Glomdoring v. Gloriana

by Faethan

Back to The Polling Place.

Jack2005-04-01 06:52:23
Setting people's equipment on fire..

How about setting artifacts on fire? Render Sierus useless!

Or Murphy and Ixion's weapons, for example?

Or Shamarah's staff?

Or Ceres' cameo of changeling, while she's morphed into a faeling?

evil.gif
Erion2005-04-01 07:12:52
Your mom.
Jack2005-04-01 07:14:30
Monde dey dias!

ES EL POLLO DIABLO!
Daganev2005-04-01 07:20:40
QUOTE
And I can just as equally say that if you can't see on an OOC level how the Glomdoring is physical proof that the Taint corrupts and ruins nature, it is impossible for you to say your OOC feelings are not affecting your OOC judgements.

Shouting "biased!" and ignoring any logical argument might be easy, but it just isn't sound.

No matter how we feel about or want things to be oocly, we still need to justify our opinions via Lusternia's world, not despite it.

Edit: Note that there is an inherent personal judgement on your part in the first place to say that Glomdoring's 'nature' is perfectly fine and healthy, just as equally as there is an inherent personal judgement on my part by assuming that Glomdoring's 'nature' isn't perfectly fine and healthy. (Well, almost equally.) Sometimes we need to take a step back and look at why we take great pains to point out certain faults in others.




You should talk to Auseklis. ohmy.gif Or Erion. Although you'ld not believe the latter, despite he's just repeating what Auseklis is telling him.

Glomdoring is just Nature using Taint for self-betterment, as is anything Tainted. It's a catalyst. Auseklis simply views it as a change, and Nature still flourishes. I don't see bushes getting up in the Serenwilde and attacking people, or the dirt itself wandering about. I don't even see the grass fighting back.

Sounds to me like the Glomdoring is, on a purely forest-forest basis, stronger.




Meh, Elryn has never followed Auseklis' teachings at all.


See this is excatly what I'm talking about. Someone spends the time to provide further proof, from someone who knows the game a bit better than you do, and you wave it off by saying your CHARACHTER tries to ignore him. Is your charachter trying to ignore him or are you trying to ignore him?

I can understand how from an IC level someone might think that Anything tainted is unnatural. You know, like ALL OF CELEST!, however, if a view is acceptable ingame, why is that same view not acceptable on an OOC understanding the universe that is Lusternia level?

I don't think anyone needs to argue that "Sickly green vines" or "starving Deer" is not what we as human beings living on Earth would want to have as an ideal. However, to say that the basin of Lusternia therefore also can't think its a good thing is just silly. In the Basin, there is a whole plane of existance devoted to what is essentially 1984esque views of the world. "Good is bad, and bad is good"

In Aetolia or Achaea whatever, the gamecode makes it so that "Necromancers" Destroy all life that is in a room. HOwever in Lusternia, there is a hug thriving forest of 'Taint' origin. I've spent pages and pages of posts arguing this with you before, and since you dismiss everything with the wave of your hand, I mention now that you did it in the past, and you will continue to do it.

Or do you insist people reinvent the wheel everyday?
Elryn2005-04-01 07:52:43
Let me just point out something with regards to Auseklis, Daganev:

In game -> Auseklis is a character. He has a certain outlook on the world and an rp motivation for his philosophies.

Out of game -> Auseklis is an admin. If he tells us something out of game, then we have to accept it is the truth.

I don't ignore him in game, I disagree with the interpretations based on what he has said. If people want to use his teachings as a base for their own understanding of the basin, then go for it. But I think we need to realize that the Gods in Lusternia aren't quite as omnipotent as the Gods in other IRE games.

I don't really understand the second point you are making. Are you saying that some characters in game will think tainted forest is good? I wouldn't even dream of disagreeing with that.

Reinventing the wheel... huh.gif
Gwylifar2005-04-01 13:00:19
QUOTE(Erion @ Mar 31 2005, 06:26 PM)
Yea, I agree.  I'm really curious as to what kind of pets the Night Coven's getting, and if they are fae, why the hell.
86586



Ummm, I know I'm resident curmudgeon and all, but, wtf? No one has heard of the Unseelie? Sheesh, folks, go look it up.
Shamarah2005-04-01 13:02:36
Ack. Ignore me.
Shiri2005-04-01 13:11:22
QUOTE(Gwylifar @ Apr 1 2005, 02:00 PM)
Ummm, I know I'm resident curmudgeon and all, but, wtf?  No one has heard of the Unseelie?  Sheesh, folks, go look it up.
87085



Even I've heard of those.

But y'know, the problem would be that they don't exist in Lusternia and all. huh.gif
Elryn2005-04-01 13:23:19
In fact, Shiri wrote a whole skillset based on them - 26639.

As is becoming the norm, I was of course the resident nay-sayer. whistling.gif
Shiri2005-04-01 13:27:32
hide.gif
Elryn2005-04-01 13:29:57
Erk, don't use that emoticon... it was a great skillset!

Just not for Glomdoring
Shamarah2005-04-01 13:42:04
QUOTE(Jack @ Apr 1 2005, 02:14 AM)
Monde dey dias!

ES EL POLLO DIABLO!
86978



How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
Shiri2005-04-01 13:44:40
Let's see Gwylifar place that one. (It's old, so maybe he's got a chance.)
Shamarah2005-04-01 13:55:44
It is fairly old. The date on my copy says 1997, but I doubt he'd know anyway. It's hardly a famous, brilliant work of literature. wink.gif
Shiri2005-04-01 13:58:50
'97? Yeesh. That can't be right. sleep.gif I was talking about the first one, which is surely late 80's/early 90s.
Shamarah2005-04-01 14:01:33
Jack's quote is from the third, that was in '97.

But you're right, mine is from all of them, so you could count it as being from the ancient first game.

EDIT: I have the "Madness" version, which is the first and the second bundled together, and the copyright on it says 1990-1991.
Lisaera2005-04-01 14:07:44
Nobody can compete with the beard.

It is an entirely understandable view to think of Lisaera as evil. I've tried my best to make Her interesting and three dimensional, so that judgements on Her have to be complex if you want to get anywhere near the truth. However, She is not, at this moment in time, tainted or for the taint.
Gwylifar2005-04-01 14:22:33
QUOTE(Shiri @ Apr 1 2005, 09:11 AM)
Even I've heard of those.

But y'know, the problem would be that they don't exist in Lusternia and all. huh.gif
87093



Neither does the Glomdoring commune. Yet.

When I first read that there were fae in Lusternia, the first words to cross my mind were "seelie or unseelie?" followed by "no, wait, the unseelie will come about someday as a result of tainting of the fae".

I've frankly been chuckling to myself looking forward to the day when Erion the Faeslayer has his own little brood of dark fae to protect.
Shiri2005-04-01 14:25:51
I dunno. Could be a stretch. It'd be fun if it did turn out, though. (And they were actually some of the more vicious Faeries, i.e what willowisps are meant to be, redcaps, et al. - as opposed to what I dearly hope isn't coming, "Tainted brownies" and "Tainted sprites", which would be indescribably lame as summoning skills (going on the assumption they do the same things, anyway. Like, the tainted brownie would tickle you WITH NAILS fear.gif.))
Erion2005-04-01 14:45:11
I've *never* heard of the unseelie. But I'm cramming so much celtic mythology into my head lately in prep for the Glom, I'll come across it lately.

Akraasiel has me all tied up with crap about Mor Rigan and Brigid. >.<