Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: Dragons: A theorem

  1. #21

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    Any well multi-classed biped. xD Akrion's Spirit/Blood magic combo gives him a burst of damage from a single attack that can take out an Ancient Dragon in 1 hit, even if they have Shield of Gold going.
    In that aspect a full primal ancient could do the same, or a tooth and claw dragon if the growl caused a miss and allowed it close enough for a gold rage/grazing wind combo. I'd state the game doesn't have PvP capabilities so utilizing mechanics on a currently flawed coding wouldn't hold much accuracy in proving a point on which is more effective than the other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    Outside of game mechanics, the fact that Dragon's look down on fragmenting the prime into more specific areas of magic means they are honestly rather inferior in many areas such as healing, which is reflected in the mechanics.
    A valid argument and one that I would counter with their ability to alter prime magic as a whole to work together in ways that splintering wouldn't allow, as the inability to learn how different aspects correlate due to a short life span would cause someone impatient enough to go with "what works" even if they don't live to see the short-comings of their approach. A very good thesis though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    Actually, the very existance of the Gift is due to biped magic. One could even argue that Dragons would be in very serious trouble now if it weren't for the Gift because of their inability to naturally age. The permanent deaths that would occur from hatchlings just trying to ascend would take a heavy toll on the species.
    Another valid, very realistic approach to the issue. I would stipulate that dragons would, in their pride, state that the Gift is nothing more than a valuable "crutch" that would allow one that is naturally weak a chance to learn at a more reckless pace that would be detrimental to dragonic principles as patience, seeking guidance, and being as efficient as possible. Before the gift many dragons handled the rights of passage and managed to ascend, while death always being a sad part of life adversity besetting an entire species that wasn't severe enough to snuff them out would only make them stronger, and more cautious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I think more than just you or me need to weigh in before anything is said about a "knowledgebase." I thought we were just discussing your RP ideas and how feasible they are in Istaria's lore. xD
    Naturally, others will stumble into the theorem and kick around ideas as well- but if you and I see reasonable trouble with what we've attained thus far what hope does it have of meeting anyone else's criteria? The goal of the theorem is to compile enough cohesive fundamentals that make RPing easier by filling in a lot of gaps that the lore leaves wide open that should be common knowledge to any dragon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I don't think Istarian dragons are built properly to be able to consistently walk on two legs, and it'd be pretty awkward I'd think. They're pretty clearly meant to walk on four legs to me.
    I would agree, but a dancer might tell you starting off learning advanced techniques always looks and feels stupid at first- but with enough practice and patience they're able to dance freely in stances and positions that would break the untrained's hip/toe/ankle/etc, and look **** good doing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Okay, so how about spirit-magic-slinging bipeds that could take a dragon out in one shot before the dragon even got within a close enough range to breathe fire? These things exist in Istaria.
    Well as I mentioned prior, the mechanics of Istaria don't really have PvP oriented skills and abilities. One versed in fighting others would study and develop tactics and abilities to counter and disrupt traditional "I-see-you-I-cast-a-spell-from-far-away" fighting in Istaria. Once upon a time it was common place for men to stand in lines and shoot at each other, eventually the guns started getting too accurate and too many were dying for the leadership to properly adapt so the concept of "cover and concealment" became the norm to adapt with conventional warfare. Even conventional warfare is being replaced by "terrorism" that allows combatants to hide in plain sight among civilians where conventional warfare can't go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    (Treants are actually of living wood too, not dead wood. Living wood doesn't burn as well as dead wood does. You may notice that in-game treants are not defeated the moment fire touches them. x3 Don't mind me, splitting hairs over here again~. It seems to be my hobby.)
    Well sort of, tree bark tends to ignite very quickly and surrounds the actual tree, sucking the moisture out of the pores in the form of steam as it burns away the bark and into the tree itself, hence why forest fires are so hard to stop once they get started and don't take much to start off.

    And splitting hairs is good- it helps me understand where you stand on issues. The more I understand where you stand, the more I understand someone else's ideas other than my own which allow me to further adapt them in a way that is able to make sense for the both of us.

  2. #22
    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
    In that aspect a full primal ancient could do the same, or a tooth and claw dragon if the growl caused a miss and allowed it close enough for a gold rage/grazing wind combo. I'd state the game doesn't have PvP capabilities so utilizing mechanics on a currently flawed coding wouldn't hold much accuracy in proving a point on which is more effective than the other.
    Missing can be nullified with use of the Perfect Spell ability. Primal-specc'd Ancients are pretty underpowered too; they don't really compare with the sort of damage that biped spell casters can put out. It's also true that dragons cannot heal very well. Bipeds have plenty of ways to keep melee dragons at bay too. Roots...mezzes...stuns...

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I would agree, but a dancer might tell you starting off learning advanced techniques always looks and feels stupid at first...
    That's not the way I see it working. I think it'd be more along the lines of trying to teach a dog to dance than a human to dance. Istarian dragons just aren't built to walk on their hind legs. Their hind legs are too far back and their chest too far forward.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

  3. #23

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Missing can be nullified with use of the Perfect Spell ability. Primal-specc'd Ancients are pretty underpowered too; they don't really compare with the sort of damage that biped spell casters can put out. It's also true that dragons cannot heal very well. Bipeds have plenty of ways to keep melee dragons at bay too. Roots...mezzes...stuns...
    It's why I stated in-game mechanics shouldn't really be used in a PvP setting, simply because I highly doubt the current power balance doesn't reflect what the developers would depict as how Istaria actually stands. We've already had a war between dragons and humans yet neither completely dominated the other, there were "only a few deaths." If you're going with mechanics, I'd ask how a dominant ability user would stop from completely annihilating their opponent if it was really one sided as the mechanics would make it appear, from the sound of it both were evenly matched and I'd argue further that it was only because humanity outnumbers dragon kind due to the fact the dragons destroyed Barasavus and Mellohndar prior to that with humanity unable to stop them. Not once in lore is humanity, or any race outside the undead, able to take a draconic settlement or assault the dragons successfully to have been declared a "victory."

    Further going the route of logic vs mechanics historically speaking what happens when a more advanced way of doing things occurs? Initially people are slow to warm up to it and have an outright hatred for it, but what eventually wins them over is that which can't be denied: results. The lesser races have had centuries of splitting apart the prime into their focused magics yet have yet to convince them it's a better way to utilize magic my question would be why?

    Why would a race that devotes itself to the better understanding of magic to form an academy, that has scholars living hundreds or thousands of years to mull the concept or idea over, that when presented with a system that produces better results than that of their own simply deny them and refer to it as "lesser?" Civilizations that do that are typically destroyed by the very thing they look down on- yet despite thousands of years and countless opportunities when the dragons attention were focused elsewhere has not a single demonstration that their logic is false occured. My argument would be that, faulty mechanics aside, dragons usage of the prime energies remains dominant or is at the least able to maintain with anything the lesser races are able to accomplish by splitting it... or there would be sufficient negative effects from doing so that would cause the dragons to not only call it lesser but would probably ban it's usage for safety concerns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    That's not the way I see it working. I think it'd be more along the lines of trying to teach a dog to dance than a human to dance. Istarian dragons just aren't built to walk on their hind legs. Their hind legs are too far back and their chest too far forward.
    My rebuttal would be that dragons have mastered the khutit form, I highly doubt with modification, adapting use of their wings to stabilize or repositioning their tail and neck they wouldn't be able to fashion a method of walking that would be both comfortable and practical. The continued usage of quadruped movement is more due to it's ease of crossing long distances as the motion for using 4 limbs consumes less energy and requires less balance than that of 2. I would imagine dragons realize this and simply swap between the two stances, remaining on their hind legs when in places that don't require moving much or in situations where the need to use both hands in unison is the dominant task and not, say, walking or bounding thousands of meters between destinations. I would state simply that there aren't animations to support it because it'd be unnecessary to code the dragons swapping stances from movement to utility.
    Last edited by Exrage; August 10th, 2012 at 03:41 PM.

