another creature with fewer tools. That is what I was saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Furthermore I'd simple restate my case- if the lesser races are forced to splinter magics that produces such high yielding results why would a dragon- something that lives for hundreds if not thousands of years- continue to watch this proven fact be repeatedly demonstrated and not have a definitive agreement or rebuttal? If they state that it is "lesser", that implies a negative drawback or a shortsightedness as they don't use phrases implying a religious disagreement or hatred outside the lunus who are anticipating the need for violence.
    In real life, there is not a requirement that all decisions ever be based on pure logic; why should that requirement exist for dragons? That is my problem with your interpretation: that you make no allowances for the dragons' thought processes being driven by anything except logic. I just don't agree with that viewpoint. Living creatures have many more drives than pure logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Where I am having trouble with your thesis that "splintered magic is superior to primal magic" is that if it were the case why haven't the dragons been the ones subjugated or a lesser race able to best them at their own game at any point during the long history of the lore?
    I don't think it's really fair to bring up the fact that "dragons haven't been subjugated" because it doesn't seem that anyone has ever tried. Saying that dragons have never been beaten is not really a good argument if no one ever tried to beat them.

    Also, I have stated that biped magic has more utility, yes, but I don't believe I have implied that biped magic is so powerful that it would lead to a surefire victory over dragons. If you feel I have said that somehow, then let me make clear here that I did not mean that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    "Correct" lore is a combination of plausibility and general acceptance. If the majority of the players agree that Istarian dragons are from the realm of Fire, what happens when someone brings in a dragon that isn't from the realm of fire?
    "Correct" lore is that which the game gives us, and nothing more. I don't say that Istarian dragons are from the Realm of Fire because that's what is generally accepted, I say that because that is what the game's lore explicitly lays out.

    To answer your example, if someone is playing a dragon that isn't a fire dragon, then it isn't Istarian. That dragon can be from some other world or realm, but it cannot be a true Istarian because the Istarian lore does not allow for that. The lore says Istarian dragons are from the Realm of Fire.

    Now, if that player insists that their water dragon is a true Istarian, then that's the point where you can point out that the game lore contradicts that concept, or you can have your character disbelieve that fact and go on thinking that that water dragon is from another realm and is mistaken that they are Istarian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Unless it were hidden and with the express purposes of the dryads to remain not to public knowledge, why wouldn't the dragons who worked alongside the dryads throughout history not be trusted with it's knowledge? What would the dryads have gained from hiding and employing it on their own, or would it have been crafted from their deity with the express instructions to use it at the time it was used?
    Well, for one dragons tend to be controlling and they think of dryads as lesser beings, so why would they want to share the knowledge of this weapon with the dragons? What do they have to gain from telling the dragons?

    Another thing to consider: dryads seemed to have kept to themselves for much of Istaria's history. They stayed in Eastern Aradoth for pretty much all of history and then when the Aegis showed up, they just up and left Istaria completely. Who's to say that the dryads even had much contact with the dragons to begin with when dragons were all the way on the west, in Dralk?
    Last edited by Raptress; August 12th, 2012 at 06:34 AM.

    .:Malestryx:.

