Maybe Human llthoids use tretonin to support a weaker inner worm?

See the recent Book of Clangorum. Xenthos, you ninja.

Let me rephrase that then. Inconsistent.




I have read all of the histories, thank you for reccomending them to me though.
As I've already stated several times, I acknowledge the fact that the faelings became a completely different race for the third time. But it is just a name. In literal terms, a faeling is part elfen, and part fae. Yes, yes, I know. But they're part fae too! I know.


I'd preffer not to have a no-i'm-right debate, especially over a concept so blatantly simple to grasp.

Then all you have to do is stop arguing that you're right-- all I've been saying all along is that it could be either way, and it's very debatable. You're the one insisting that they Have To Have One. Given all the information that's available-- no, no they do not *have* to have one. It's very open to debate, up until the Creatrix decides that it's time to confirm it one way or the other.

I don't see it as inconsistent either really. More like there's diversity in that some races were born from sharded Gods and some weren't. The vast majority were is all. Doesn't make the non-sharded less viable, IMO, just different.

Don't forget unique! And special.

If, of course, that's actually the case.

When did I say they absolutely have to have a shard?
I simply suggested that it would make logical sense they should have a shard considering their ties to the elfen.
You are not saying it's very debatable, you came into my thread with the objective of arguing about faelings and trying to be right. DRINK BROMIDES.

Explain then to me, if a faeling becomes a demigod but has no shard, what divine spark are they fanning? If they have no blood relation to the divine, with no shard, how?






The finks, and the fae are the only races that have not (apparently) splintered from something.
Viscanti doesn't count because they all have origins from their races before being changed, thus they have a shard but it's probably been corrupted or has been over-rided by Kethuru's touch.

Lets face it, I doubt the finks will be used as a playable race, ever. They probably even have a God they splintered from that we just don't know about, maybe, maybe not.
That leaves the fae. Hence, inconsistent for me. It is subjective though and I respect your outlook on the situation. IMHO.

(You can follow that link to the other discussion to read it again, if you'd like).
And please, feel free to check my posts.
First post: "It's something completely unique, so as to what they are... it's really not clear."
Second post: "It's debatable until then."
Third post: "Do they have a shard of Elfenehoala? Perhaps, and perhaps not. All the evidence that you're putting up for them 'having a shard' so far is just as easily used to say that they don't-- just apply it to the Fae-half of their heritage instead of the Elfen."

Y'know, all three of those have something in common. "It's debatable." Not one of them says, "Faelings have no shard!"

Then, check your posts. First, you mention Faelings in your original post (which opens up that debate). Second, you post:
"Agreed. That is why the whole "Faelings don't have shards" bit confused me. Regardless if they are purebred elfen or not, that faeling is related to Elfenhoala no matter which way you cut it. Also, the idea of a race being shardless is an extremely detrimental and unnattractive roleplay machina."

(Note that this is before I make any post at all, so you're very much asking for a debate on this subject)

All of your posts since then have been "Hey, they have Elfen parts so they must be part Elfenehoala," and, since we were discussing this in the context of shards, it's saying "They must have an Elfenehoala shard because they are descended from Elfenehoala." Including your comment about "seeing shards as spiritual, and inheriting the spiritual part from the Elfen heritage".

I don't need you to re-iterate every single post you've made. What you're saying is completely different from the nature of how you said it. "Oh, it's debatable. Admit you're wrong though, because you are", basically.

And yes, I have said that they are part elfen, so they must be related to Elfenhoala.
How can you even deny that statement as valid? It is.
If Elfenhoala splintered into the elfen race, and faelings are part elfen, does it not make the slightest bit of sense that, gee, hmmm, perhaps they are related to Elfenhoala? Seriously.
I don't see how it can be any more clear than that, Xenthos.



As for this, what does it mean? Nothing.
Faelings are demi-spirits, but they're not spirits? If they aren't spirits, and they aren't demigods, what are they.
So I'll say once more, inconsistent. Why, because none of it makes sense or fits.

You can't simply leave people to their own devices and have them assume that Faelings are demi-spirits(which they aren't according to that post) because they supposedly dont have shards. Inconsistent.

Either the help file will change, or the race.

Apparently you do need me to not only reiterate my own posts, but your own as well. You started a debate and then tried to say that "I came in to start an argument on your thread."

Further, you were equating being 'related' to having a shard. I was pointing out that this does not mean they have a Shard. They are just as related to the Fae (no shards) as to the Elfen (shards)... so I guess I'll reiterate that point again. It does NOT mean that they have a shard. (No, it also does not mean they DON'T have a shard)

As to what Faelings are, exactly: we don't know. It's never really been clarified, beyond some lesser Admin comments. I'm quite aware that you don't like the possibility, but it *does* exist, and that's all I'm arguing. If you don't want to discuss Faelings in your thread any more, that's fine-- you just need to not bring up points for discussion and then get upset when they are discussed.

You shouldn't take words at face value, sometimes the way you word something can be stronger than whats actually being said.