  4. #24
    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
    We've already had a war between dragons and humans yet neither completely dominated the other, there were "only a few deaths."
    If I remember correctly, humans and dragons actually didn't have much of a "war." The dragons were too busy arguing amongst themselves to deal with it, and this "war" resulted in only one battle. There was no chance for either side to "dominate" the other as neither really even tried. Ashlander Vandus wasn't a warmonger, he was a politician. x)

    Besides which, if neither side dominated the other, does that not mean they are equal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Why would a race that devotes itself to the better understanding of magic to form an academy, that has scholars living hundreds or thousands of years to mull the concept or idea over, that when presented with a system that produces better results than that of their own simply deny them and refer to it as "lesser?" ... My argument would be that, faulty mechanics aside, dragons usage of the prime energies remains dominant or is at the least able to maintain with anything the lesser races are able to accomplish by splitting it... or there would be sufficient negative effects from doing so that would cause the dragons to not only call it lesser but would probably ban it's usage for safety concerns.
    The lore does not support your hypothesis. There are great advantages to splintering Primal magic and making use of its more specialized forms. Ignoring armor, freezing enemies, stunning them with electricity, draining their health... These are all things that normal Primal magic cannot do.

    The dragons do have a Drain Bolt spell now, but guess how they got it? By studying bipeds using spirit magic. But Drain Bolt still does not ignore armor like most true spirit spells. It is handicapped by the fact that the dragon developing it was not willing to go any further than simply making the spell lean more heavily towards its spirit component.

    The reason dragons have not adopted splinter magics and ban their kind from learning it is simply because of their arrogance. The same arrogance that makes them continue to refer to the other Living Races as lesser beings despite the fact that the entirety of Istaria would be dead and blighted now if it were not for the rise of the Gifted, which was entirely due to bipeds and their magic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    My rebuttal would be that dragons have mastered the khutit form, I highly doubt with modification, adapting use of their wings to stabilize or repositioning their tail and neck they wouldn't be able to fashion a method of walking that would be both comfortable and practical.
    Well, if having a single clan of dragons that know the secrets of the khutit rune and share that knowledge with no one is what you call "mastered." xP

    Khutit form is not something a dragon can just do. It is not a natural ability. Further, a dragon cannot just alter their khutit form, or decide they'd like to look human instead today. There is just normal form and khutit form, nothing in-between.

    Even further than that, if we suppose that a dragon was privy to knowledge of how to make a khutit rune and he decided that he was going to give himself another form where he could walk on two legs but still keep mostly to his normal form, he would still fail. The khutit form needs a base form to work off of--sslik ghost essense was used for this base--and there is nothing in Istaria that could be a base for a dragon that can switch between two- or four-legged locomotion at will.

    If however you are saying that dragons could just do it if they wanted but the animations just aren't there, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I just don't think they are physically built for it just as I don't think a dog is physically built for it.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

  5. #25

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    If I remember correctly, humans and dragons actually didn't have much of a "war." The dragons were too busy arguing amongst themselves to deal with it, and this "war" resulted in only one battle. There was no chance for either side to "dominate" the other as neither really even tried. Ashlander Vandus wasn't a warmonger, he was a politician. x)

    Besides which, if neither side dominated the other, does that not mean they are equal?
    A suitable hypothesis but if neither side truly engaged the other then it wouldn't make one equal to the other, it would make them foolish to declare a war and then not fight it. The real question would be why it was hyped up to the level of a war without ever reaching that level of bloodshed as it had in the past with dragons standing triumphant over humanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The lore does not support your hypothesis. There are great advantages to splintering Primal magic and making use of its more specialized forms. Ignoring armor, freezing enemies, stunning them with electricity, draining their health... These are all things that normal Primal magic cannot do.
    I'd ask where is that lore, other than game mechanics as there's nothing stating that primal magic isn't capable of performing similar functions when altered by a dragon. I'd postulate that dragons have the ability to perform similar effects, just that since they don't hold back the other elements the act of freezing or draining something's essence as an example has negative effects or is needlessly complicated as a dragon can use it's physical form to stun and restrain an enemy, or primally affect the winds around themselves and their targets also affecting their opponents similarly without having a larger impact on the world than conjuring pure energy/ice/fire and releasing it on a single point to compensate for their natural ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The dragons do have a Drain Bolt spell now, but guess how they got it? By studying bipeds using spirit magic. But Drain Bolt still does not ignore armor like most true spirit spells. It is handicapped by the fact that the dragon developing it was not willing to go any further than simply making the spell lean more heavily towards its spirit component.
    They also have a drain strike ability, giving them two methods they can combine for a similar, albeit more drawn out effect. And while a single particular spell usually doesn't usually pack the same punch as one that's held back the myriad of other abilities available to a dragon utilizing it's primal and physical aspects is able to counter, improve upon, and develop a harmony of more than the single aspects a biped has access to as their specializing in one area tends to make them completely vulnerable in others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The reason dragons have not adopted splinter magics and ban their kind from learning it is simply because of their arrogance. The same arrogance that makes them continue to refer to the other Living Races as lesser beings despite the fact that the entirety of Istaria would be dead and blighted now if it were not for the rise of the Gifted, which was entirely due to bipeds and their magic.
    I would agree whole heartedly with that, but the dragons were able to retake what they had lost with an exception for Draak- which if you really take it into context was a school of young dragons being overwhelmed by surprise. The gift, as I stated before, would be a mixed blessing to the wisdom of the ancients. The inability to be slain has great perks, but also promotes great foolishness and misuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Well, if having a single clan of dragons that know the secrets of the khutit rune and share that knowledge with no one is what you call "mastered." xP

    Khutit form is not something a dragon can just do. It is not a natural ability. Further, a dragon cannot just alter their khutit form, or decide they'd like to look human instead today. There is just normal form and khutit form, nothing in-between.
    Mastery implies that they have refined an artform or usage to it's apex, which I would postulate that the discovery of a rune or gifted spell granting ability to change one's form would at the least cause experimentation and attempts at recreation. The current holders of the rune obviously have taught many dragons, to postulate that not a single of the more research inclined would be looking into duplicates, if not other runes entirely, would be crazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Even further than that, if we suppose that a dragon was privy to knowledge of how to make a khutit rune and he decided that he was going to give himself another form where he could walk on two legs but still keep mostly to his normal form, he would still fail. The khutit form needs a base form to work off of--sslik ghost essense was used for this base--and there is nothing in Istaria that could be a base for a dragon that can switch between two- or four-legged locomotion at will.
    Maybe I dipped more into altering their physical form than I had intended. It's more like due to their ability to swap to a khutit form they'd realize how things feel standing and moving in certain ways and could then transcribe what they felt to their larger draconic forms. To state that it's not possible wouldn't be accurate in my opinion, difficult but if the benefits of standing to use their forelimbs more dexterously I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out.

  6. #26
    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'd ask where is that lore, other than game mechanics as there's nothing stating that primal magic isn't capable of performing similar functions when altered by a dragon.
    If we're going to be totally ignoring the game mechanics, then I'm afraid I am going to have to discontinue my discussion on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I would agree whole heartedly with that, but the dragons were able to retake what they had lost with an exception for Draak- which if you really take it into context was a school of young dragons being overwhelmed by surprise.
    What have the dragons retaken that was lost? They have not retaken Draak, they have not fixed time for themselves, they have not returned themselves to their previous place of near-gods above the bipeds...

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    The gift, as I stated before, would be a mixed blessing to the wisdom of the ancients. The inability to be slain has great perks, but also promotes great foolishness and misuse.
    Yes, great perks like everyone not being dead. x3 I think you might be downplaying the importance of the Gift here. Again, the Gift is the only reason anything on Istaria still lives. Dragons along with every other creature on the planet would have been wiped out otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Maybe I dipped more into altering their physical form than I had intended. It's more like due to their ability to swap to a khutit form they'd realize how things feel standing and moving in certain ways and could then transcribe what they felt to their larger draconic forms. To state that it's not possible wouldn't be accurate in my opinion, difficult but if the benefits of standing to use their forelimbs more dexterously I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out.
    It is possible for a dog to walk on two legs. Is it practical? No. Dogs are physically not built to walk on two legs. I do not think that Istarian dragons are built to walk on two legs either.