    Aegis Shatterer - Scourge of the Scourge - Blight's Own Decay

  4. #44

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Hip-fired lore isn't timeline lore, sorry if I ever made it seem that way. My example was to that of the khutit form, developed so the mechanics would allow ancient dragons to fit into crafting areas and the shady back story of runes that didn't even make it into the timeline and nothing more.
    Historians are constantly uncovering information about the past that has been forgotten. The devs put thought into how to mesh the khutit form with the lore. It seems to me that by your definition, any new lore is "hip-fired" because it was not part of the original game design. I contend that as long as the new lore does not contradict established lore, it makes sense to consider the new lore a new discovery that can be readily accepted by characters. You make it sound like the devs do not think about what they are doing with the game, and from past experience I know that is not the case.
    Unless it were hidden and with the express purposes of the dryads to remain not to public knowledge, why wouldn't the dragons who worked alongside the dryads throughout history not be trusted with it's knowledge? What would the dryads have gained from hiding and employing it on their own, or would it have been crafted from their deity with the express instructions to use it at the time it was used?
    The artifacts were expressly hidden by the dryads, to prevent the Withered Aegis from getting them. The dragons had no reason to know about them.
    Pretty much my theory to a T. Why "fix" something that isn't broken, or rather break something that's "whole" with the interpretation that there isn't a drawback like this. Primal magic exploits the weaknesses of the elements employed against it, and strengthen itself where necessary for specific effects as needed, otherwise why would denizens of the realm of fire choose to live here if the elements of fire could be stronger than that of the prime?
    I do not know why the dragons left the realm of fire. However, Istaria is in the realm of prime, so primal magic is strongest here. Presumably fire magic may be stronger in the realm of fire. On the other hand, perhaps the creatures of fire discovered, on taking physical forms, the more complete strength of primal magic. I could come up with a half dozen reasons why dragons in the primal realm might choose primal magic over specialized fire. Since it has not been defined as official lore that I've seen (and I've not done the rituals, so my knowledge is incomplete), IMO it's really up to the player what the character perspective is.
    A theorem is a collection of theories, conflicting or not, that are put together side by side and elaborated on here. In another day or two I'll recap what has been established, make it easy to reference and be pretty on the eyes, and we'll start again- hopefully with more input from more RPers. This way we stay within the realm of in-game lore and mechanics yet define a set of common "truths" that will help any new RPer easily fit in with the generalized play style and realize what areas are open for exploration and individual flare and what areas are more controversial and attempting to change them becomes more detrimental to the RP experience.
    I'll be interested to see what you come up with, and hope that it is generally helpful for the roleplaying community. I can't help but caution you, there will be those who do not abide by whatever you come up with, simply because they don't get it, because they just like to do the opposite of whatever is established, or for a variety of other reasons that make them an individual.
    Last edited by awdz; August 12th, 2012 at 03:10 PM.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    Historians are constantly uncovering information about the past that has been forgotten. The devs put thought into how to mesh the khutit form with the lore. It seems to me that by your definition, any new lore is "hip-fired" because it was not part of the original game design. I contend that as long as the new lore does not contradict established lore, it makes sense to consider the new lore a new discovery that can be readily accepted by characters. You make it sound like the devs do not think about what they are doing with the game, and from past experience I know that is not the case.
    No, I'm stating that the need of a new mechanic for the sake of making the game more playable will supersede any lore aspect to a game developer, meaning that the mechanic is developed prior to the creation of the lore. Hense the khutit rune, where else are runes found in the game and you must admit the existance of only one rune odd, but it does however leave room to be expanded on with more rune discoveries adding new abilities despite never being found or mentioned in current lore- that is what is meant by being "hip fired," it was an answer pulled from something not already within current lore meaning they created something new that was previously unknown for the sake of meshing something in versus taking it as a "primal aspect" and further expanding on it like the previous armor hardening and nothing more.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    The artifacts were expressly hidden by the dryads, to prevent the Withered Aegis from getting them. The dragons had no reason to know about them.
    Fair enough, but to postulate that the dragons were unaware of such powerful magics being utilized and then hidden within the Istarian world over the course of the thousands of years remaining undetected would leave a lot of room for doubt. Perhaps the artifacts were created within another realm and brought here with the dryads given specific instructions toward their function and usage- like someone making a time capsule and then mailing it's location to their family 100 years later with it's location?

    Point is with something that powerful to just be "hidden" or abandoned in a location that has the potential to be stumbled upon by anyone is a huge gamble. If it was all forseen by something and meant to be discovered only at a proper time, however, that would make sense why to leave it buried with the intentions of one day being found.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    I'll be interested to see what you come up with, and hope that it is generally helpful for the roleplaying community. I can't help but caution you, there will be those who do not abide by whatever you come up with, simply because they don't get it, because they just like to do the opposite of whatever is established, or for a variety of other reasons that make them an individual.
    Which is fine, a tool is a tool, and much like any tool there are people that use them for their intended purpose and those that refuse to. Much as the argument of splintered magic vs primal magic- if the theorem becomes powerful enough people will use it because it's helpful, and the way it becomes powerful enough is to pit such a large amount of ideas together as to paint what we'd hope is an "obvious" picture for an imaginary world. It'll never be perfect, but what in the world is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. The example I gave was a dev explanation, not a player one. With some thought, there is generally a plausible explanation in RP for any change, even if it seems to conflict with your backstory at first. If you could give me an actual example of a scenario where a mechanic changing unavoidably messes up a story, maybe I would understand your point better.
    The example was taking the total damage done by a particular character class type against a mob and stating that "they were always better at it" or "their class/race was developed to kill them." The assumption is the utilization of one single game mechanic to prove an RP point that doesn't draw from the current lore to establish a new point of lore. What happens when the mechanic changes, and now other classes do more damage? Now the lore you've developed over a single mechanic is gone, as there was never any lore to back it up in the first place, so you are forced to either change your RP or continue it when the very mechanic you used to justify it now disproves itself.

