The Ladies are from Mother Moon, not Serenwilde, but ya I geuss that's close enough.

This debate is coming down to sheer semantics.

I take that back. This entire debate has been over semantics. If the designers forgot to code in a name for a mob (a man not responding to LOOK MAN, a fae not responding to LOOK FAE) that doesn't mean that they aren't fae. Most of the stuff in Faethorn is probably named fae because the builder probably had a macro to add a fae name to all mobs created in Faethorn. (At least, that's how I did it if I was making a bunch of mobs at once that all shared similar traits...) If you think something should be called a fae and it isn't, it's probably an oversight and you should probably TYPO it. Arguing that it isn't a fae because the game doesn't let you refer to it as such is silly.

Plus, if you're arguing that there's a line between game mechanics and RP, you crossed it.

And this is an example of why role-playing to the mechanics is a bad thing.

Indeed.

Quoted for TRUTH.


Proving an RP aspect by OOC mechanics is, in itself, a poor argument. It VERY quickly gets to ugly matters like "does the person still exist when the leave the realm?" and "since we gain levels and see them in Score, shouldn't we be able say 'I gained 5 levels today! I'm so great!'".


Just Typo or Bug the thing as an example of Blah coding, but you'll need an actual RP reason to start deciding who is and who isn't a fae.


edit:

Mind if I play devil-advocate?

Here's a question...what actually, TRULY proves that they are fae? Just because they are 'called' a lepricaun? Because they look like what people call a fae? Because a divine said so IG?

Names ARE decieving. I point to Old Glomdoring and their "It's not taint, it's just a forest" claim.

The eyes are the WORST liers of all the senses. A changing that's turned into a faeling is a changling..not a faeling. You won't be able to tell from the look though.

The divine, not counting Estarra, aren't allknowing, allpowerful beings here: They CAN be wrong.

I never really thought that was a solid argument for anything at all actually. Whenever Glomdoring tried one the obvious thing to say seems to be "well, it isn't, so the hypothetical where it is doesn't matter." I can conjecture about angels being demons all day long, but when common sense says otherwise there's really no point arguing about things that can't be proven simply on the basis that nothing can be.

Well technically now, mechanics say that wyrded forest isnt tainted, but I see your point if people want to demand that its tainted then they have the perfect right to do so, same as the fae you can argue that the maidens are fae or that they arnt fae depending on your choice.

Mechically it still is tainted. Watch a Hartstone forest over a Blacktalon forest. You will see taint seep out of it

No taint regen, mechnically not tainted.

There is no forest regen either for elfen, does that mean its not a forest?

Yes, its woods

Technicalities, mechanically it’s not tainted. Historically it was made from the taint. You can argue it was born from the taint so there fore must still be tainted. Glomdoring ignores the fact that it was tainted in their roleplay and celest ignores the fact that it isn’t tainted anymore in their roleplay.

You know, you probably shouldn't have used SAY TO . You just spammed the Gods' channel.

But on the subject of whether they're fae or not, does it really matter?

Incidentally, while I hope it is clear that the argument put forward in this thread is insubstantial... I also seriously hope that this thread is not one of those contributing to the recent announce post.

You -cannot- discuss game mechanics in game, so although I don't think it should have been raised in the first place, an ooc medium was the correct place to raise it. I agree that some other threads get derailed into character-based opinions and arguments, but a lot of the time people cry out 'take it in game' - it wouldn't make sense to. Perhaps you're arguing a point that your character would never dream of supporting with all his biases, or you've observed an ooc effect on the playerbase that has been set off-kilter, or you want to give your own personal opinion on a change or event that can't be dismissed as roleplay. Not every post that mentions the word 'roleplay' should be shunted back into the game.

Nah this thread been pointless fun nitpicking from the start , No ones taken it seriously I hope.

It's hard to tell what Daganev takes seriously, sometimes.

I don't think it matters if its taken seriously or not.

Well, if you don't believe it either we don't have to waste time arguing about it.

If theres no argument against it, it might prove to be valid.

That's rather asinine, don't you think?