    What I am arguing is that walking on two legs would be awkward and unsustainabble for a dragon without making alterations (and I don't mean stance changes; I mean khutit-transformation-level stuff) to its physical body that allow it to do so.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

  7. #27

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    What have the dragons retaken that was lost? They have not retaken Draak, they have not fixed time for themselves, they have not returned themselves to their previous place of near-gods above the bipeds...
    Perhaps "retaken" was the wrong term, they held their ground at Chiconis against the largest force of undead that included new forms of previously unseen undead and drove them back into the ocean per the lore. Point being, dragons stood in the face of being overtaken- the last entry mentioning an attack on dragons in the lore and it was before the Gift had been developed. While the other races were seeing defeat and loss, dragons continued to prosper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Yes, great perks like everyone not being dead. x3 I think you might be downplaying the importance of the Gift here. Again, the Gift is the only reason anything on Istaria still lives. Dragons along with every other creature on the planet would have been wiped out otherwise.
    To uplift the Gift would be like uplifting the atom bomb. Yes, it saved countless lives in the demonstration of it's power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki- but a weapon will forever be just that, a weapon. The Gift is a weapon developed in desperation and that must never be forgotten nor overlooked, and those that utilize it may also misuse it for purposes other than what was intended. Dragons, I would theorize, would know of the magics necessary to create it but why would you want to force someone into immortality?

    Especially given that they, with the lore of how they are managing against the undead, clearly are not putting them into a state of desperation- they have the luxury of focusing on internal affairs, like the rise of other species than the undead and the potential threat they pose if they continue prospering at the rate they are. Look at it like this, if the Aegis is defeated what would keep the lesser races from turning their efforts on each other or against the dragons out-right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    It is possible for a dog to walk on two legs. Is it practical? No. Dogs are physically not built to walk on two legs. I do not think that Istarian dragons are built to walk on two legs either.
    Dogs don't have forelimbs with thumbs though, and don't have a reason to sit upright or use them for more than our amusement. Chimps/apes/monkeys on the other hand do and have developed the habit of running on all fours when they're moving from place to place and sitting upright when socializing or focusing on tasks. Even fighting monkeys will alternate between standing and being on all fours, depending on what they're attempting to do to their opponents and I'd state that ability gives even the smaller of their species an advantage over the larger that isn't as practiced or agile which is unusual in nature, as usually size determines victor unless numbers become a factor. (aka 1 large ape vs. a lone wolf vs 1 large ape vs. a pack of wolves as they would normally hunt)

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    What I am arguing is that walking on two legs would be awkward and unsustainabble for a dragon without making alterations (and I don't mean stance changes; I mean khutit-transformation-level stuff) to its physical body that allow it to do so.
    Even on the ancients I don't see it. Holding it's back up with a forward arch, rotating it's shoulders so its neck came upward and forward while utilizing it's tail behind it to counterbalance the weight is more than plausible, and also would be more intimidating than just standing on all fours.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I'd ask where is that lore, other than game mechanics as there's nothing stating that primal magic isn't capable of performing similar functions when altered by a dragon.
    Mechanics have an influence on lore and thus they can not be completely disregarded (PVP can be argued, though, as it's not officially supported). If you ignore mechanics, you must also ignore everything that comes through mechanics. Which is essentially everything that only exists within the game such as quest lines. The Khutit form, for example, must be disregarded as I don't think there's any official out-of-game context written for it.

    If you choose to be selective of which game mechanics you allow for lore (such as Khutit form), and which game mechanics you ignore (such as mechanics that dictate what Dragons can do with their magic), then you're making exceptions in order to make Dragons seem the superior race. One can make anything seem superior to anything else if they make enough exceptions, so it's not really an accurate argument to make.

    As far as both written out-of-game lore and officially supported game mechanics go, Dragons were vastly superior to bipeds, but that hasn't been the case for quite some time. It was the work of a couple bipeds that caused the loss of the Sleeper (the first Dragon to come after Drulkar). Bipeds are a force to be reckoned with, both in lore and mechanics.
    Avatar is of my character Akrion, snipped from Hrae's Hoard of Creatures by the excellent moss loving artist Nambroth. <3

  9. #29
    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
    Perhaps "retaken" was the wrong term, they held their ground at Chiconis against the largest force of undead that included new forms of previously unseen undead and drove them back into the ocean per the lore.
    The bolded part simply is not what is in the lore as I understand it. The Battle of Tazoon was the largest battle I believe (that or the seige of Aughundell), not the assault on Chiconis. I would hardly say the dragons were "prospering" during the Age of Lamentations either. They lost Draak--an entire generation of hatchlings, and I'm sure many more dragons were lost in various battles against the undead. The Lunus were present at the Battle of Tazoon and despite that, the battle was very, very one-sided in the undeads' favor until that deus ex machina of Ryson's (a human) saved the day. :P


    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    To uplift the Gift would be like uplifting the atom bomb. Yes, it saved countless lives in the demonstration of it's power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki- but a weapon will forever be just that, a weapon. The Gift is a weapon developed in desperation and that must never be forgotten nor overlooked, and those that utilize it may also misuse it for purposes other than what was intended. Dragons, I would theorize, would know of the magics necessary to create it but why would you want to force someone into immortality?
    Uhhh. I'm not sure I agree with the Gift = nuclear bomb analogy. Also, it sounds like you're under the impression that people choose to be Gifted or that a person could make a specific person Gifted, and that's not the way it works.

    Either way, I'm pretty sure that dragons do not have the knowledge necessary to perform the Ritual that brought about the Gift. And again...there's that whole "everyone would be dead if not for the Gift" thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Look at it like this, if the Aegis is defeated what would keep the lesser races from turning their efforts on each other or against the dragons out-right?
    Well, hopefully, the Living Races would have bonded enough to keep the peace even after the undead were defeated, but Istaria's history is rife with racial conflict and tension to the point that it honestly is kind of a miracle that they've all banded together at all.

    But there definitely would not be a concerted effort by all the biped races to take down the dragons. The Lunus and the Fiends actually like each other, and the Helians aren't really anybody's enemy. There is more cause for everyone to go to war with half-giants than dragons. xD

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Dogs don't have forelimbs with thumbs though, and don't have a reason to sit upright or use them for more than our amusement. Chimps/apes/monkeys on the other hand do and have developed the habit of running on all fours when they're moving from place to place and sitting upright when socializing or focusing on tasks.
    Dogs and chimps have different body structures. It's not that the dog has no reason to be on two legs, it's that its body is not meant for it. A chimp's body is meant for it. If there are so many advantages to walking on two legs, why do the dragons insist on walking on four if it would be so easy to walk on two?

    I still disagree that dragons could utilize two-legged movement effectively, given the way that, to me, they are clearly meant to walk on all fours. Unless a dev comes out and tells me otherwise, that will remain my opinion on the matter.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

  10. #30

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The bolded part simply is not what is in the lore as I understand it. The Battle of Tazoon was the largest battle I believe (that or the seige of Aughundell), not the assault on Chiconis. I would hardly say the dragons were "prospering" during the Age of Lamentations either. They lost Draak--an entire generation of hatchlings, and I'm sure many more dragons were lost in various battles against the undead. The Lunus were present at the Battle of Tazoon and despite that, the battle was very, very one-sided in the undeads' favor until that deus ex machina of Ryson's (a human) saved the day. :P
    A representation of lunus faction where there that day, from my interpretation, leaving to question just how many of their forces did they truly commit to the defense of Tazoon. While I will concede that the loss of an entire generation of offspring would be a dark omen and effect the entire species I would extrapolate that even with this in mind, dragons still opted to defend Chiconis 100 years afterward despite the gap in their standing forces where that generation would be instead of simply evacuating the city and retreating.

    While not the "largest" overall, it was the largest engaged at that point in time and they did it on their own successfully, which the only other race able to make a similar statement is the gnomes- however, they were "weary and greatly weakened" where no mention of this is made for dragon kind. Draak was a sneak attack against kids in a school, the actual undead assault against the entire race was pushed back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Uhhh. I'm not sure I agree with the Gift = nuclear bomb analogy. Also, it sounds like you're under the impression that people choose to be Gifted or that a person could make a specific person Gifted, and that's not the way it works.
    I haven't stated that one chooses to be Gifted or has the ability to choose which are, I simply stated giving something that isn't immortal unending life goes against nature, or the prime, which the dragons craft their existence after and have a far deeper understanding of than any of the "lesser" races.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Either way, I'm pretty sure that dragons do not have the knowledge necessary to perform the Ritual that brought about the Gift. And again...there's that whole "everyone would be dead if not for the Gift" thing.
    Gifted aren't the only ones still alive, the most called upon for their talents true, but you are the reinforcements sent to aid several contingents of ungifted warriors. If there are ungifted people putting their lives on the line to fight, I would postulate that there are other ungifted that posses power greater to those that are and have used it protecting their respective peoples and beliefs for far longer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Well, hopefully, the Living Races would have bonded enough to keep the peace even after the undead were defeated, but Istaria's history is rife with racial conflict and tension to the point that it honestly is kind of a miracle that they've all banded together at all.