    The point is using mechanics to prove single points are fine, as single points can change with the mechanics without impacting much else. But to prove theorems with multiple points on a single in-game mechanic leaves it open to changing on the fly, and is therefore not solid enough to be used for the purposes of solid RP as you're always stuck with one day having to back pedal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    It's still 150 years. Look at what humans can accomplish in 150 years. Just because dragons live a long time doesn't mean that 150 years doesn't matter. The world keeps moving on. Things change quickly.
    Your theory was that of dragons being overall condescending and stuck on themselves to counter mine that was they were wise and attempting to do multiple things for the lesser races. You quoted a period of 150 years, without taking into account the open ended entries on what the dragons were doing prior to this with the assumption that a conclusion had been met and that dragons simply went back to focusing on themselves which the lore doesn't really appear to support given their previous involvement on so many fronts and with so many other races.

    My counter to your thesis is that you're overlooking and not taking a glance from a viewpoint of something that lives for over a thousand years- what is 150 years to you? Yes much can and did happen in the 150 years, but the dragons involvement not being mentioned much doesn't mean that they weren't doing anything, rather they were taking their time to discuss every possible approach and outcome to what has occurred and the possible consequences of the humans decision. That is a vast amount of possibilities, one that to a race that lives for over a thousand years there's no reason to sit back and fully weigh your options, and look at what the prominent answers are: continue to attempt to save them, or wipe them out completely.

    You could take thousands of years and argue both points justifiably as they're both solid answers with very specific outcomes. The problem is that an argument will continue until you've exhausted every possible detail and outcome, and to the dragons who acquire wisdom just in their own life for over a thousand years with varied opinions based upon each dragon's experience in dealing with humanity up to that point why would you not take every possible explanation and idea before deciding the fate of an entire race? Taking your time doesn't prove you're stuck on yourself, it proves you're wise enough to consider possibilities that even you may not agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I was speaking of the magic schools on the whole. Biped magic has many, many more specialized spells, thus bipeds have more options, thus more utility. For example, dragons have Primal Attack, but bipeds have Ice Attack, Flame Attack, and Energy Attack. Some mobs are weaker to those elements, meaning a biped will be more effective at killing them than a dragon would.

    A creature with more tools in its belt has more utility than another creature with fewer tools. That is what I was saying.
    This implies one biped could master all forms of splintered magic, which I'd state is implausible. It would be one ice mage, one fire mage, one energy mage vs. one dragon, or all of them versus all of the dragons in which it becomes a numbers game as stated earlier. Primal magic being that it consists of each element in unison would counter each mage as it has the opposing element that would better defend the dragon and better assault the mage who attempts to defend against it. You would need multiple mages to take down one dragon, as a dragon's understanding of the prime or all elements would give it's magic more utility in dealing with one expanded element out of the entire spectrum that outweighs it. You may have "more spells" but more spells of the same element are like stating that because you hurl more fireballs at a hurricane you can eventually burn it out, possible yes but highly unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    In real life, there is not a requirement that all decisions ever be based on pure logic; why should that requirement exist for dragons? That is my problem with your interpretation: that you make no allowances for the dragons' thought processes being driven by anything except logic. I just don't agree with that viewpoint. Living creatures have many more drives than pure logic.
    Theoretical physics is the answer to that statement regarding real life. It proves things exist through math, though they have not been identified nor examined extensively they are understood, duplicated, and mastered without the physicist ever having really laid eyes on them. If you want proof, youtube "quantum locking" and see what they're able to do with particles smaller than atoms.