I'm not equating being related to Elfenhoala to having a shard; I'm voicing my opinion on the matter as there are many fallacies with the way it currently is and what I'm saying does make sense. It's called advocating.

Your arguement has gone from talking about faelings, to talking about us arguing about faelings.
This leads me to believe you've run out of things to say in relevance to the debate and have resorted to a pseudo ad hominem arguement.
Double-derail.

I'd like to get back on topic now. Thank you for telling me how you feel.

So, you've already forgotten that you were the one who derailed your topic the second time (as well as the first), with the following bullet:
"You are not saying it's very debatable, you came into my thread with the objective of arguing about faelings and trying to be right."
This seems to be you who has "gone from talking about faelings, to talking about us arguing about faelings." Thus, this leads me to believe you, Prisch, "have run out of things to say in relevance to the debate and have resorted to a pseudo ad hominem arguement."

I simply decided to debate your point instead of declaring victory. Once again, please do not bring up points if you don't want to discuss them. I pointed out that first quoted bit was incorrect, quite adequately I believe.

PS: If you want to bow out of an argument, it's generally a better idea to say something like, "Okay, we'll agree to disagree, then. Let's get back to Illithoids." If you try to 'bow out' by adding in more points and arguments in favour of the derail, it's not going to work-- because you're not actually trying to end the debate, you're just trying to claim victory. Not very well, either.

I bet that faelings are really made out of nougut. And shadow faelings are made out of rich chocolaty ovaltine. And neither of them have anything to do with shards or spirits or anything like that.

Really though, unless Estarra comes and says "Yes, Faelings are shards because of their connection to the Elfen" or "No, Faelings are a completely seperate sort of entity which has nothing to do with any sort of shard" or even "Some Faelings might be shards and some might not, depending on how many traits they have from their individual progenitors" it can be argued either way and it isn't accomplishing anything getting worked up over it. Unless you just enjoy that sorta thing, and if so, have fun!

Can't be possible, I have the last point.

Read what I said about demi-spirits, and demigod faelings.
Waited for a proper response, you didn't give one.

Here you are, still rambling on about nothing.
I don't care about the redundant intricacies of this conversation, really. Get over it.

No, you really don't. I already answered that in my very first post when I said we don't know what they are. And... we don't. I, like you, don't care for redundancies-- so I refrained from pointing out the fact that you keep raising 'points' which were already discussed.

All I'm asking is that if you don't want to discuss something, don't bring it up. I don't believe that's too much to ask.

Your sole defense is "Everything you say can be applied reverse in favor of the fae, they aren't sharded".
Well, everything you can flip to apply to the fae, can be applied to the elfen side as well when it's flipped.
You've proven nothing to me, at all. Whatsoever.

I can tell you what a faeling is if you don't know.
It's a creature born from elfen and fae ancestry. Happy?

Actually, it looks like I have proven something to you. You've just said that it could be one way or the other-- in fact, you completely agreed with my point that it can be applied to both Fae and Elfen, and, as such, doesn't count as proof one way or the other. I'm glad to help!

And sure, I'll agree with that last point, but it still doesn't explain what a Faeling *is*. However, perhaps that's best for another topic at this point.

I already knew it could be either way, don't act as if you've imparted some great knowledge to me.
I was advocating one side like you were.

Do you want me to say it again. That is what a faeling is.

That's the point. I was not advocating either side. I was saying that we do not know one way or the other, and that all the evidence you were providing to say they do have a shard could similarly be applied to say that they do not-- which you just agreed with. If, after me stating multiple times (and even making a post to reiterate the fact which you said was not necessary) that I wasn't arguing they do not have shards, you still believe that I was... I'm not really sure what to say. Even with that belief, what you posted was *exactly* my argument all along.

And feel free to say it again, but it doesn't explain what a Faeling really is in terms of this whole debate. Sure, they're a product of a Fae and an Elfen, but... what *are* they? Spirit? Shard? Something new? I didn't want to ask it here as it actually would be a /divert from the topics as you've presented them, but if you insist...

If you weren't advocating either side, why were you even posting in the first place?
You cannot re-apply demigod faelings to the fae arguement, and thats it. It just doesn't make sense.
At all.

The whole "It can be applied to both sides thing" is Common Knowledge.
Thank you for sharing your Common Knowledge with me.
I already have Common Knowledge. The sky is blue, grass is green, Shadowdancers worship Mother Night. Thank you!

You are talking about looking at either side of an arguement with someone who is in Elostian's Order.
A key principal of everything He teaches.

I was doing so because you were expressing astonishment at the mere notion that it was possible. I discussed it. You immediately began saying, "This is why they should have a shard." I pointed out that those reasons weren't solid. Apparently it's not all that obvious, since you were arguing it so intensely and completely ignoring the entire point of my posts.

(Also, take a look at Lhiannan, Luna, etc. These are very, very powerful Fae, the "First of their kind". I am actually somewhat interested in how they came to be and where their strength/power comes from, and whether it could be related)