    But there definitely would not be a concerted effort by all the biped races to take down the dragons. The Lunus and the Fiends actually like each other, and the Helians aren't really anybody's enemy. There is more cause for everyone to go to war with half-giants than dragons. xD
    It's just a hypothesis that I brought for with the point of it not being implausible, despite being unlikely. The goal would be that of a dragon's interpretation of why the lunus would refer to the other races as a "threat." Defining exactly how they could view them as a problem, and how large of a problem most dragons would deem they pose. Even the Helian are attempting to avert the course of the lesser races progression, choosing to "guide" rather than "cull."

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    Mechanics have an influence on lore and thus they can not be completely disregarded (PVP can be argued, though, as it's not officially supported). If you ignore mechanics, you must also ignore everything that comes through mechanics. Which is essentially everything that only exists within the game such as quest lines. The Khutit form, for example, must be disregarded as I don't think there's any official out-of-game context written for it.
    Mechanics are buggy, are constantly changing, and don't account for things found naturally in a world or plane of existence, let alone things they plan on adding to the game later that they don't want to unveil so it remains a surprise. Mechanics are what allows your avatar to make ice appear and register a stat indicating it's effect on a target.

    Lore is what the developers use to explain the hows and whys, and the lore for most of it are left a mystery or to coin the phrase Raptress used earlier "it's MAAGIC!" In order to roleplay we're choosing to set semi-believable concepts that explain most of the gaps without going outside what lore IS written that a common person/dragon would know or have an opinion on that would allow them to have the ability to relate to another without spending most of an RP session explaining a past that never ends in the same way. While also trying to take into account any future additions to the game mechanics... you can imagine why this task is daunting, but necessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    If you choose to be selective of which game mechanics you allow for lore (such as Khutit form), and which game mechanics you ignore (such as mechanics that dictate what Dragons can do with their magic), then you're making exceptions in order to make Dragons seem the superior race. One can make anything seem superior to anything else if they make enough exceptions, so it's not really an accurate argument to make.
    We're not going with mechanics, we're going with what lore is written within the game itself. Khutit form is explained from characters written within the game by the developers, ergo it falls under the realm of "lore" which means it can be further defined and extrapolated on.

    The reason is simple, the next patch changes your damage or that of dragons- where suddenly "fire breath" becomes 3x as powerful as your best spell and now all of a sudden your entire stance has to change off a potential typo in the coding. Mechanics are a good starting point and can be used as a stand alone point, but RP would ask that the developers weigh in on why that particular spell or ability is superior to another intentionally and if it were intended to remain that way in the future.

    The game is not in a final stage, it's constantly being improved and added upon. This should add new chapters to RP, not require us to go back and have to change our character history, common phrases, or potentially delete a character as it doesn't fit with the new in-game mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    As far as both written out-of-game lore and officially supported game mechanics go, Dragons were vastly superior to bipeds, but that hasn't been the case for quite some time. It was the work of a couple bipeds that caused the loss of the Sleeper (the first Dragon to come after Drulkar). Bipeds are a force to be reckoned with, both in lore and mechanics.
    Bipeds are a growing force that is being allowed to continue growing by the dragons from my stand point. You're postulating dragons haven't done something because they can't despite any lore suggesting it, what the lore does point out is that dragons are not doing anything because they can't agree and don't want to move until they reach a conclusion and signed an agreement they wouldn't do anything in face of the withered aegis.

    Furthermore who's to say dragons didn't have the knowledge of or ability capable of toppling the sleeper or creating the gifted? From their stand point the only thing bipeds accomplished by actually doing something they could have already thought of and rejected didn't prove their power or superiority, only their recklessness and inability to see consequences when taking action- action that is getting increasingly powerful, and therefore increasingly dangerous.

  11. #31

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    We're not going with mechanics, we're going with what lore is written within the game itself. Khutit form is explained from characters written within the game by the developers, ergo it falls under the realm of "lore" which means it can be further defined and extrapolated on.
    Khutit form is explained through a quest, which is a game mechanic. If you have to use a game mechanic in some way to obtain lore, that lore comes through game mechanics. Without game mechanics, Khutit lore would not exist. You have to aknowledge game mechanics to aknowledge Khutit lore. It's inseperable. As an aside, the only reason why Khutit form exists is so that Adult and Ancient dragons could fit into buildings, something that was implimented with game mechanics in mind first, and lore second.

    If you're going to be strict on the lore regarding magic use through mechanics, I'm going to hold that you be equally strict on lore regarding other things through mechanics, again such as Khutit form. Inversely if you want to be liberal about lore that comes from game mechanics, I'm going to hold that you be equally liberal with all lore obtained this way. Otherwise there's not much point in debating lore if you're allowed to throw in arbitrary exceptions or restrictions.
    Avatar is of my character Akrion, snipped from Hrae's Hoard of Creatures by the excellent moss loving artist Nambroth. <3

  12. #32
    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
    While not the "largest" overall, it was the largest engaged at that point in time and they did it on their own successfully, which the only other race able to make a similar statement is the gnomes- however, they were "weary and greatly weakened" where no mention of this is made for dragon kind.
    Are you sure about that? Looking at the timeline it just says that the force was "massive"; it doesn't specify that it was "the largest" up to that point. Also, just because it doesn't say that the dragons were weary from the battle doesn't mean that it was just no problem for them to push the undead back. The timeline says it took the dragons days of fighting to push back the assault. Days of fighting would make anyone tired and weakened, dragon or not. They're still living, physical beings, and bodies have limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Gifted aren't the only ones still alive, the most called upon for their talents true, but you are the reinforcements sent to aid several contingents of ungifted warriors. If there are ungifted people putting their lives on the line to fight, I would postulate that there are other ungifted that posses power greater to those that are and have used it protecting their respective peoples and beliefs for far longer.
    The lore that I've read about the Battle of Tazoon was that it was pretty much the last stand by the Living Races against the undead, and that if the undead had won that battle, they would have won the war. The only reason that battle was not lost is because of the miracle of the Gift bringing downed warriors back into the fight.

    The Gifted are not the only ones still alive, no, but I still maintain that the lore implies (if not outright states somewhere) that if the Gifted did not exist, then Istaria would have been lost to the undead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    We're not going with mechanics, we're going with what lore is written within the game itself.
    I believe that game mechanics are a part of the game world just as the lore is. That my characters' levels, abilities, and spells are a part of who they are in RP. If my character was not powerful enough to kill a named treant in the game, I wouldn't go into RP saying that in fact, my character can easily defeat that named treant simply by breathing fire on it.

    Yes, there is some wiggle room, since some mechanics don't play nicely with logic sometimes (for that matter, sometimes the lore doesn't play nicely with logic sometimes), but I always make an effort to have my characters and their actions agree with the mechanics as well as I can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Bipeds are a growing force that is being allowed to continue growing by the dragons from my stand point. You're postulating dragons haven't done something because they can't despite any lore suggesting it, what the lore does point out is that dragons are not doing anything because they can't agree and don't want to move until they reach a conclusion and signed an agreement they wouldn't do anything in face of the withered aegis.
    I do not honestly believe that, if the dragons ignored the Peace Accords and stopped squabbling amongst themselves, they could put down the bipedal races and conquer them in this day and age. Fight them into a stalemate maybe, but I think a defeat of the dragons would be the most likely outcome. There are many, many more bipeds than there are dragons, and bipeds are not the primitive peoples that they were in the Age of the Dragons.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

  13. #33

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Are you sure about that? Looking at the timeline it just says that the force was "massive"; it doesn't specify that it was "the largest" up to that point. Also, just because it doesn't say that the dragons were weary from the battle doesn't mean that it was just no problem for them to push the undead back. The timeline says it took the dragons days of fighting to push back the assault. Days of fighting would make anyone tired and weakened, dragon or not. They're still living, physical beings, and bodies have limits.
    I was stipulating that due to what's given, that there were new undead forces introduced specifically for the fight against the dragons, that it was the undead's attempt at launching everything it had against them. Otherwise why wouldn't they use that trump card against any of the other races if it wasn't for the purpose of utilizing the element of surprise, much like the surprise attack that allowed them to bring down the school of Draak? I would also mention that they went out of their way to point out the gnomes were exhausted and weakened after their victory while dragons had simply triumphed. Exhaustion after battle is to be expected, but to the level it becomes noteworthy in history to emphasize it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The lore that I've read about the Battle of Tazoon was that it was pretty much the last stand by the Living Races against the undead, and that if the undead had won that battle, they would have won the war. The only reason that battle was not lost is because of the miracle of the Gift bringing downed warriors back into the fight.