    To counter your statement on logic being the ONLY thing that pushes a dragon, again I'm stating you look at dragons as though they live a shorter period of time and are as susceptible to emotion and irrationality to that of a human. Imagine it, they live for over a thousand years- all of the things they do in that period of time, all of the things that they see and experience. All of the fundamentals they realize and all of the feelings and emotions they experience, time after time. Time teaches us truth, and truth forces us to accept wisdom, and as time applies to dragons far longer than that of any other race to postulate that they are incapable of a higher state of wisdom and would allow themselves to be ruled by petty things as emotion and desire is asinine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I don't think it's really fair to bring up the fact that "dragons haven't been subjugated" because it doesn't seem that anyone has ever tried. Saying that dragons have never been beaten is not really a good argument if no one ever tried to beat them.

    Also, I have stated that biped magic has more utility, yes, but I don't believe I have implied that biped magic is so powerful that it would lead to a surefire victory over dragons. If you feel I have said that somehow, then let me make clear here that I did not mean that.
    Then I would state you're not taking human tenacity into account, or that of the half-giants who already enslaved most of the other races and are able to use those splintered magics themselves. To something marauding down everything they see and then looking at the dragons, you're telling me the thought never occurred to them that if they've been so successful why not attack a draconic settlement?

    If someone has something superior over their peers, they will exploit it- it's what happens in nature. If splintering magic were able to truly produce superior damage why in the world would the humans not use it against them in their declaration of "being free from their rule?" How many cities are rioted through and looted simply because their sports team won a championship, yet the thought never even occurs to burn down a draconic outpost or small village as a testament to their freedom?

    I would postulate they didn't because they were afraid, and they were afraid because dragons have proved time and again their superiority to the "lesser" races in ways those races can't deny. I would state that mages attempting to use those "superior" magics in defense of Barasavus or Mellohndar discovered themselves just how inferior it is to primal magic- a fear that isn't forgotten.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Well, for one dragons tend to be controlling and they think of dryads as lesser beings, so why would they want to share the knowledge of this weapon with the dragons? What do they have to gain from telling the dragons?
    One's view of another doesn't deny their power. In the 1940's Adolf Hitler stated they would win the Olympics due to their pure blooded superiority. When Jesse Jackson stood on the gold podium, Hitler stated that it was because "they (black people) are animals, made for stronger labor." He didn't deny their power, he just opted to refer to them as an animal and discount them as actual people to prove his race was superior.

    Taking this into account the dryads made artifacts of such incredible power. Power doesn't imply wisdom or forethought, it implies a stored energy that when released has a massive impact on their surroundings. Dryads were in the face of persecution from the undead and made a last ditch effort to hide them, which implies they either didn't trust in the dragons and their ability to win against the undead or they didn't want the dragons finding out they had them, why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Another thing to consider: dryads seemed to have kept to themselves for much of Istaria's history. They stayed in Eastern Aradoth for pretty much all of history and then when the Aegis showed up, they just up and left Istaria completely. Who's to say that the dryads even had much contact with the dragons to begin with when dragons were all the way on the west, in Dralk?
    A valid hypothesis, perhaps their conflicting elements made the other unable to adapt to the other, or perhaps the dryads and dragons merely had nothing to gain nor contribute to the other worth working together on? Dryads kept to the forests and maintained them, when those forests were about to be wiped out completely they left the realm making me want to theorize they couldn't exist without those forests or are possibly unable to leave certain radius away from them for extended periods of time. Perhaps the only thing allowing the current in-game dryads freedom to roam is because their forest retreated back into their realm and siphons them power that way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    No, what Raptress said is correct. Utility simply means usefulness. Raptress said: "... anything with a generalized use cannot have the utility that more speciliazed forms do." A general tool does not have the same the utility (usefulness) as a specialized tool in the area said tool was designed for. They both have utility, one just has a higher utility in the specialized area.
    Utility implies usefulness, yes, but it also implies usefulness toward a multitude of functions (aka a utility knife containing multiple blades and tools). Utility and specialty are antonyms in the English language and for good reason, a specialty implies the use for one task- and usually it becomes weaker than a utility version in every other application it sacrifices for it's specialty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    In the case of magic, primal -may- be able to heal, but the splintered healing magic will do it better at the expense of not being able to do anything else well. Healing magic has a better utility at healing than primal magic does, and this is what Raptress is saying. Utility does not imply generalized use.
    So devote your life to focusing on stripping away all aspects other than healing to heal more effectively... yeah, that sounds like it can outweigh the primal version which every dragon employs freely without losing everything else. In a fight of 5 vs 5 you get 1 healer, 1 fire mage, 1 frost mage, 1 thunder mage, and 1 spiritualist vs. 5 dragons. First salvo, all the dragons focus the healer and kill it, then on the second salvo heal themselves or who ever was targeted from the first salvo, then repeat on the third salvo.