    The Gifted are not the only ones still alive, no, but I still maintain that the lore implies (if not outright states somewhere) that if the Gifted did not exist, then Istaria would have been lost to the undead.
    So the ultimate battle yet not all of the dragons forces were there, which leads to questions of where and why Helian dragons out of either faction where the ones NOT present at the time. And, just like deploying the atom bomb, they were able to pull a victory from a long and drawn out defeat- allowing fallen warriors to return as a last ditch effort to stop them from becoming their undead adversaries, with a wild and uncontrolled magic enveloping those in it whether they wanted to or not.

    Yes, they won the battle and turned the tide in the war, but at what cost? Immortality can be viewed as a curse at one point or another, and what would happen if a returning gifted warrior decided to use their "gift" for the purpose of evil? So long as they're bound far enough away, they could commit an atrocity and before being brought to justice simply kill themselves as a free "get-out-of-jail" card to continue a reign of villainy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I believe that game mechanics are a part of the game world just as the lore is. That my characters' levels, abilities, and spells are a part of who they are in RP. If my character was not powerful enough to kill a named treant in the game, I wouldn't go into RP saying that in fact, my character can easily defeat that named treant simply by breathing fire on it.

    Yes, there is some wiggle room, since some mechanics don't play nicely with logic sometimes (for that matter, sometimes the lore doesn't play nicely with logic sometimes), but I always make an effort to have my characters and their actions agree with the mechanics as well as I can.
    It's like I stated to Akrian, using in-game mechanics to prove single points from a physical aspect is fine. Where that begins to lose merit is when you're comparing two physical aspects, since the mechanics aren't meant to be compared or handled in that manner. Case in point we go to the bipedal spells vs the dragon abilities, comparing the total damage done from one verses another is subject to change due to future patches, level and stat modifiers, or simple "unlucky" math.

    Now stating that "this spell works better than that spell" for an argument is valid when applied to individual circumstances and consistent mechanics. Where it crosses the line is when you use mechanics alone to justify lore, unless developers specifically point it out making it lore. For example Akrian's statement that he could kill an ancient dragon with gold shield up with a single spell is based on what mechanics? Are those mechanics set in stone, or are those mechanics subject to change? Do we take into account PvP stats and abilities do not exist in the games mechanics, or do we simply apply the mechanic to a state in which it doesn't currently exist?

    Lore supports mechanics. Mechanics do not always support lore. When citing references make sure you remember this, unless a developer states a mechanic's intention (in case it should ever change accidentally) your basis would drop at the introduction of a new skill or modification to a table in their code that renders your fact not a fact anymore, and if you base lore upon a changing fact you lose realism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I do not honestly believe that, if the dragons ignored the Peace Accords and stopped squabbling amongst themselves, they could put down the bipedal races and conquer them in this day and age. Fight them into a stalemate maybe, but I think a defeat of the dragons would be the most likely outcome. There are many, many more bipeds than there are dragons, and bipeds are not the primitive peoples that they were in the Age of the Dragons.
    Dragons living substantially longer lives than that of their opponents, further grasps of magical aspects and theorems, greater physical prowess, and ability to go places they can't naturally? A stance you and I continue to be at odds on. Numbers are what would give the lesser races an edge, and that would be something of a breaking point for the lunus who would be constantly monitoring something they'd deem a threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akrion View Post
    Khutit form is explained through a quest, which is a game mechanic. If you have to use a game mechanic in some way to obtain lore, that lore comes through game mechanics. Without game mechanics, Khutit lore would not exist. You have to aknowledge game mechanics to aknowledge Khutit lore. It's inseperable. As an aside, the only reason why Khutit form exists is so that Adult and Ancient dragons could fit into buildings, something that was implimented with game mechanics in mind first, and lore second.

    If you're going to be strict on the lore regarding magic use through mechanics, I'm going to hold that you be equally strict on lore regarding other things through mechanics, again such as Khutit form. Inversely if you want to be liberal about lore that comes from game mechanics, I'm going to hold that you be equally liberal with all lore obtained this way. Otherwise there's not much point in debating lore if you're allowed to throw in arbitrary exceptions or restrictions.
    Again I see we're struggling with the terms "mechanic" and "lore." A mechanic is an equation, a physically existing thing in the game that when you enter a number you receive an outcome. The "mechanic" of the khutit form ends when you get passed what the actual ability does, which is changes the form to that resembling a Ssaris. The "lore" comes into play from the dialogue which has nothing to do with the equation, the text that the developers chose to explain the reasoning behind the mechanic, where it came from, what it does, and why it does it.

    Where the restrictions come into play for mechanics explaining lore are in the areas where they frequently change such as the equations themselves or their outcomes. For example your using the fact currently your character can perform a higher damage output than a dragon as proof that your character's race/class are superior to dragons from a lore standpoint isn't solid. You build your RP from the standpoint that you can outdamage a dragon, then one day the developers change the mechanic or add something where the dragon becomes superior, now any lore you've developed from the changed mechanic becomes false. Proving that you can hit a treant harder than a dragon is fine, proving that your race or class is adapt at slaying them and have mastered it at a level greater than dragons is not.

    Lastly I would state that many times developers come up with mechanics before thinking up lore to explain it as there's a need in their game that must be filled immediately. This usually leads to not-as-solid lore that has holes in it, but with enough creativity RPers are able to create good RP from what tools- the rules administered by the game developers- are given. I'm not adhering special rules or stipulations that rule out in-game mechanics in total, I just refuse to base and develop a lore based off a still developing equation that may change my facts around later.

  14. #34
    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
    Yes, they won the battle and turned the tide in the war, but at what cost? Immortality can be viewed as a curse at one point or another, and what would happen if a returning gifted warrior decided to use their "gift" for the purpose of evil?
    Well...the alternative is "everyone dies, the end." x3 The point I was making by bringing up the Gift in the first place is that the Gift is the result of biped magics, not dragons', and that all the dragons would be dead without it. The dragons would not have been able to save themselves from the undead hordes without this biped intervention.

    Trying to argue that the Gift may have caused harm is kind of a dead end really, because...again...without it, everyone'd be dead. Don't think it gets more harmful than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Dragons living substantially longer lives than that of their opponents, further grasps of magical aspects and theorems, greater physical prowess, and ability to go places they can't naturally?
    I don't know about Istaria, but I know that in some other lores, the fact that humans live such comparably short lives makes them much more determined and industrious than longer-lived races.

    I don't really think it's fair to say that dragons have more grasp of magic when they refuse to explore the splinter magics. Dragons know more about raw Primal, yes, by far, but of magic in general? I think that one goes to the bipeds. Bipeds have developed several times more spells than dragons have, and have many, many spells that can do things that a dragon's spells can't.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

  15. #35

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    Well...the alternative is "everyone dies, the end." x3 The point I was making by bringing up the Gift in the first place is that the Gift is the result of biped magics, not dragons', and that all the dragons would be dead without it. The dragons would not have been able to save themselves from the undead hordes without this biped intervention.

    Trying to argue that the Gift may have caused harm is kind of a dead end really, because...again...without it, everyone'd be dead. Don't think it gets more harmful than that.
    Just theorizing plausible explanations for the events that transpired. Just because bipeds employed it doesn't mean the dragons had no knowledge or understanding of it and simply didn't choose to use it themselves as they hadn't deemed it necessary. If the battle was truly lost, dragons always have the ability to fly away and may simply have taken pity on the lesser races.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I don't know about Istaria, but I know that in some other lores, the fact that humans live such comparably short lives makes them much more determined and industrious than longer-lived races.

    I don't really think it's fair to say that dragons have more grasp of magic when they refuse to explore the splinter magics. Dragons know more about raw Primal, yes, by far, but of magic in general? I think that one goes to the bipeds. Bipeds have developed several times more spells than dragons have, and have many, many spells that can do things that a dragon's spells can't.
    I would agree with the statement toward human determination and industry, I disagree that dragons would never have considered splintering magics in it's research and understanding of primal energy. The beginnings of industry are wrought with self inflicted peril and wasted resources as those starting out in areas they have no knowledge of are typically "try your best and improvise." I'd state that to a dragon, improvisation isn't necessary when you can slowly and carefully experiment until you have a firm grasp on the physics and laws pertaining to it instead of investing on a "hunch."

    I'd end the statement with the usage of the word "can't" is a pessimists way of using the word "won't."

  16. #36
    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
    If the battle was truly lost, dragons always have the ability to fly away and may simply have taken pity on the lesser races.
    And after they flew away, what then? The dragons can't fly forever, and they'd have to eat eventually. What would they eat if the Withered Aegis had choked all the rest of the life out of Istaria? No matter how well the dragons ran away, their numbers would just dwindle and dwindle until they were all dead, either from starvation or exhaustion or at the hands of undead that managed to catch them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I'd state that to a dragon, improvisation isn't necessary when you can slowly and carefully experiment until you have a firm grasp on the physics and laws pertaining to it instead of investing on a "hunch."
    You seem to be of the mind that dragons don't use splinter magics because they have thoroughly investigated them and deemed them inefficient and inferior compared to Primal, but I think the lore points more towards dragons not even giving splinter magics a chance. I think dragons don't use splinter magic because they think it's blasphemy, not because it wouldn't be useful. We're talking about a people that argued so hard about what to do with humans that they hardly even had the attention left over to actually do anything about the human uprising. We're talking about a race that bickered for literally hundreds of years before almost coming to the point of civil war, and the only thing that prevented it was the Helians leaving. And they've never reconciled, remaining seperate to this day.

    The picture you seem to be painting of dragons is that they are a race of wise creatures that thoroughly think everything through before acting, and I just don't think the lore really supports that conclusion. The history of dragons becomes tumultuous pretty much the moment things start not going their way, as I see it.

    The example of the Entombed Will comes to mind. When the Sleeper was "destroyed", this dragon went on a human-killing rampage and he was punished for it by his own kind, entombed in a statue on Draak. Many Lunus didn't like that he was punished, and the whole debacle just strained Helian-Lunus relations further. Does that sound like everyone really thought things through? Because to me it just looks like dragons are a flawed race, equally capable of making poor decisions as any other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I'd end the statement with the usage of the word "can't" is a pessimists way of using the word "won't."
    I'm not sure I understand. Biped spells do have attributes and advantages that dragon spells don't. What exactly changes if I say "Bipeds have developed several times more spells than dragons have, and have many, many spells that can do things that a dragon's spells won't."? Sounds about the same to me. xD Dragon spells will not have the same utility as specialized biped spells. Changing "can't" to "won't" doesn't really change what I said.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

  17. #37

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I was stipulating that due to what's given, that there were new undead forces introduced specifically for the fight against the dragons, that it was the undead's attempt at launching everything it had against them. Otherwise why wouldn't they use that trump card against any of the other races if it wasn't for the purpose of utilizing the element of surprise, much like the surprise attack that allowed them to bring down the school of Draak? I would also mention that they went out of their way to point out the gnomes were exhausted and weakened after their victory while dragons had simply triumphed. Exhaustion after battle is to be expected, but to the level it becomes noteworthy in history to emphasize it?
    I suspect the emphasis is to explain the development of automatons by the gnomes. The fall of Rachival was due to the automatons turning on the gnomes - a traitor was involved - it's a seedy, sordid story, and the reason why Gangaf Tagley is in Dalimond. As I understand it, the game mechanics of rampant enemy automatons and where the gnomes are located were created based on the lore, not the other way around.

    So the ultimate battle yet not all of the dragons forces were there, which leads to questions of where and why Helian dragons out of either faction where the ones NOT present at the time. And, just like deploying the atom bomb, they were able to pull a victory from a long and drawn out defeat- allowing fallen warriors to return as a last ditch effort to stop them from becoming their undead adversaries, with a wild and uncontrolled magic enveloping those in it whether they wanted to or not.

    Yes, they won the battle and turned the tide in the war, but at what cost? Immortality can be viewed as a curse at one point or another, and what would happen if a returning gifted warrior decided to use their "gift" for the purpose of evil? So long as they're bound far enough away, they could commit an atrocity and before being brought to justice simply kill themselves as a free "get-out-of-jail" card to continue a reign of villainy?
    Every race had people elsewhere during the Battle at Tazoon. Helians being more scholarly and Lunus being more tooth & claw, it stands to reason there would be more Lunus in the battle. The "atom bomb" that won the battle was a dryad artifact; the dryads had long since departed from the land at the time.

    The Gifted do not harm the living races; that is part of the spell. It is reflected in the game mechanics that we cannot injure allies and cannot assist enemies of the land. And if you were asking where the Helians were when the ritual was cast? It was cast by the 8 greatest scholars of the day - I always assumed at least one of them to be Helian.

    Lore supports mechanics. Mechanics do not always support lore. When citing references make sure you remember this, unless a developer states a mechanic's intention (in case it should ever change accidentally) your basis would drop at the introduction of a new skill or modification to a table in their code that renders your fact not a fact anymore, and if you base lore upon a changing fact you lose realism.
    There is historical/planned lore and there is evolving/adaptive lore. The original game mechanics were designed to support historical lore. However, the world is not in stasis. Things change. This lends itself to a blend of adaptive lore to account for changes in mechanics and mechanics intended to support planned lore. There can always be "the empire came out with new official...." and "the withered aegis have drained...." reasons for why abilities surge or are nerfed. To say that "if you base lore upon a changing fact you lose realism" denies that real things in real life change.

    Lastly I would state that many times developers come up with mechanics before thinking up lore to explain it as there's a need in their game that must be filled immediately. This usually leads to not-as-solid lore that has holes in it, but with enough creativity RPers are able to create good RP from what tools- the rules administered by the game developers- are given. I'm not adhering special rules or stipulations that rule out in-game mechanics in total, I just refuse to base and develop a lore based off a still developing equation that may change my facts around later.
    You seem to have a "once true, it must always be true" attitude toward lore. However, life is not like that. Great new advances today may be stepping stones to greater achievements tomorrow, or they may have bombed by tomorrow. Yet for today, they are great new advances and society adapts to them whether or not we know how they came to be.

    Also bearing in mind that every individual has their own perspective on events, IMO it is perfectly acceptable for someone roleplaying to describe a mechanic completely differently than I would. If a mechanic exists in game, it is what our characters know. The how or why it exists within the world? That is a matter of perspective, and characters are perfectly free to adhere to an ultimately wrong explanation during roleplay. The earth revolves around the sun - but for many centuries, most people believed the reverse to be true. They were still able to use the mechanic for keeping time.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    I suspect the emphasis is to explain the development of automatons by the gnomes. The fall of Rachival was due to the automatons turning on the gnomes - a traitor was involved - it's a seedy, sordid story, and the reason why Gangaf Tagley is in Dalimond. As I understand it, the game mechanics of rampant enemy automatons and where the gnomes are located were created based on the lore, not the other way around.
    How intriguing, we should have the developers make reference (not necessarily explain everything to ruin the fun of finding out the whole story) in the timeline. And that's usually a sign of developer hip-fired lore, explaining something that doesn't make much sense at first glance.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    Every race had people elsewhere during the Battle at Tazoon. Helians being more scholarly and Lunus being more tooth & claw, it stands to reason there would be more Lunus in the battle. The "atom bomb" that won the battle was a dryad artifact; the dryads had long since departed from the land at the time.
    My point during Raptress' counter-thesis being that the dragons having knowledge of the gift gaining further ground with that revelation. Again I'd have to ask what your stance on them knowing of the artifact's chances would be and any thoughts on why they wouldn't have used it until a last ditch effort were necessary?

    Also a good point on Helian's philosophies accounting for their not being present during the battle, we must never forget that despite large and complex world-hinging battles life doesn't pause everywhere else while the fate of the world as they know it is on the line.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    The Gifted do not harm the living races; that is part of the spell. It is reflected in the game mechanics that we cannot injure allies and cannot assist enemies of the land. And if you were asking where the Helians were when the ritual was cast? It was cast by the 8 greatest scholars of the day - I always assumed at least one of them to be Helian.
    Another interesting and valid point, both utilizing a mechanic that won't be altered without the developers adding an in depth explanation (for PvP when it becomes enabled) and the lore from the time period. Despite my theory not aligning with yours I can't find a hole in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    There is historical/planned lore and there is evolving/adaptive lore. The original game mechanics were designed to support historical lore. However, the world is not in stasis. Things change. This lends itself to a blend of adaptive lore to account for changes in mechanics and mechanics intended to support planned lore. There can always be "the empire came out with new official...." and "the withered aegis have drained...." reasons for why abilities surge or are nerfed. To say that "if you base lore upon a changing fact you lose realism" denies that real things in real life change.
    It's a generalization about generalizing. The case in point is using the current game mechanics to state that a specific race has always had an edge over the others, or that a biped spell caster able to "kill an adult dragon with it's gold shield up" and utilizing the mechanic in a situation that the mechanic doesn't have algorithms for nor was intended to be used as a comparison for as the current balance of power of an entire race instead of the individual character being what makes it unrealistic.

    Realism dictates that those who have an advantage exploits it, and that those who don't have that advantage are exploited against. While a mechanic alone may justify that splintered magic is more potent than a draconic primal spell, at what point in the lore is that exploited and validated by the developers?

    Yes, things change but what must not change are what we would call the "core truths" for the physical world of Istaria, or physics. If splintering magic truly produces such a huge advantage as depicted in the game mechanics, then why would a race that lives as long as or is as immersed in magic as dragons not have conceded that without any sort of reasoning in the lore? To justify that dragons are blind to it while mages throughout the lore's history seek guidance from and are generally trained by dragons before becoming noteworthy in the lore would be a bit backwards, don't you think? The common theme is that a mage is taught by dragons, then takes that teaching and twists it around- and on several occasions this brings more than just destruction to Istaria. That's why to support your hypothesis and that of Raptress and Akrion I would state there would have to be serious negative side effects or good reason for the dragons to continue to ignore them and call them "lesser," feeling the need to either guide or cull the masses of the "lesser" races before becoming a problem they can't (a term of still in the future) handle.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    You seem to have a "once true, it must always be true" attitude toward lore. However, life is not like that. Great new advances today may be stepping stones to greater achievements tomorrow, or they may have bombed by tomorrow. Yet for today, they are great new advances and society adapts to them whether or not we know how they came to be.
    The expression is that "history ignored is history repeated." The problem with the lore being so unclear is that the history we would expect to be common knowledge is spread through out the world, which is why I felt the need to put a theorem in the lore section for all of us to come together and pit ideas against each other to find what is plausible and what isn't. Several of my ideas and theories have been proven unlikely or unfounded, but I've developed quite a few more thanks to the input from you three.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    Also bearing in mind that every individual has their own perspective on events, IMO it is perfectly acceptable for someone roleplaying to describe a mechanic completely differently than I would. If a mechanic exists in game, it is what our characters know. The how or why it exists within the world? That is a matter of perspective, and characters are perfectly free to adhere to an ultimately wrong explanation during roleplay. The earth revolves around the sun - but for many centuries, most people believed the reverse to be true. They were still able to use the mechanic for keeping time.
    Absolutely! I agree with your roleplaying style completely and agree that your characters can have a warped understanding of the world mechanics. The problem is that when the players are the ones not understanding the world mechanics, and you end up with several stories that are made up of conflicting elements that turn into 8 hour debates or a muddled history/relationship that leads to an awkward "how do we RP this" that tends to turn most casual RPers off. Creating a down-and-dirty theorem that gives a base and generalized reference point for RPing that doesn't stifle creativity too much but gives generalized view points and lore to consider when developing a dragon character will only help the community.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    And after they flew away, what then? The dragons can't fly forever, and they'd have to eat eventually. What would they eat if the Withered Aegis had choked all the rest of the life out of Istaria? No matter how well the dragons ran away, their numbers would just dwindle and dwindle until they were all dead, either from starvation or exhaustion or at the hands of undead that managed to catch them.
    It's more of a possible decision during a failed attempt at a battle than the overall decision for the war. You're a dragon attached to a company of lesser races and all with an exception for you, a gnome, a half-giant and the talkative fiend are left from your platoon of 50 to hold a position until reinforcements arrive... 12 minutes ago. It's clear the position is overrun and the only ones who know of how your platoon got this way are about to be silenced forever, knowledge that could save several other platoons about to be in a similar situation. The other races don't have an option- but the dragon does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    You seem to be of the mind that dragons don't use splinter magics because they have thoroughly investigated them and deemed them inefficient and inferior compared to Primal, but I think the lore points more towards dragons not even giving splinter magics a chance. I think dragons don't use splinter magic because they think it's blasphemy, not because it wouldn't be useful. We're talking about a people that argued so hard about what to do with humans that they hardly even had the attention left over to actually do anything about the human uprising. We're talking about a race that bickered for literally hundreds of years before almost coming to the point of civil war, and the only thing that prevented it was the Helians leaving. And they've never reconciled, remaining seperate to this day.
    As I mentioned in response to Awdz it's the lesser races that seek being taught by dragons and only become noteworthy after the fact in the lore that I deem that hypothesis on splintering magic vs primal magic backwards. I would even postulate that the lesser races splintering magic is because they aren't of primal essence and therefore incapable of bending primal magic that it's used more of as a crutch than a truly superior method of utilizing magic.

    I would also stipulate that the dragons weren't simply sitting around arguing, lore suggests they were actively engaged on several fronts in improving their own understanding of magic by establishing an academy that taught both factions of magic, instructed several key individuals from the lesser races and subsequently dealt with the repercussions of their actions afterward, and kept the undead from even considering attacking them until their guard was down simultaneously.