    The "superiority" of splintering magics isn't superior in this analogy, it merely demonstrates that one must lose any ability outside their specialty- while producing a "higher" healing rate you lose so much else in the process, far too much to be utilized in areas outside it's expertise making it a hindrance.

  6. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Washington, land of shivering in June.
    Posts
    1,313

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Exrage, I apologize, but many of your arguments are based on your personal opinions rather than actual lore, so it's very difficult to actually continue this discussion in a constructive way when all of my points (which I have tried very hard to actually base on the game lore) are being countered by theories.

    The only fact we have about dragon lifespans is that they live "many hundreds" of years. I do not believe that one can truly base an argument on the fact that dragons "live for thousands of years" when nowhere in the lore is that actually defined.

    Further, how many races do you know in real life that live for thousands of years? How do you know that they would not be affected by emotion and desires just as we humans are? Why is it "asinine" to believe that dragons would not be affected by these things? Do you have some form of proof that because a being lives for thousands of years, it must be wise and eschew all drives of emotion?

    Finally, you're basing a lot of arguments on the assumption that a biped must give up all other types of magic in order to learn one school. I would counter this argument with the fact that bipeds are based on their ability to multiclass in Istaria, meaning they pick up many skills over the courses of their lives. Maybe it is stretching it in the realms of plausibility to say that a biped can master all of them, but you can totally do that in the game. And if someone put the time in to cap all their adventure schools, what right have we to tell them that their character can't possibly be that skilled?

    .:Malestryx:.

    Aegis Shatterer - Scourge of the Scourge - Blight's Own Decay

  7. #47

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    No, I'm stating that the need of a new mechanic for the sake of making the game more playable will supersede any lore aspect to a game developer, meaning that the mechanic is developed prior to the creation of the lore. Hense the khutit rune, where else are runes found in the game and you must admit the existance of only one rune odd, but it does however leave room to be expanded on with more rune discoveries adding new abilities despite never being found or mentioned in current lore- that is what is meant by being "hip fired," it was an answer pulled from something not already within current lore meaning they created something new that was previously unknown for the sake of meshing something in versus taking it as a "primal aspect" and further expanding on it like the previous armor hardening and nothing more.
    Runes are found all over Istaria. Not being a dragon, the earliest quests I recall having to craft a rune as one of the steps were the ones for the satyr island crystals (originally part of the whole free-the-satyrs thing), not to mention runes on all kinds of items (Darkstaff's pipe - which predated RoP, various pieces of hoard, etc.). Even if dragons did not use runes elsewhere (rune of teleportation in ARoP, for example), if they taught the other races magic and the other races use runes, then the dragons would know about the runes. I do not think simply not having been mentioned in the timeline meets the criteria for lore being "hip fired".

    Fair enough, but to postulate that the dragons were unaware of such powerful magics being utilized and then hidden within the Istarian world over the course of the thousands of years remaining undetected would leave a lot of room for doubt. Perhaps the artifacts were created within another realm and brought here with the dryads given specific instructions toward their function and usage- like someone making a time capsule and then mailing it's location to their family 100 years later with it's location?

    Point is with something that powerful to just be "hidden" or abandoned in a location that has the potential to be stumbled upon by anyone is a huge gamble. If it was all forseen by something and meant to be discovered only at a proper time, however, that would make sense why to leave it buried with the intentions of one day being found.
    Dragons are not an all-knowing race. Elves, satyrs and dryads are explicitly mentioned in the Istarian timeline as having close-guarded secrets. And even if the dragons did know of some of the dryad artifacts, they would not necessarily know which were hidden and which were taken with the dryads who departed. Besides which, the dryads did not just leave them abandoned/unwatched. "Meira Nylami, member of The Protectorate and a Dryad Spiritist", was murdered a few years after the artifact was used in the great battle, before the dryads returned to Istaria, so it is reasonable to assume there were some dryads still in Istaria that protected the hidden artifacts.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    *opens thread, sees three page wall of text*

    My theory....Dragons are Awesome!