    My theory is that the lunus and helian are split on how to deal with the eventual threat that is the lesser races abusing magic or causing further problems for the world of Istaria as a whole. Regardless of who ends up being right, both sides would be monitoring the advancement of each race and would be fully aware of a level where they could no longer be "dealt with" according to their respective philosophy. If you're monitoring a threat and you realize it's reaching a threshold that exceeds your ability to contain without forcing yourself into radical action before that time occurs, with respect, that would make you an idiot in the face of logic and that just doesn't jive with how lore depicts dragons throughout history. Taking that into account, neither faction has opted to take rational action- merely calmly refers to it as an "inevitability" which proves it will come to a head eventually, with the lunus deciding they can no longer sit and wait as the breaking point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The picture you seem to be painting of dragons is that they are a race of wise creatures that thoroughly think everything through before acting, and I just don't think the lore really supports that conclusion. The history of dragons becomes tumultuous pretty much the moment things start not going their way, as I see it.
    Taking responsibility for the failures of those you take on as apprentices is the duty of a master, and one never taken lightly regardless of race on matters that are deemed important. When an apprentice fails in such a way as to be deemed a threat toward others, it is always the master that must go and punish their pupil. The failures in question are noted in Istarian lore for a reason, from petrifying entire villages to blighting and subjugating entire peoples- those that abused draconic teachings were punished accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    The example of the Entombed Will comes to mind. When the Sleeper was "destroyed", this dragon went on a human-killing rampage and he was punished for it by his own kind, entombed in a statue on Draak. Many Lunus didn't like that he was punished, and the whole debacle just strained Helian-Lunus relations further. Does that sound like everyone really thought things through? Because to me it just looks like dragons are a flawed race, equally capable of making poor decisions as any other.
    Flawed? Yes. Prone to being angered when the very fabric of their specie's existence is effected by the very threat that was already identified and retaliating in kind? Justifiably. The actions of one do not speak for the masses, and a dragon who committed a crime against humanity was punished in turn by dragons though given the nature of what occurred you couldn't blame the lunus for bloodlust. Eradication isn't humane, but it provides a permanent answer to a problem. Humane is never permanent, yet it allows you to remain guiltless and requires faith that the ones in question will do the right thing. Two equally valid answers, two equally opposing mindsets- wisdom is had from both without sacrificing the slow, thought out processes I theorize dragons would be known for. "At what point is lethal force authorized," a chilling question that even the wisest of men differ on, even the bible has specifics on the matter left to interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raptress View Post
    I'm not sure I understand. Biped spells do have attributes and advantages that dragon spells don't. What exactly changes if I say "Bipeds have developed several times more spells than dragons have, and have many, many spells that can do things that a dragon's spells won't."? Sounds about the same to me. xD Dragon spells will not have the same utility as specialized biped spells. Changing "can't" to "won't" doesn't really change what I said.
    Can't implies impossibility, won't implies improbability or refusal. One is absolute and therefore challenges the other- which I answer by stating "you can't have everything." Lesser races choose to specialize, increasing their tenacity in one aspect at the expense of losing defense in another. Dragons, who focus on all aspects, have the ability to call on the weaknesses of every school brought against them while those schools are forced to deal with a dragon's natural defense against their own specialty. Combine that with a superior form and ability to outmaneuver the lesser races and you already have a suitable counter argument. Why strengthen one arm by cutting off the other when you can have two functioning arms capable of out performing the one in unison? Dragons would have the wisdom to see the obvious while the power-hungry try compensating for what they don't have.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    How intriguing, we should have the developers make reference (not necessarily explain everything to ruin the fun of finding out the whole story) in the timeline. And that's usually a sign of developer hip-fired lore, explaining something that doesn't make much sense at first glance.
    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.
    My point during Raptress' counter-thesis being that the dragons having knowledge of the gift gaining further ground with that revelation. Again I'd have to ask what your stance on them knowing of the artifact's chances would be and any thoughts on why they wouldn't have used it until a last ditch effort were necessary?
    The artifact was a dryad thing - why would dragons even have known about it?
    It's a generalization about generalizing. The case in point is using the current game mechanics to state that a specific race has always had an edge over the others, or that a biped spell caster able to "kill an adult dragon with it's gold shield up" and utilizing the mechanic in a situation that the mechanic doesn't have algorithms for nor was intended to be used as a comparison for as the current balance of power of an entire race instead of the individual character being what makes it unrealistic.

    Realism dictates that those who have an advantage exploits it, and that those who don't have that advantage are exploited against. While a mechanic alone may justify that splintered magic is more potent than a draconic primal spell, at what point in the lore is that exploited and validated by the developers?

    Yes, things change but what must not change are what we would call the "core truths" for the physical world of Istaria, or physics. If splintering magic truly produces such a huge advantage as depicted in the game mechanics, then why would a race that lives as long as or is as immersed in magic as dragons not have conceded that without any sort of reasoning in the lore? To justify that dragons are blind to it while mages throughout the lore's history seek guidance from and are generally trained by dragons before becoming noteworthy in the lore would be a bit backwards, don't you think? The common theme is that a mage is taught by dragons, then takes that teaching and twists it around- and on several occasions this brings more than just destruction to Istaria. That's why to support your hypothesis and that of Raptress and Akrion I would state there would have to be serious negative side effects or good reason for the dragons to continue to ignore them and call them "lesser," feeling the need to either guide or cull the masses of the "lesser" races before becoming a problem they can't (a term of still in the future) handle.
    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.
    The expression is that "history ignored is history repeated." The problem with the lore being so unclear is that the history we would expect to be common knowledge is spread through out the world, which is why I felt the need to put a theorem in the lore section for all of us to come together and pit ideas against each other to find what is plausible and what isn't. Several of my ideas and theories have been proven unlikely or unfounded, but I've developed quite a few more thanks to the input from you three.
    Absolutely! I agree with your roleplaying style completely and agree that your characters can have a warped understanding of the world mechanics. The problem is that when the players are the ones not understanding the world mechanics, and you end up with several stories that are made up of conflicting elements that turn into 8 hour debates or a muddled history/relationship that leads to an awkward "how do we RP this" that tends to turn most casual RPers off. Creating a down-and-dirty theorem that gives a base and generalized reference point for RPing that doesn't stifle creativity too much but gives generalized view points and lore to consider when developing a dragon character will only help the community.
    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.

  20. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Washington, land of shivering in June.
    Posts
    1,313

    Default Re: Dragons: A theorem

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    And if you were asking where the Helians were when the ritual was cast? It was cast by the 8 greatest scholars of the day - I always assumed at least one of them to be Helian.
    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.

    Lots of great points though. I'd totally forgotten about the automaton thing for the gnomes, and didn't even think of the dryad artifact being the atom bomb despite mentioning it before somehow. xD

    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    I would also stipulate that the dragons weren't simply sitting around arguing, lore suggests they were actively engaged on several fronts in improving their own understanding of magic by establishing an academy that taught both factions of magic, instructed several key individuals from the lesser races and subsequently dealt with the repercussions of their actions afterward, and kept the undead from even considering attacking them until their guard was down simultaneously.
    This the section of the timeline I was referring to:



    • 600 B.R. Vandus Declares Humans Free of Dragons – With Vandus as their undisputed leader, Humans declared themselves free from their servitude to Dragons. The announcement was met with little resistance by Dragons, who themselves were occupied wth the larger questions about how to deal with a growing and belligerent population.

    • 588 B.R. Battle of Baden Hill (Humans vs. Malganival Lunus) – The only real battle between Dragons and Humans during the so-called “Human Uprising”, this battle was fought on a hill southwest of Dalimond and involved few deaths on either side.

    • 575 B.R. Closing of The Gate of Embers (Dragon) – With a growing rift between Dragons and the growing influence of the “lesser” races, the majority of the ancients, including the Council of Elders, chooses exile through the Gate of Embers into unknown realms. They close and bury the Gate of Embers behind them.

    • 471 B.R. The Great Schism (Dragon)

    • 469 B.R. Founding of the Rachival Research Institute.

    • 451 B.R. Founding of Chiconis (Helian Dragon) – Led by the great leader, Helian, a large part of Dragon society chooses self-imposed exile from their homeland of Dralk in order to found a new city in the south, Chiconis.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Lesser races choose to specialize, increasing their tenacity in one aspect at the expense of losing defense in another. Dragons, who focus on all aspects, have the ability to call on the weaknesses of every school brought against them while those schools are forced to deal with a dragon's natural defense against their own specialty.
    "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.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    Also bearing in mind that every individual has their own perspective on events, IMO it is perfectly acceptable for someone roleplaying to describe a mechanic completely differently than I would. If a mechanic exists in game, it is what our characters know. The how or why it exists within the world? That is a matter of perspective, and characters are perfectly free to adhere to an ultimately wrong explanation during roleplay. The earth revolves around the sun - but for many centuries, most people believed the reverse to be true. They were still able to use the mechanic for keeping time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exrage View Post
    Absolutely! I agree with your roleplaying style completely and agree that your characters can have a warped understanding of the world mechanics. The problem is that when the players are the ones not understanding the world mechanics...
    Many of the world mechanics are left open to interpretation. We are not told exactly how, e.g., techniques on items work, so players come up with their own explanations. These explanations can be different, but if there is no lore to contradict them, they are both equally valid.

    For example, player-created machines will raise a player's crafting skills if they process resources with those machines. How does that work? Some explain that by saying that they have some sort of magical aura, others by saying that these crafted machines are of better quality than others, leading to better results despite the character's skill level.

    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.

    My interpretation of Istarian dragons is that they are arrogant, stuck in their ways, dislike change, and tend to automatically discount anything that bipeds do simply because it wasn't a dragon that did it. That they refuse to explore splinter magics because they see it as blasphemy and they are stubborn.

    Exrage's interpretation is of dragons being wise and seeing all the biped's actions as consequences of their own to be dealt with, and his belief is that the dragons would be able to essentially handle everything that came their way.

    Both of these are valid, but they still don't agree with each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by awdz View Post
    Good luck getting all roleplayers to adhere to one theorem; it's worse than herding cats.
    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.

    .:Malestryx:.

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

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
  •