    ~Xeno
    You do not need a reason to care. ~Xeno
    XenoDrake TheLightBringer, Glimmers Red, Shirahime, Zelena Ironhand

  9. #49

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Utility implies usefulness, yes, but it also implies usefulness toward a multitude of functions (aka a utility knife containing multiple blades and tools). Utility and specialty are antonyms in the English language and for good reason, a specialty implies the use for one task- and usually it becomes weaker than a utility version in every other application it sacrifices for it's specialty.
    No, utility means usefulness. It does not simply imply usefulness. You're also wrong that Utility and Specialty are antonyms. They are not. There's actually a contradiction in logic in what you say. Utility and Specialty can't be antonyms if Utility can, by your words, imply usefulness that is apart from generalized usefulness.

    I can provide a real-life example of utility, actually. Over the past couple weeks I've been writing a game engine for the purpose of hoping to use it in the Ludum Dare (create a game in 48 hours) contest, within this engine is a utility class:
    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/84091534/Optional_T.hpp
    This utility class has the specific purpose of acting as a way to return success or failure of a function along with data. It's extremely useful, but only in the specific area of being a function's return value, but regardless of it's speciality it's still a utility class. Not only that, but this utility class contains utility functions, which are useful functions that have an even more specialized use of dealing with the utility class. Note the lack of generalization in all this utility.

    Again, Raptress was correct in her example and usage of utility.


    Quote Originally Posted by XenoDrake View Post
    *opens thread, sees three page wall of text*

    My theory....Dragons are Awesome!

    ~Xeno
    Can't argue with that. :3
    Avatar is of my character Akrion, snipped from Hrae's Hoard of Creatures by the excellent moss loving artist Nambroth. <3

  10. #50

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Hmm... well I was going to continue the theorem and extrapolate further but I've been informed they want $10 a month to continue playing my dragon for a game that's been in development since 2004 and has only reached this level of quality. Sorry guys, very nice work and good concepts that utilized much of the lore and your personal opinions, shame I couldn't have RPed with you as you all seem to have a very strong grasp on what it takes to RP well.

    To continue someone would have to browse through and summarize the theories as they apply to the game in a nice, easy to read format. As I was the original poster and it was my idea I highly doubt someone will take the time to do so unless they have a pretty strong concept on what the theorem is and would continue it's work.

    Best of luck to you all, I'm glad you found a game that you enjoy enough to pay for despite the buggy coding, half-completed UI functionality, limited character animations, and slowly developed "small" changes to the game that bring it down for days at a time if the maintenance time on Tuesdays don't cripple it for more than the entire day. It's good, but if it's this stagnant other than to siphon money I can't see why any set of owners would charge money- let alone $10 a month- for something not anywhere near it's competitors at it's price range.

  11. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Washington, land of shivering in June.
    Posts
    1,313

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I can't see why any set of owners would charge money- let alone $10 a month...
    Well, if they didn't charge money, the game wouldn't be running. Pretty simple really. xP

    Sorry the game didn't pull you in enough to pay for it. Good luck wherever you move onto afterwards.

    .:Malestryx:.

    Aegis Shatterer - Scourge of the Scourge - Blight's Own Decay

  12. #52

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Time teaches us truth, and truth forces us to accept wisdom, and as time applies to dragons far longer than that of any other race to postulate that they are incapable of a higher state of wisdom and would allow themselves to be ruled by petty things as emotion and desire is asinine.
    Given that it sounds as though you haven't gotten into the game beyond the trial period, I'm guessing you haven't spoken to the Entombed Will to hear his story and how he reacted to the destruction of the Sleeper. For that matter, you haven't talked to Brysmendrik about getting a Portal Key to the Draak Academy.

    Listening to THAT bit of lore - coaxing it out of him - shows you just how driven by emotion the dragons really can be.

    Talking to NPC dragons about the undead dragons that show up here and there, most of them do indeed have emotive responses.
    - Kesqui - Formerly of Ice, now of Chaos, lair in Liak
    First Rebirth 12-12-2003 / Ascended to Ancient 12-12-2010

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •