Previous
>If the ability came out to command a defender to kill another, I'm not sure I'd use it, just for the above reason. While Nynnia likes being able to skin and access treasure, that's not why she uses the ability.
I think it's important to keep in mind that while all empaths are limited by shock they are not all pacifists.
Ythik, because of the way I play him, would never actually direct a critter to kill another. He truly is a pacifist. It's hard enough for me to find reasons for him as a character to be in situations where he would simply manipulate something to be his friend and then let it kill things to protect him.
However, not everyone is like Ythik. Some empaths chose to become empaths for the wrong reasons (even more possible now that we know empaths have some degree of 'mind control'), some empaths were forced to take that path they took. It is not that unreasonable for something along the lines of an empath followed by an army of <critter> bent on destruction of everything that is right and good to be possible. Or any other degree of 'bloodthirsty' for that matter.
I, the player, think that this is a perfectly acceptable way to RP your character. And I think it should be possible. Not by removing shock and just hitting things with swords, that eliminates one of the core RP concepts of the empath guild. However we have other methods to participate in combat already, something along the lines of a way to suggest that one critter attack another (either using the current manipulate and 'tell' or a whole new manipulate emotion) isn't outside the realm of possibility. And I think, it would be no more shock causing than if I tell a PC to kill something now.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
YTHIK
VESIC
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 09:57 AM CDT
I just want to point out that Empaths (PCs) have indeed commanded critters to attack before. There were/are two Empath Unit Commanders in the Zoluren Reserve. The Commanders were in control of units of NPC troops, and commanding them to attack enemy units did not cause Shock.
That was a direct command, not just befriending a critter and hoping it might defend you. IF manipulate is ever extended for us to be able to directly influence our new friends, I don't see why it would be a problem in the Shock department.
P.O. Xailan
That was a direct command, not just befriending a critter and hoping it might defend you. IF manipulate is ever extended for us to be able to directly influence our new friends, I don't see why it would be a problem in the Shock department.
P.O. Xailan
MCLURE
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 10:08 AM CDT
I just got back from vacation and of course I miss all the fun. Quick question, can I still learn Manipulate from a npc or do I need to seek another empath out who has learned it.
~Tyygra
~Tyygra
DIVERC1
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 10:15 AM CDT
SAKHARA
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 11:30 AM CDT
>And if you manipulate a critter into believing he likes you (which he doesn't, you forced him to believe that), and he dies defending you, you ARE responsible for his death. Maybe you're not using him as a weapon, but as a shield. When you take a away a creature's right to think for itself, you become responsible for the actions it takes.
Yup. And what is the problem with this? As Ythik said, not all empaths are pacifists. It is not a requirement of the guild to be a pacifist, no matter how many people say its OOC for an empath to be anything but ::huggysmoochygiggly:: little ninnies.
Shock is a physical reaction to taking direct violent action against another living critter. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with morality of any action, at least from what was said at the con. Empaths can't cause direct harm. Indirect, yes.
Diomid, my main character, is very much a Battle Empath. He loves dancing with critters and hunting with friends, cheering them on when they get really good hits on critters, especially the apocolyptic strikes that rip 'em in half. He's actually far more bloodthirsty than my secondary character, a paladin, who pretty much lives to hunt. Dio, however, has no desire, at all, to actually take a swing at anything, even if it weren't for shock. Chances are, if empaths are allowed, eventually, to hunt undead, he'll probably do it all by magic, if he can. With manipulation though, he may not even want to do that.
Manipulation really is his way of doing things and suits his own sensibilities perfectly. He was cackling and dancing around like a maniac 'hunting' bobcats with blood wolves on Aesry. He's even decided skinning really isn't so icky now. <g> I think he just hated having to use other people's kills to learn it.
This indirect action is really what makes the guild unique and unusual. Empaths have never been barred from combat, just direct harm. There is an enormous difference there, which has now been addressed with manipulation. Great going Team Empath!!! This is what the guild needed, the expansion into the rest of the implications of empathy, and breaking the stranglehold on empaths like Dio who aren't 100% sweetness and light.
Dio, player of
Yup. And what is the problem with this? As Ythik said, not all empaths are pacifists. It is not a requirement of the guild to be a pacifist, no matter how many people say its OOC for an empath to be anything but ::huggysmoochygiggly:: little ninnies.
Shock is a physical reaction to taking direct violent action against another living critter. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with morality of any action, at least from what was said at the con. Empaths can't cause direct harm. Indirect, yes.
Diomid, my main character, is very much a Battle Empath. He loves dancing with critters and hunting with friends, cheering them on when they get really good hits on critters, especially the apocolyptic strikes that rip 'em in half. He's actually far more bloodthirsty than my secondary character, a paladin, who pretty much lives to hunt. Dio, however, has no desire, at all, to actually take a swing at anything, even if it weren't for shock. Chances are, if empaths are allowed, eventually, to hunt undead, he'll probably do it all by magic, if he can. With manipulation though, he may not even want to do that.
Manipulation really is his way of doing things and suits his own sensibilities perfectly. He was cackling and dancing around like a maniac 'hunting' bobcats with blood wolves on Aesry. He's even decided skinning really isn't so icky now. <g> I think he just hated having to use other people's kills to learn it.
This indirect action is really what makes the guild unique and unusual. Empaths have never been barred from combat, just direct harm. There is an enormous difference there, which has now been addressed with manipulation. Great going Team Empath!!! This is what the guild needed, the expansion into the rest of the implications of empathy, and breaking the stranglehold on empaths like Dio who aren't 100% sweetness and light.
Dio, player of
DOWNEYM1
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 01:11 PM CDT
<<I think it's important to keep in mind that while all empaths are limited by shock they are not all pacifists.>>
Most definitely. I wouldn't call Nynnia an outright pacifist, really. She's just polite. Her goal in using manipulate, aside from making friends, is more to distract the attacking critter rather than actually cause its death. If it does die, oh well; she'll skin and search it, and thank her defender.
Obviously she's provoking the critter vs. critter attack to some extent merely by being in the hunting area and using manipulate to begin with. But she doesn't have, or need to have, malicious intentions.
As far as specifically commanding a critter to attack, I'd almost rather have it be a "manipulate defend Nynnia" approach rather than a "manipulate kill goblin" approach. Obviously the first can and probably does imply the other, but it's a different spin on it. I don't know anything about the manipulate release event, but I have a feeling the ability wasn't introduced as a "Now we can KILL!!!!!!" sort of ability.
I'll think about this more at work this afternoon (hee) and maybe post again when I get home and I'm not trying to make the most of my lunch break.
Meghane
Most definitely. I wouldn't call Nynnia an outright pacifist, really. She's just polite. Her goal in using manipulate, aside from making friends, is more to distract the attacking critter rather than actually cause its death. If it does die, oh well; she'll skin and search it, and thank her defender.
Obviously she's provoking the critter vs. critter attack to some extent merely by being in the hunting area and using manipulate to begin with. But she doesn't have, or need to have, malicious intentions.
As far as specifically commanding a critter to attack, I'd almost rather have it be a "manipulate defend Nynnia" approach rather than a "manipulate kill goblin" approach. Obviously the first can and probably does imply the other, but it's a different spin on it. I don't know anything about the manipulate release event, but I have a feeling the ability wasn't introduced as a "Now we can KILL!!!!!!" sort of ability.
I'll think about this more at work this afternoon (hee) and maybe post again when I get home and I'm not trying to make the most of my lunch break.
Meghane
YTHIK
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 01:48 PM CDT
> As far as specifically commanding a critter to attack, I'd almost rather have it be a "manipulate defend Nynnia" approach rather than a "manipulate kill goblin" approach.
Heh, taking this part back to Discussions of Current Empath Abilities.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
Heh, taking this part back to Discussions of Current Empath Abilities.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
FUNKB
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 09:25 PM CDT
<<I just want to point out that Empaths (PCs) have indeed commanded critters to attack before. There were/are two Empath Unit Commanders in the Zoluren Reserve. The Commanders were in control of units of NPC troops, and commanding them to attack enemy units did not cause Shock.
But ICly, the troops still had a choice. They could have not attacked. Their free will wasn't involuntarily ripped from their body or suppressed.
<<And if you manipulate a critter into believing he likes you (which he doesn't, you forced him to believe that), and he dies defending you, you ARE responsible for his death. Maybe you're not using him as a weapon, but as a shield. When you take a away a creature's right to think for itself, you become responsible for the actions it takes.
<<Yup. And what is the problem with this? As Ythik said, not all empaths are pacifists. It is not a requirement of the guild to be a pacifist, no matter how many people say its OOC for an empath to be anything but ::huggysmoochygiggly:: little ninnies.
Anyone who knows me or my friends know that I'm very much for empaths being in the thick of combat. That doesn't mean, however, that I believe they should have a way to directly harm critters, which is very much the line that manipulate is riding. By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him. He's an unwilling participant in combat. Any addition to manipulate that gives empaths even more control over their victim, seems to me, to tread on an already tenuous line.
Again, to reiterate. I want empaths to be able to access the treasure system. I think the time spent trying to work around the mess that is shock, could be better spent on other more exciting things the whole guild would enjoy. And don't forget, the more direct participation empaths are able to get in combat, the more likely you'll see combat reqs.
Grasi's Player
But ICly, the troops still had a choice. They could have not attacked. Their free will wasn't involuntarily ripped from their body or suppressed.
<<And if you manipulate a critter into believing he likes you (which he doesn't, you forced him to believe that), and he dies defending you, you ARE responsible for his death. Maybe you're not using him as a weapon, but as a shield. When you take a away a creature's right to think for itself, you become responsible for the actions it takes.
<<Yup. And what is the problem with this? As Ythik said, not all empaths are pacifists. It is not a requirement of the guild to be a pacifist, no matter how many people say its OOC for an empath to be anything but ::huggysmoochygiggly:: little ninnies.
Anyone who knows me or my friends know that I'm very much for empaths being in the thick of combat. That doesn't mean, however, that I believe they should have a way to directly harm critters, which is very much the line that manipulate is riding. By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him. He's an unwilling participant in combat. Any addition to manipulate that gives empaths even more control over their victim, seems to me, to tread on an already tenuous line.
Again, to reiterate. I want empaths to be able to access the treasure system. I think the time spent trying to work around the mess that is shock, could be better spent on other more exciting things the whole guild would enjoy. And don't forget, the more direct participation empaths are able to get in combat, the more likely you'll see combat reqs.
Grasi's Player
SYLVERWIND
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 09:46 PM CDT
Maybe you guys got a special version of manipulate, but half the time my critter doesn't even stay in the same room as me, and it takes goading and baiting to get it to advance on another critter.
>> By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him.
How is it without his consent, exactly. We are not tying a goblin's hands behind it's back and telling it to act as our shield. We are telling it, hey, let's be friends, I'm not such a bad person. What it does from there is it's choice, not ours. If the goblin (in this example) chooses to attack another goblin for harming what he (now) considers one of his friends...Well, that's exactly what it is, a choice. It might not attack...It might wander off or stand there looking stupid or stick it's thumb up it's arse and twirl.
Either way we don't control it.
- Miki (player of)
[Morganbin] "three very high traders!!"
[Doolgan] "then make em share the good stuff"
[Badtooth] "passin around a fat one?"
[Doolgan] "its the only thing a group of traders can hit"
>> By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him.
How is it without his consent, exactly. We are not tying a goblin's hands behind it's back and telling it to act as our shield. We are telling it, hey, let's be friends, I'm not such a bad person. What it does from there is it's choice, not ours. If the goblin (in this example) chooses to attack another goblin for harming what he (now) considers one of his friends...Well, that's exactly what it is, a choice. It might not attack...It might wander off or stand there looking stupid or stick it's thumb up it's arse and twirl.
Either way we don't control it.
- Miki (player of)
[Morganbin] "three very high traders!!"
[Doolgan] "then make em share the good stuff"
[Badtooth] "passin around a fat one?"
[Doolgan] "its the only thing a group of traders can hit"
DOWNEYM1
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 10:00 PM CDT
<<By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him.>>
The problem is, Grasi, that being directly responsible for harm that befalls the goblin is not the same as causing direct harm to the goblin.
The major thing to pull away from the definition of shock presented at Con is that what saves an empath from getting shock is a certain degree of separation from the shock itself. By firing an arrow, I am directly causing harm to the goblin. But by pinning the goblin to the ground and letting a rock troll attack it, I'm instead simply "putting the goblin in a position where he may incur damage."
I know it's kind of a technical difference, but it's one that's relatively clear to me, at least. While deep down I may realize that my goblin champion may not survive the battle, I'm not the one inflicting the blows. If critter healing were available, I'd probably be willing to heal my goblin periodically so he can continue to act as my defender.
Meghan
The problem is, Grasi, that being directly responsible for harm that befalls the goblin is not the same as causing direct harm to the goblin.
The major thing to pull away from the definition of shock presented at Con is that what saves an empath from getting shock is a certain degree of separation from the shock itself. By firing an arrow, I am directly causing harm to the goblin. But by pinning the goblin to the ground and letting a rock troll attack it, I'm instead simply "putting the goblin in a position where he may incur damage."
I know it's kind of a technical difference, but it's one that's relatively clear to me, at least. While deep down I may realize that my goblin champion may not survive the battle, I'm not the one inflicting the blows. If critter healing were available, I'd probably be willing to heal my goblin periodically so he can continue to act as my defender.
Meghan
JENSOPPA
Re: Manipulate
06/23/2003 10:44 PM CDT
<Maybe you guys got a special version of manipulate, but half the time my critter doesn't even stay in the same room as me, and it takes goading and baiting to get it to advance on another critter.
I haven't tried on the mainland yet, but the Blood Wolf area on Asery is the only hunting ground that I've had critters leave. No other area on the island works quite like that area does. Letting the critters get to Melee is the surest way of keeping them put. Specifcally concerning swarm areas, I had wolves leaving becuse there was no more room to advance, so for those empaths that have never played a Combat Guild - Block Stop is your answer.
>> By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him.
I see the ability to manipulate friendship >somewhat< along the lines of the relationship Costner and the wolf had in the movie, "Dances with Wolves". It was a magical distant relationship. He had no control over when and where the wolf would show up, or what it might do.
For Xochi to control where the critter goes, it's actions and who or what it will defend would be cutting very close to "Charming" a critter, and I don't see that as an Empathic ability.. even though somewhere I love that ability.
I think it might be the name of the skill that makes it seem more like a "charm".. so I just think of it more like a Manipulate the air flow around first critter, second critter.. so I'm not really messing with the critter, but unknowingly causing a disturbance in the oxygen levels to it's brain, making it stupid enough to avoid me and attack something else. <g> The evening we got the skill, a few of us were laughing so hard, picturing these critters talking in that Donald Duck voice you get after breathing in helium.
I have a list of several reasons why I don't think we should be able to direct their actions to any larger degree, but I'll post that in the appropriate folder, hopefully.
Player of Xochi..
I haven't tried on the mainland yet, but the Blood Wolf area on Asery is the only hunting ground that I've had critters leave. No other area on the island works quite like that area does. Letting the critters get to Melee is the surest way of keeping them put. Specifcally concerning swarm areas, I had wolves leaving becuse there was no more room to advance, so for those empaths that have never played a Combat Guild - Block Stop is your answer.
>> By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him.
I see the ability to manipulate friendship >somewhat< along the lines of the relationship Costner and the wolf had in the movie, "Dances with Wolves". It was a magical distant relationship. He had no control over when and where the wolf would show up, or what it might do.
For Xochi to control where the critter goes, it's actions and who or what it will defend would be cutting very close to "Charming" a critter, and I don't see that as an Empathic ability.. even though somewhere I love that ability.
I think it might be the name of the skill that makes it seem more like a "charm".. so I just think of it more like a Manipulate the air flow around first critter, second critter.. so I'm not really messing with the critter, but unknowingly causing a disturbance in the oxygen levels to it's brain, making it stupid enough to avoid me and attack something else. <g> The evening we got the skill, a few of us were laughing so hard, picturing these critters talking in that Donald Duck voice you get after breathing in helium.
I have a list of several reasons why I don't think we should be able to direct their actions to any larger degree, but I'll post that in the appropriate folder, hopefully.
Player of Xochi..
SAKHARA
Re: Manipulate
06/24/2003 11:01 AM CDT
>That doesn't mean, however, that I believe they should have a way to directly harm critters, which is very much the line that manipulate is riding.
And here, I think, is where we differ. Causing harm does not cause shock. Direct harm, swinging the stick, firing the bow, casting the spell causes shock. Indirect harm, firing a mangonel, manipulating a critter, pinning a critter to be hit does not cause shock. You don't even have to actually do any damage when attempting direct harm to incur shock. It is the specific set of actions. I'm hoping traps and snares, if they're open to anyone but rangers, are also available to empaths. Dumb critter steps on trap. Empath didn't trigger trap. Therefore it's indirect harm.
I see manipulate as the defining ability for causing indirect harm. Even if I could work a critter like a puppet, I am still not swinging the sword. It is physically in their hands and its their body that would be shocked, if they had their own empathy still active. To bad for them.
The catch that many people forget is that empaths are not barred from causing harm. We just can't physically attempt to cause direct harm, with our own two hands. That is the definition of shock, and has nothing whatsoever to do with actually causing harm. I tried it out with an empath in TF. (I won't experiment in prime. Way too much risk of OOC consequences.) He took a swing at a soul with an unblessed blade and got shocked. There was absolutely no way, as you well know, he could have hurt it. Even if he'd connected, it would have just gone right through the soul, with no damage.
>By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him. He's an unwilling participant in combat.
So? I am responsible for it. Yup. Does it cause shock? Nope. Should it cause shock? Nope. I am not swinging the sword. That's the end of it. As long as it isn't my hands or my spell that causes the harm, then too bad. I feel no guilt over bringing about harm. Its just a dumb critter, there to be hunted. I'm not going to go into some huge ethical quandry about it, any more than I have an ethical quandry about eating meat or wearing leather. Ok, gargoyles give me the willies, and I don't know if I'd manipulate them, but I probably would.
>And don't forget, the more direct participation empaths are able to get in combat, the more likely you'll see combat reqs.
What does this have to do with anything? Other than primary weapon, I have enough combats to be a cleric of my circle. (Its a pain to learn primary weapon when you can't swing, so go figure on that one.) But armor, shield, parry, everything else is right up there or close enough it makes little difference. I'd feel bad for the empaths who joined the guild because they did not want to have to go into combat, but that's not me. I adore having a unique, empathic means of hunting. To me, its the second best thing that ever happened in my life. (Crymthann is the best. <g>)
Dio
And here, I think, is where we differ. Causing harm does not cause shock. Direct harm, swinging the stick, firing the bow, casting the spell causes shock. Indirect harm, firing a mangonel, manipulating a critter, pinning a critter to be hit does not cause shock. You don't even have to actually do any damage when attempting direct harm to incur shock. It is the specific set of actions. I'm hoping traps and snares, if they're open to anyone but rangers, are also available to empaths. Dumb critter steps on trap. Empath didn't trigger trap. Therefore it's indirect harm.
I see manipulate as the defining ability for causing indirect harm. Even if I could work a critter like a puppet, I am still not swinging the sword. It is physically in their hands and its their body that would be shocked, if they had their own empathy still active. To bad for them.
The catch that many people forget is that empaths are not barred from causing harm. We just can't physically attempt to cause direct harm, with our own two hands. That is the definition of shock, and has nothing whatsoever to do with actually causing harm. I tried it out with an empath in TF. (I won't experiment in prime. Way too much risk of OOC consequences.) He took a swing at a soul with an unblessed blade and got shocked. There was absolutely no way, as you well know, he could have hurt it. Even if he'd connected, it would have just gone right through the soul, with no damage.
>By placing a goblin in front of you, to defend you, without his consent, you are DIRECTLY responsible for any harm that befalls him. He's an unwilling participant in combat.
So? I am responsible for it. Yup. Does it cause shock? Nope. Should it cause shock? Nope. I am not swinging the sword. That's the end of it. As long as it isn't my hands or my spell that causes the harm, then too bad. I feel no guilt over bringing about harm. Its just a dumb critter, there to be hunted. I'm not going to go into some huge ethical quandry about it, any more than I have an ethical quandry about eating meat or wearing leather. Ok, gargoyles give me the willies, and I don't know if I'd manipulate them, but I probably would.
>And don't forget, the more direct participation empaths are able to get in combat, the more likely you'll see combat reqs.
What does this have to do with anything? Other than primary weapon, I have enough combats to be a cleric of my circle. (Its a pain to learn primary weapon when you can't swing, so go figure on that one.) But armor, shield, parry, everything else is right up there or close enough it makes little difference. I'd feel bad for the empaths who joined the guild because they did not want to have to go into combat, but that's not me. I adore having a unique, empathic means of hunting. To me, its the second best thing that ever happened in my life. (Crymthann is the best. <g>)
Dio
AMORRISEDESREVES
Re: Manipulate
06/24/2003 12:47 PM CDT
Can we look at this from an OOC perspective? There will always be a way to make something have logical reasoning IC. The way DR has changed over the years, there are more and more higher level empaths, fewer patients to heal, no more resurrection (so fewer wounds), and other changes in perspective and such...all this time empaths are left out of the treasure system and dependant in other adventurers.
I love healing people, even though I learn very little empathy from healing someone, it's why I became an empath. I'm sure a lot of empaths feel that way. But there is no one to heal. Those days of being constantly busy with patients--whether it's in the field or in a safe spot/infirmery--are few are far. I spend a lot of my time in the field now...but not healing, because there are few people to heal...and the people in my hunting party can go from no wounds to dead in an instant (bypassing the dying stage as shown in the 'Bugs' topic). Just brawling and catching up on parry and MO skills because they are holding me back from really learning evasion (the critters that really teach evasion kill me if more than one comes).
I apologize if it seems like I'm making this about me... I'm not trying to do that. I can only speak from personal experience. Maybe my experience is an anomoly...or maybe it can be added to all the others to help brainstorm ideas or attitude toward our guild.
I guess what I'm saying is, after all that, is we really need to stop trying to hinder ourselves. Empaths have long wanted a way to access the treasure system. Many different empaths have suggested different ways of doing it... Now we have an ingenuous way to do it, we should be glad! There are enough jealous nonempaths who are against this...do we really need our fellow empaths arguing for ways to hinder it?
Please, let's try for making manipulation really work as a way to access the treasure system and for empaths to learn some more empathy and to for once loss the undeserved reputation our guild has for being weak little charity cases.
Amo's player
_____________________________________________ "Can you even dye my eyes to match my gown?" ~Dorothy
For more information on empaths who shift, go to:
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
I love healing people, even though I learn very little empathy from healing someone, it's why I became an empath. I'm sure a lot of empaths feel that way. But there is no one to heal. Those days of being constantly busy with patients--whether it's in the field or in a safe spot/infirmery--are few are far. I spend a lot of my time in the field now...but not healing, because there are few people to heal...and the people in my hunting party can go from no wounds to dead in an instant (bypassing the dying stage as shown in the 'Bugs' topic). Just brawling and catching up on parry and MO skills because they are holding me back from really learning evasion (the critters that really teach evasion kill me if more than one comes).
I apologize if it seems like I'm making this about me... I'm not trying to do that. I can only speak from personal experience. Maybe my experience is an anomoly...or maybe it can be added to all the others to help brainstorm ideas or attitude toward our guild.
I guess what I'm saying is, after all that, is we really need to stop trying to hinder ourselves. Empaths have long wanted a way to access the treasure system. Many different empaths have suggested different ways of doing it... Now we have an ingenuous way to do it, we should be glad! There are enough jealous nonempaths who are against this...do we really need our fellow empaths arguing for ways to hinder it?
Please, let's try for making manipulation really work as a way to access the treasure system and for empaths to learn some more empathy and to for once loss the undeserved reputation our guild has for being weak little charity cases.
Amo's player
_____________________________________________ "Can you even dye my eyes to match my gown?" ~Dorothy
For more information on empaths who shift, go to:
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
MELROSE
Re: Manipulate
06/25/2003 10:25 AM CDT
<<I apologize if it seems like I'm making this about me... >>
Aarrgh! Quit apologizing!
'Lint
ps
Besides, anyone who posts, makes it about themselves.
Aarrgh! Quit apologizing!
'Lint
ps
Besides, anyone who posts, makes it about themselves.
YTHIK
Re: Manipulate
06/25/2003 11:09 AM CDT
>'Lint
Jeez, Lint why does everything have to be about you. Sheesh.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
Jeez, Lint why does everything have to be about you. Sheesh.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
FUNKB
Re: Manipulate
06/25/2003 09:07 PM CDT
I don't understand how firing a mangonel that throws a boulder up into the air that crushes a pirate any less shock inducing than firing an arrow at the same pirate from the same spot from where you lauched the boulder. I don't think empaths should be barred from this, because it's fun and the guild is hindered enough already. The point I'm trying to make here is that shock doesn't make sense from an IC point of view. It makes perfect sense OOCly. There are playability issues, etc.
Why does fishing cause shock? The empath isn't telling the fish to bite the hook. The empath is minding his or her own business, and the fish just happens to come along and impale itself on a jagged hook. Sounds almost like manipulate to me, making the poor fish believe he's about to eat a friendly piece of meat who he believes intends no harm to him.
So do away with shock on fishing! That would help resolve one issue. But still, there's too many holes for shock to make any sense ICly to me, unless it was overseen by Hodierna or someone, which was not the case.
Grasi's Player
Why does fishing cause shock? The empath isn't telling the fish to bite the hook. The empath is minding his or her own business, and the fish just happens to come along and impale itself on a jagged hook. Sounds almost like manipulate to me, making the poor fish believe he's about to eat a friendly piece of meat who he believes intends no harm to him.
So do away with shock on fishing! That would help resolve one issue. But still, there's too many holes for shock to make any sense ICly to me, unless it was overseen by Hodierna or someone, which was not the case.
Grasi's Player
DR-REEXA
Re: Manipulate
06/25/2003 09:47 PM CDT
The question of Shock has been raised and addressed often, as you may already be aware. It is something that we'll be looking at now and in the future, but I don't expect any major decisions regarding it to be made until we have a Guru on board.
As it stands now, Shock is the reflexive mental flinching that accompanies the attempt to cause harm combined with the simultaneous focusing on the direct target of that harm. When you are fishing, the intent of that act is to catch a fish on a barbed hook. You know that when you cast the line; why else would you be throwing a barbed hook into the water?
Please know that I can understand your viewpoint on the issue of the mangonel. But the question is, what is the focus of the intent in firing it? To damage the ship. As a player you know that pirates might/will die as a result, but what you are actually doing is damaging the ship. You aren't focusing your intent on hurting a person, you are focusing on wood and sailcloth.
This is the same for Manipulate. You know that by Manipulating a critter, that critter may turn and fight his friends. Whether or not he actually does that, though, is not within your control. You are not Manipulating a creature to fight his buddy, you are telling it not to fight YOU. Your intent isn't that it should die (although you as a player might be wanting that); you just don't want it attacking you. The effect is not any different than being in the room with a hunter and having a creature approach the hunter instead of you, and die as a result. Should you receive Shock for that death because you were there? (and to those of you who answer yes just to be bubbleheads, nyah).
I realize that this is a fine line for some people, and to be honest, I like having that fine line. I want Empaths to have to make some personal choices that may not be popular. I enjoy having some Empaths for Manipulate and others against. Makes my work that much more exciting.
GM Reexa
______________________________________
The kingsword will stand in its scabbard of granite
Quicksilver forged from the pools of the sky
A rumor explained by the one who began it
A boy's hand will grasp it, a man's raise it high --Heather Dale
As it stands now, Shock is the reflexive mental flinching that accompanies the attempt to cause harm combined with the simultaneous focusing on the direct target of that harm. When you are fishing, the intent of that act is to catch a fish on a barbed hook. You know that when you cast the line; why else would you be throwing a barbed hook into the water?
Please know that I can understand your viewpoint on the issue of the mangonel. But the question is, what is the focus of the intent in firing it? To damage the ship. As a player you know that pirates might/will die as a result, but what you are actually doing is damaging the ship. You aren't focusing your intent on hurting a person, you are focusing on wood and sailcloth.
This is the same for Manipulate. You know that by Manipulating a critter, that critter may turn and fight his friends. Whether or not he actually does that, though, is not within your control. You are not Manipulating a creature to fight his buddy, you are telling it not to fight YOU. Your intent isn't that it should die (although you as a player might be wanting that); you just don't want it attacking you. The effect is not any different than being in the room with a hunter and having a creature approach the hunter instead of you, and die as a result. Should you receive Shock for that death because you were there? (and to those of you who answer yes just to be bubbleheads, nyah).
I realize that this is a fine line for some people, and to be honest, I like having that fine line. I want Empaths to have to make some personal choices that may not be popular. I enjoy having some Empaths for Manipulate and others against. Makes my work that much more exciting.
GM Reexa
______________________________________
The kingsword will stand in its scabbard of granite
Quicksilver forged from the pools of the sky
A rumor explained by the one who began it
A boy's hand will grasp it, a man's raise it high --Heather Dale
SYLVERWIND
Re: Manipulate
06/25/2003 11:52 PM CDT
If shock is a reflexive mental flinching, why is it a spiritual thing? I know I brought this up before...But I'm still curious as to if there is an explanation for this or if you're planning on changing the messaging.
As of right now, shock (both actual and scar) appears as a "stain on the soul" of the empath who has it. Shock is transferred via a "spirit cord"; Why should it even be able to be transferred at all? Not to mention after one has shock transferred, their spirit is drained...Which seems odd.
Oh well, this is off topic anyway...It's still nagging at my mind though.
- Miki (player of)
Everelles says, "Dead Moon Mages make for a better guild."
As of right now, shock (both actual and scar) appears as a "stain on the soul" of the empath who has it. Shock is transferred via a "spirit cord"; Why should it even be able to be transferred at all? Not to mention after one has shock transferred, their spirit is drained...Which seems odd.
Oh well, this is off topic anyway...It's still nagging at my mind though.
- Miki (player of)
Everelles says, "Dead Moon Mages make for a better guild."
SCYTHA
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 12:46 AM CDT
>I don't understand how firing a mangonel that throws a boulder up into the air that crushes a pirate any less shock inducing than firing an arrow at the same pirate from the same spot from where you lauched the boulder.
In theory it's because you're aiming at the ship with the boulder, not the pirate. Damage to any pirates on board is an unfortunate side-effect of stopping the ship from getting closer.
-Kitrinx
In theory it's because you're aiming at the ship with the boulder, not the pirate. Damage to any pirates on board is an unfortunate side-effect of stopping the ship from getting closer.
-Kitrinx
YIMMY
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 07:46 AM CDT
>>Please know that I can understand your viewpoint on the issue of the mangonel. But the question is, what is the focus of the intent in firing it? To damage the ship. As a player you know that pirates might/will die as a result, but what you are actually doing is damaging the ship. You aren't focusing your intent on hurting a person, you are focusing on wood and sailcloth.
I've heard this argument for players and GMs's now for awhile and it is still as flimsy as the fish hook argument, Reexa.
What is the purpose of firing the Mangonel? To stop the pirates, via the ship. As a player we know pirates might/will die but so do our characters. The main purpose of sinking the ship is to kill the pirates so they won't board. For this reason my Empath refuses to touch one. And I still believe firing one should cause shock... now loading it is a different story.
"I used to be Snow White...... but I drifted." - Mae West
I've heard this argument for players and GMs's now for awhile and it is still as flimsy as the fish hook argument, Reexa.
What is the purpose of firing the Mangonel? To stop the pirates, via the ship. As a player we know pirates might/will die but so do our characters. The main purpose of sinking the ship is to kill the pirates so they won't board. For this reason my Empath refuses to touch one. And I still believe firing one should cause shock... now loading it is a different story.
"I used to be Snow White...... but I drifted." - Mae West
HBOMB17
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 08:09 AM CDT
>The main purpose of sinking the ship is to kill the pirates so they won't board. For this reason my Empath refuses to touch one. And I still believe firing one should cause shock... now loading it is a
The main purpose of sinking the ship is still to sink the ship. Your character can assume that the pirates know how to swim, just like your character seems to believe (at least from what you wrote) that no one will fire the Mangonel that they have loaded.
~Absinthe
The main purpose of sinking the ship is still to sink the ship. Your character can assume that the pirates know how to swim, just like your character seems to believe (at least from what you wrote) that no one will fire the Mangonel that they have loaded.
~Absinthe
YTHIK
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 08:18 AM CDT
I think the distane may have something to do with it as well. Which is the reason you can't just attack things to 'damage their armor.' At the distance you're firing the mangonel the pirates don't even 'exist.' Therefore you circumvent the 'focusing on them to cause harm' clause of shock.
I suppose you could argue the same thing for fishing, up until the point where you reel the fish in. In my opinion, it should be actually casting the line which causes shock, but the yanking the hook in the fish's mouth in order to pull it to you. That's the point where you're actually focusing on causing harm to the creature.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
I suppose you could argue the same thing for fishing, up until the point where you reel the fish in. In my opinion, it should be actually casting the line which causes shock, but the yanking the hook in the fish's mouth in order to pull it to you. That's the point where you're actually focusing on causing harm to the creature.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
MELROSE
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 09:13 AM CDT
<<Jeez, Lint why does everything have to be about you. Sheesh. ~Y>>
Hey, keep out of my spotlight baldman! ::push Ythik::
Hey, keep out of my spotlight baldman! ::push Ythik::
DIVERC1
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 12:32 PM CDT
The purpose in firing the Mangonels is to sink the ship. The Mangonel targets the ship, not the pirates.
As far as the pirates.. sucks to be them if they chose to be a criminal on the sea and didn't think about learning how to swim.
In the hypothetical reverse: Suppose you were the pirate aboard the red schooner firing a mangonel at the ferry. You still wouldn't receive shock, when the ZEF forces captured you, you'd be tried for Piracy by the crown and end up with your head on a pike (In an ideal justice system) just like any other pirate, no exemption because you're an empath.
Shock isn't our ethic/moral detection system; it's a result of our direct attempt to cause harm to another living being, because we feel their pain.
Game mechanics wise, there's some flaws in how Shock works, maybe when the Empath guild team is up to full staff, we'll get some one to focus on fixing those issues/flaws/features that don't quite work.
I'm hopeful with DR2, this shock mechanic's issue along with that annoying global default that occurs that makes it necessary to type out a whole name and body part to heal it can get easily fixed.
As far as the pirates.. sucks to be them if they chose to be a criminal on the sea and didn't think about learning how to swim.
In the hypothetical reverse: Suppose you were the pirate aboard the red schooner firing a mangonel at the ferry. You still wouldn't receive shock, when the ZEF forces captured you, you'd be tried for Piracy by the crown and end up with your head on a pike (In an ideal justice system) just like any other pirate, no exemption because you're an empath.
Shock isn't our ethic/moral detection system; it's a result of our direct attempt to cause harm to another living being, because we feel their pain.
Game mechanics wise, there's some flaws in how Shock works, maybe when the Empath guild team is up to full staff, we'll get some one to focus on fixing those issues/flaws/features that don't quite work.
I'm hopeful with DR2, this shock mechanic's issue along with that annoying global default that occurs that makes it necessary to type out a whole name and body part to heal it can get easily fixed.
FUNKB
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 09:26 PM CDT
Okay, so I can 'understand' that when an empath lauches a big rock at a ship, he or she firmly believes that no one will be hurt. I can 'believe' that an empath, when firing a bladder full of flammable oil that explodes on contact, consuming everything it touches in a fiery conflagaration, believes that they are only trying to sink the ship, and that no one could possibly be hurt by those flames. This all makes sense to me.
This just means that empaths, in embracing their empathy, have gone crazy. Psychotic. Almost sociopathic. Unable to tell right from wrong. Therefore, any seaweed fisherman out there should be able to accidentally catch fish and not have any problems. They weren't trying to hurt fish, didn't even mean it! Who'd have thought such a travesty could have happened! To them!
Anyway, I'd be content with the answer, "Empaths can fire mangonels because it's fun and we don't want them cut out of every fun thing in the game." Anyone who firmly believes that tossing a big rock or a flaming bag of oil at a ship won't hurt anyone, and if it does, it's "okay" because you didn't mean it to, is crazy. That's the long and the short of it.
Grasi's Player
This just means that empaths, in embracing their empathy, have gone crazy. Psychotic. Almost sociopathic. Unable to tell right from wrong. Therefore, any seaweed fisherman out there should be able to accidentally catch fish and not have any problems. They weren't trying to hurt fish, didn't even mean it! Who'd have thought such a travesty could have happened! To them!
Anyway, I'd be content with the answer, "Empaths can fire mangonels because it's fun and we don't want them cut out of every fun thing in the game." Anyone who firmly believes that tossing a big rock or a flaming bag of oil at a ship won't hurt anyone, and if it does, it's "okay" because you didn't mean it to, is crazy. That's the long and the short of it.
Grasi's Player
SCYTHA
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 10:05 PM CDT
>Okay, so I can 'understand' that when an empath lauches a big rock at a ship, he or she firmly believes that no one will be hurt. I can 'believe' that an empath, when firing a bladder full of flammable oil that explodes on contact, consuming everything it touches in a fiery conflagaration, believes that they are only trying to sink the ship, and that no one could possibly be hurt by those flames. This all makes sense to me.
No, most empath believe that someone might be hurt, but (we assume) it is not their intention to hurt them, it is an unfortunate side-effect of disabling their ship. It's like opening a box. The empath knows the box could potentialy hurt someone if the trap goes off, but it isn't their intent to hurt them.
-Kitrinx
No, most empath believe that someone might be hurt, but (we assume) it is not their intention to hurt them, it is an unfortunate side-effect of disabling their ship. It's like opening a box. The empath knows the box could potentialy hurt someone if the trap goes off, but it isn't their intent to hurt them.
-Kitrinx
MRSMCCLELLAN
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 10:08 PM CDT
<<Okay, so I can 'understand' that when an empath lauches a big rock at a ship, he or she firmly believes that no one will be hurt. I can 'believe' that an empath, when firing a bladder full of flammable oil that explodes on contact, consuming everything it touches in a fiery conflagaration, believes that they are only trying to sink the ship, and that no one could possibly be hurt by those flames. This all makes sense to me.>>
K, I'll just reiterate what everyone else has already said in many many ways, but that you dont seem to understand. When an empath fires at the ship with the big rock, they arent thinking about the pirates. The sole purpose for the character is to sink the ship. Just as it is the intentioin to sink the ship with the flames you speak of. Now, if you could aim at the pirates, sure, it should cause shock. But you're firing at the ship, a non-living thing. And its not the empaths fault if a pirate happens to get in the way. That wasnt the intention.
-Etrina
K, I'll just reiterate what everyone else has already said in many many ways, but that you dont seem to understand. When an empath fires at the ship with the big rock, they arent thinking about the pirates. The sole purpose for the character is to sink the ship. Just as it is the intentioin to sink the ship with the flames you speak of. Now, if you could aim at the pirates, sure, it should cause shock. But you're firing at the ship, a non-living thing. And its not the empaths fault if a pirate happens to get in the way. That wasnt the intention.
-Etrina
JIHAN
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 10:10 PM CDT
This is why having shock based on "intent" is problematic. It's like a teenager -- you can make it work, but only with a ton of effort and it's unlikely to be pleasant.
~ Nutawa
P.S. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a definition in place! And it's one that CAN work, it's just going to take some muddling through on our part, I know. Good job working on all this, keep it up!
P.P.S. I know a lot of players are teenagers, no offense intended! Just an old guy trying to be clever. Please don't egg my house.
P.P.P.S. Do people egg houses any more? ::wanders off mumbling in an old fogey haze::
_______________________________
Indigoe's Weapons Guide: http://members.cox.net/trader-indigoe/weapon.html
Gidske's Armor Guide: http://www.heromachine.com/drealms/
~ Nutawa
P.S. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a definition in place! And it's one that CAN work, it's just going to take some muddling through on our part, I know. Good job working on all this, keep it up!
P.P.S. I know a lot of players are teenagers, no offense intended! Just an old guy trying to be clever. Please don't egg my house.
P.P.P.S. Do people egg houses any more? ::wanders off mumbling in an old fogey haze::
_______________________________
Indigoe's Weapons Guide: http://members.cox.net/trader-indigoe/weapon.html
Gidske's Armor Guide: http://www.heromachine.com/drealms/
YTHIK
Re: Manipulate
06/26/2003 10:52 PM CDT
> This is why having shock based on "intent" is problematic. It's like a teenager -- you can make it work, but only with a ton of effort and it's unlikely to be pleasant.
Or it takes a little bit of faith, a bit of suspension of disbelief and a rather complete lack of nit-picking on the part of players.
Don't get me wrong, I want shock to be consistent, and it's obviously being worked on, but I don't see why this is any reason to get your knickers in a twist. Shock has always been 'messed up' and it's only getting better.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
Or it takes a little bit of faith, a bit of suspension of disbelief and a rather complete lack of nit-picking on the part of players.
Don't get me wrong, I want shock to be consistent, and it's obviously being worked on, but I don't see why this is any reason to get your knickers in a twist. Shock has always been 'messed up' and it's only getting better.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
DIVERC1
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 12:55 AM CDT
<<Okay, so I can 'understand' that when an empath lauches a big rock at a ship, he or she firmly believes that no one will be hurt. I can 'believe' that an empath, when firing a bladder full of flammable oil that explodes on contact, consuming everything it touches in a fiery conflagaration, believes that they are only trying to sink the ship, and that no one could possibly be hurt by those flames. This all makes sense to me.>>
Hello, no one said they didn't know that the ship was going to sink; or that pirates on board the ship would possibly die because of it. But for Shock to even be a factor, we have to target the pirates not the wood and canvas of the ship.
<<This just means that empaths, in embracing their empathy, have gone crazy. Psychotic. Almost sociopathic. Unable to tell right from wrong. Therefore, any seaweed fisherman out there should be able to accidentally catch fish and not have any problems. They weren't trying to hurt fish, didn't even mean it! Who'd have thought such a travesty could have happened! To them!>>
How you got there from defending the ferry and protection other passengers by using weapons that we have access to is quite a big leap.
Why is it wrong for empaths to defend themselves with the means available to them and no other guild?
As far as your second point, ~is~ there even a way to harvest seaweed as opposed to fishing? When there does become a seaweed harvesting ability, and it causes shock - then you can compare the two.
((If you are trying to make a case for fishing to cause shock only at the point where one would sucessfully catch the fish as opposed to simply casting a fishing line, perhaps you should explain your case to GM-Loriene, the owner of the fishing system. This sounds valid. Perhaps with the "twinge in the pit of your stomach" for casting to warn the empath that sucess would lead to shock. (Possibly a system limitation issue that will/could be resolved in DR2.)))
<<Anyway, I'd be content with the answer, "Empaths can fire mangonels because it's fun and we don't want them cut out of every fun thing in the game." Anyone who firmly believes that tossing a big rock or a flaming bag of oil at a ship won't hurt anyone, and if it does, it's "okay" because you didn't mean it to, is crazy. That's the long and the short of it.>>
When did being an empath mean we had to protect all life at the expense of our own? When did we lose our own will and judgement?
We choose not to heal people all the time. By your example any time we decide to heal down, or talk with friends or do anything else other then 'save' the next victim, regardless if the victim is intent on killing us or not, we should be open for shock.
The pirates chose to be on board the ship, and chose not to learn enough swimming or make provisions to have an escape route. That's not my problem. What is my problem is a ferry load of passengers needing protection from the pirates and me being able to help save our lives.
I'm not going to play victim simply because others have a narrow view of who and what an empath should be. I'll be the one trying to figure out how to aim the thing in the right direction, and cheering as the schooner sinks. Something anyone, empath or not, should be darn proud of in a RP/IC way.
I'm just going to assume that at some point you failed to understand in the difference between what causes Shock and what doesn't; game mechanic limitations as they currently exist, and what appears to be hope that they will be fixed with the advent of DR2.
I hope this helps clarify.
Paschein
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Hello, no one said they didn't know that the ship was going to sink; or that pirates on board the ship would possibly die because of it. But for Shock to even be a factor, we have to target the pirates not the wood and canvas of the ship.
<<This just means that empaths, in embracing their empathy, have gone crazy. Psychotic. Almost sociopathic. Unable to tell right from wrong. Therefore, any seaweed fisherman out there should be able to accidentally catch fish and not have any problems. They weren't trying to hurt fish, didn't even mean it! Who'd have thought such a travesty could have happened! To them!>>
How you got there from defending the ferry and protection other passengers by using weapons that we have access to is quite a big leap.
Why is it wrong for empaths to defend themselves with the means available to them and no other guild?
As far as your second point, ~is~ there even a way to harvest seaweed as opposed to fishing? When there does become a seaweed harvesting ability, and it causes shock - then you can compare the two.
((If you are trying to make a case for fishing to cause shock only at the point where one would sucessfully catch the fish as opposed to simply casting a fishing line, perhaps you should explain your case to GM-Loriene, the owner of the fishing system. This sounds valid. Perhaps with the "twinge in the pit of your stomach" for casting to warn the empath that sucess would lead to shock. (Possibly a system limitation issue that will/could be resolved in DR2.)))
<<Anyway, I'd be content with the answer, "Empaths can fire mangonels because it's fun and we don't want them cut out of every fun thing in the game." Anyone who firmly believes that tossing a big rock or a flaming bag of oil at a ship won't hurt anyone, and if it does, it's "okay" because you didn't mean it to, is crazy. That's the long and the short of it.>>
When did being an empath mean we had to protect all life at the expense of our own? When did we lose our own will and judgement?
We choose not to heal people all the time. By your example any time we decide to heal down, or talk with friends or do anything else other then 'save' the next victim, regardless if the victim is intent on killing us or not, we should be open for shock.
The pirates chose to be on board the ship, and chose not to learn enough swimming or make provisions to have an escape route. That's not my problem. What is my problem is a ferry load of passengers needing protection from the pirates and me being able to help save our lives.
I'm not going to play victim simply because others have a narrow view of who and what an empath should be. I'll be the one trying to figure out how to aim the thing in the right direction, and cheering as the schooner sinks. Something anyone, empath or not, should be darn proud of in a RP/IC way.
I'm just going to assume that at some point you failed to understand in the difference between what causes Shock and what doesn't; game mechanic limitations as they currently exist, and what appears to be hope that they will be fixed with the advent of DR2.
I hope this helps clarify.
Paschein
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
SYLVERWIND
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 03:11 AM CDT
I think part of the conflict here may be the distinction between shock being a physical thing and shock being a moral or spiritual thing. If your empath has morality issues when it comes to manipulating things (which may cause the death of a critter) or firing mangonels at pirate ships (which may cause the death of pirates) then don't do it. If, however, you play an empath like me, who was born with her "enhanced" empathy and is not at all a pacifistic or even necessarily a good person, then it should be fine. Shock isn't and has never been a moral or spiritual issue for my empath. It is a physical reaction and nothing more.
Now I explain being able to fire a mangonel at a ship as being so separated from what I am intending to do (which is sink a ship, which will then logically kill any pirates on board, because even if you can swim you can't survive in the ocean for very long) that my empathy isn't being suppressed and therefore I am not going into shock. If I fire a bow or swing a sword at something, I am more directly involved in causing (or attempting to cause) harm to a critter and therefore do go into shock.
The same goes for manipulating critters. While yes, I may be involved in the harm/death of something, and yes, that may be my intent or hope, I am so removed/distanced from the situation that I do not go into shock.
This isn't about intent. Or an empath telling right from wrong. Or morals (Since when are all empaths supposed to be right and moral anyway?) This is about a physical reaction to something. And yes there are some things that need to be sorted out so it makes more IC sense, as well as some things that need to be clarified. But the way it's been laid out now is relatively clear, and I think some people are misinterpreting that or merely ignoring it and trying to factor in other things that aren't related to it.
- Miki (player of)
Everelles says, "Dead Moon Mages make for a better guild."
Now I explain being able to fire a mangonel at a ship as being so separated from what I am intending to do (which is sink a ship, which will then logically kill any pirates on board, because even if you can swim you can't survive in the ocean for very long) that my empathy isn't being suppressed and therefore I am not going into shock. If I fire a bow or swing a sword at something, I am more directly involved in causing (or attempting to cause) harm to a critter and therefore do go into shock.
The same goes for manipulating critters. While yes, I may be involved in the harm/death of something, and yes, that may be my intent or hope, I am so removed/distanced from the situation that I do not go into shock.
This isn't about intent. Or an empath telling right from wrong. Or morals (Since when are all empaths supposed to be right and moral anyway?) This is about a physical reaction to something. And yes there are some things that need to be sorted out so it makes more IC sense, as well as some things that need to be clarified. But the way it's been laid out now is relatively clear, and I think some people are misinterpreting that or merely ignoring it and trying to factor in other things that aren't related to it.
- Miki (player of)
Everelles says, "Dead Moon Mages make for a better guild."
FUNKB
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 09:18 AM CDT
Okay, so what most people are telling me that they're happy with the system telling them how to think and how to roleplay.
So I walk up to an empath cheerfully lobbing rocks at a pirate ship.
I ask the empath, "Hey, what are you doing?"
The empath responds, "Cheerfully killing pirates."
I can then assume that the empath is NOT in fact, cheerfully killing pirates, but that the empath is really only trying to sink the ship, and really has no intent at all to kill pirates. The empath is cheerfully oblivous to the constraints on his thinking. I see it all clearly now, thank you for pointing it out in such a civil manner.
And if anyone has a problem with this discussion, please feel free to stop participating. I'm personally of the view that clinging on to a broken system without figuring out the flaws and ways around them is wrong. Also, I'm not trying to lobby for empaths not to use mangonels, as I've stated, TIME AND TIME AGAIN. I swear I've had to repeat the same stuff every post I write because someone always assumes I'm out to get all the empaths.
The worst thing happened was that shock was defined before the bugs were really fixed. This is not fixing anything. The only thing that's changed about shock is now it has constraints placed on it by defining it. Intent bugs the heck out of me. If, as an empath, I want to kill pirates with my mangonel, then I'll be living it up, firing big bladders of oil onto decks full of pirates, and I'll feel no remorse.
In addition, any empath who sets their attack to 0 should be able to swing and slice and fight alongside everyone else. Because anyone with their attack stance at 0 isn't trying to kill anything. They're focused on defense, and any attack is an attack in name only, with no real force behind it. The empath doesn't want to hurt the critter, and isn't even trying to, they're just swinging they're blade in front of them, and if the critter happens to run into it, then oops! Too bad for the critter!
Grasi's Player
So I walk up to an empath cheerfully lobbing rocks at a pirate ship.
I ask the empath, "Hey, what are you doing?"
The empath responds, "Cheerfully killing pirates."
I can then assume that the empath is NOT in fact, cheerfully killing pirates, but that the empath is really only trying to sink the ship, and really has no intent at all to kill pirates. The empath is cheerfully oblivous to the constraints on his thinking. I see it all clearly now, thank you for pointing it out in such a civil manner.
And if anyone has a problem with this discussion, please feel free to stop participating. I'm personally of the view that clinging on to a broken system without figuring out the flaws and ways around them is wrong. Also, I'm not trying to lobby for empaths not to use mangonels, as I've stated, TIME AND TIME AGAIN. I swear I've had to repeat the same stuff every post I write because someone always assumes I'm out to get all the empaths.
The worst thing happened was that shock was defined before the bugs were really fixed. This is not fixing anything. The only thing that's changed about shock is now it has constraints placed on it by defining it. Intent bugs the heck out of me. If, as an empath, I want to kill pirates with my mangonel, then I'll be living it up, firing big bladders of oil onto decks full of pirates, and I'll feel no remorse.
In addition, any empath who sets their attack to 0 should be able to swing and slice and fight alongside everyone else. Because anyone with their attack stance at 0 isn't trying to kill anything. They're focused on defense, and any attack is an attack in name only, with no real force behind it. The empath doesn't want to hurt the critter, and isn't even trying to, they're just swinging they're blade in front of them, and if the critter happens to run into it, then oops! Too bad for the critter!
Grasi's Player
DIVERC1
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 12:42 PM CDT
<<Okay, so what most people are telling me that they're happy with the system telling them how to think and how to roleplay.>>
The system isn't telling me how to think nor how to role-play. Shock is a result of my directly harming another living creature causing me to feel such intense pain, I go into shock. I don't target the pirates on the ship, I target the ship. No intense pain.
I swing a weapon/shake a charged wand and it hurts someone, I am causing direct pain.
<<The worst thing happened was that shock was defined before the bugs were really fixed. This is not fixing anything.>>
I find this statement to be a bit extreme, defining what Shock should be is hardly 'the worst thing' that's happened.
It's gives us a rather clear idea of what direction the empath guild is going in, freeing from the past perceptions of what empaths are 'supposed to be', and allowing us to make so many other choices (with consequences)as to how we wish to develop our character's personality.
It is to me at least, comforting to know that after almost 7 years, someone backstage has actually heard us. We aren't "supposed" to all be painted with the huggysmoochy pacifist brush. We are allowed to be more then just the "Stepford Wives" type empath.
<<The only thing that's changed about shock is now it has constraints placed on it by defining it. Intent bugs the heck out of me. If, as an empath, I want to kill pirates with my mangonel, then I'll be living it up, firing big bladders of oil onto decks full of pirates, and I'll feel no remorse.>>
You're confusing moral and legal issues with what Shock is, to attempt to support (with some unnecessary sarcasm added) your stance. You're apparently not accepting the fact that ~we know~ and ~they know~ there were and still are glaring flaws to the shock system as it stands. But that's not anything to do with empath ethics as much as it is to do with broken systems, a topic for another folder.
I'm also trusting those responsible for guild development and flaw fixing aren't simply glossing over these glaring ooc driven issues, and will be giving the empath guild equal the amount of focus and fixing that will be given to every other system that is going to be worked on for DR2.
Paschein
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
The system isn't telling me how to think nor how to role-play. Shock is a result of my directly harming another living creature causing me to feel such intense pain, I go into shock. I don't target the pirates on the ship, I target the ship. No intense pain.
I swing a weapon/shake a charged wand and it hurts someone, I am causing direct pain.
<<The worst thing happened was that shock was defined before the bugs were really fixed. This is not fixing anything.>>
I find this statement to be a bit extreme, defining what Shock should be is hardly 'the worst thing' that's happened.
It's gives us a rather clear idea of what direction the empath guild is going in, freeing from the past perceptions of what empaths are 'supposed to be', and allowing us to make so many other choices (with consequences)as to how we wish to develop our character's personality.
It is to me at least, comforting to know that after almost 7 years, someone backstage has actually heard us. We aren't "supposed" to all be painted with the huggysmoochy pacifist brush. We are allowed to be more then just the "Stepford Wives" type empath.
<<The only thing that's changed about shock is now it has constraints placed on it by defining it. Intent bugs the heck out of me. If, as an empath, I want to kill pirates with my mangonel, then I'll be living it up, firing big bladders of oil onto decks full of pirates, and I'll feel no remorse.>>
You're confusing moral and legal issues with what Shock is, to attempt to support (with some unnecessary sarcasm added) your stance. You're apparently not accepting the fact that ~we know~ and ~they know~ there were and still are glaring flaws to the shock system as it stands. But that's not anything to do with empath ethics as much as it is to do with broken systems, a topic for another folder.
I'm also trusting those responsible for guild development and flaw fixing aren't simply glossing over these glaring ooc driven issues, and will be giving the empath guild equal the amount of focus and fixing that will be given to every other system that is going to be worked on for DR2.
Paschein
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
MRSMCCLELLAN
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 02:33 PM CDT
I have finally come to the conclusion that this is never going to be agreed upon. So empath's should just be happy to sit around making everything and everyone all happy and well again. Afterall, if we do anything else we should get shock, since we're obviously trying to cause harm, right?
-Etrina
-Etrina
YTHIK
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 06:33 PM CDT
You know, Grasi, I don't know if you really even read the 'definition' of shock.
> I think part of the conflict here may be the distinction between shock being a physical thing and shock being a moral or spiritual thing.
As Mikiri pointed out, Shock is physical. It happens when my empathy is overwhelmed cause I go to hurt something. Mangonels do not cause shock because my empathy does not sense the pirates. They do not exist on my empathy radar.
If something is not appear to my empathy I can cause all the damage to it I want. I could start avalanches at the tops of mountains to crush cities at the bottom. I can drop rocks off cliffs and smash things at the bottom.
This also helps explain why you do not get shock for killing bugs and germs. You cannot sense them.
I'm sure someone will bring up fishing and suggest that you could fish only outside of your empathy range. Whether this is even possible or not is debatable. However, it's a moot point because in order to actually fish, you will have to, at some point, bring the fish inside your range.
>I swear I've had to repeat the same stuff every post I write because someone always assumes I'm out to get all the empaths.
You're saying the same things over and over again because you're not actually listening to what anyone else has to say.
> The worst thing happened was that shock was defined before the bugs were really fixed.
Honestly this is insulting to the GMs. How do you know they didn't have meetings and go through everything that does and does not cause shock and make sure it fit with the new definition. I think it's perfectly possible that they did, especially seeing as you seem to be the only one with major issues about any of this.
> The empath doesn't want to hurt the critter, and isn't even trying to, they're just swinging they're blade in front of them, and if the critter happens to run into it, then oops!
You seem insistent on trying to find loopholes and/or errors in the system. And like I said before, no one else seems to have problems with it. Have you considered that maybe the issues are with your understanding and not the system?
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
> I think part of the conflict here may be the distinction between shock being a physical thing and shock being a moral or spiritual thing.
As Mikiri pointed out, Shock is physical. It happens when my empathy is overwhelmed cause I go to hurt something. Mangonels do not cause shock because my empathy does not sense the pirates. They do not exist on my empathy radar.
If something is not appear to my empathy I can cause all the damage to it I want. I could start avalanches at the tops of mountains to crush cities at the bottom. I can drop rocks off cliffs and smash things at the bottom.
This also helps explain why you do not get shock for killing bugs and germs. You cannot sense them.
I'm sure someone will bring up fishing and suggest that you could fish only outside of your empathy range. Whether this is even possible or not is debatable. However, it's a moot point because in order to actually fish, you will have to, at some point, bring the fish inside your range.
>I swear I've had to repeat the same stuff every post I write because someone always assumes I'm out to get all the empaths.
You're saying the same things over and over again because you're not actually listening to what anyone else has to say.
> The worst thing happened was that shock was defined before the bugs were really fixed.
Honestly this is insulting to the GMs. How do you know they didn't have meetings and go through everything that does and does not cause shock and make sure it fit with the new definition. I think it's perfectly possible that they did, especially seeing as you seem to be the only one with major issues about any of this.
> The empath doesn't want to hurt the critter, and isn't even trying to, they're just swinging they're blade in front of them, and if the critter happens to run into it, then oops!
You seem insistent on trying to find loopholes and/or errors in the system. And like I said before, no one else seems to have problems with it. Have you considered that maybe the issues are with your understanding and not the system?
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
DR-LORIENE
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 07:07 PM CDT
<((If you are trying to make a case for fishing to cause shock only at the point where one would sucessfully catch the fish as opposed to simply casting a fishing line, perhaps you should explain your case to GM-Loriene, the owner of the fishing system. This sounds valid. Perhaps with the "twinge in the pit of your stomach" for casting to warn the empath that sucess would lead to shock. (Possibly a system limitation issue that will/could be resolved in DR2.)))>
That's exactly how it actually does work. Empaths get a bad feeling about casting the line, but the shock doesn't kick in until a fish actually impales itself.
Just visiting,
Loriene
That's exactly how it actually does work. Empaths get a bad feeling about casting the line, but the shock doesn't kick in until a fish actually impales itself.
Just visiting,
Loriene
DIVERC1
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 07:32 PM CDT
<<That's exactly how it actually does work. Empaths get a bad feeling about casting the line, but the shock doesn't kick in until a fish actually impales itself.>>
Well as ya see I don't fish, I get the bad feeling thinking about having to touch the bait, so no fishing for me or Pasch ::blech::
Er so Grasi.. how's this equate mangonels? If we were aiming at the pirates maybe, but we're aiming at the ship.
<<Just visiting,
Loriene>>
Visit a long time.. :) we miss ya. One favor, couldya thwap Grasi with a big fish for me please ::smile innocently::
Paschein, and the player behind.
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Well as ya see I don't fish, I get the bad feeling thinking about having to touch the bait, so no fishing for me or Pasch ::blech::
Er so Grasi.. how's this equate mangonels? If we were aiming at the pirates maybe, but we're aiming at the ship.
<<Just visiting,
Loriene>>
Visit a long time.. :) we miss ya. One favor, couldya thwap Grasi with a big fish for me please ::smile innocently::
Paschein, and the player behind.
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
FUNKB
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 10:27 PM CDT
<<As Mikiri pointed out, Shock is physical. It happens when my empathy is overwhelmed cause I go to hurt something. Mangonels do not cause shock because my empathy does not sense the pirates. They do not exist on my empathy radar.
Okay, so help me out here. Empathy has a 'range'. And anything inside that range, if you hurt it, will cause shock. But, if you hurt something inside your range, but don't mean it (didn't target a living creature), then it doesn't cause shock, like if you used a mangonel. That's fine. And when you see your rock crush a pirate inside your range, you don't get shock, because you wanted to hit the boat. So if you were a blind empath, you could mostly cause all the harm you wanted to, because your range would effectively be nill, since you couldn't see anyone, therefore, didn't mean to hit anyone. This is where I believe the definition of shock is limiting, because that blind empath shouldn't be able to hurt anything, just because he's blind.
Now, Etrina. If you insist on participating in this discussion, I'd ask you to read my posts and please tell me where I said empaths should sit in their guild and heal because anything else will cause shock. I can point out several times where I say that empaths shouldn't be cut out of firing the mangonel on pure playability issues alone. But you write what you want.
And Ythik. When I said this:
<<The empath doesn't want to hurt the critter, and isn't even trying to, they're just swinging they're blade in front of them, and if the critter happens to run into it, then oops!
I was refering to a possible new aspect to dancing with critters. Please feel free to actually read my posts before commenting on them.
For the record, I didn't insult any GM. I think there should have been tweaks to what shock does and the bugs worked out of it before the definition of shock was released. No one was chomping at the bit for that. It could have waited until the ingame mechanics were changed to accomodate the new view on it.
Anyway, thanks to the people who kept the discussion polite. I'm done with it. Had I realized what an affront to some people what not understanding an evolving system was, then I wouldn't have even tried.
Grasi's Player
Okay, so help me out here. Empathy has a 'range'. And anything inside that range, if you hurt it, will cause shock. But, if you hurt something inside your range, but don't mean it (didn't target a living creature), then it doesn't cause shock, like if you used a mangonel. That's fine. And when you see your rock crush a pirate inside your range, you don't get shock, because you wanted to hit the boat. So if you were a blind empath, you could mostly cause all the harm you wanted to, because your range would effectively be nill, since you couldn't see anyone, therefore, didn't mean to hit anyone. This is where I believe the definition of shock is limiting, because that blind empath shouldn't be able to hurt anything, just because he's blind.
Now, Etrina. If you insist on participating in this discussion, I'd ask you to read my posts and please tell me where I said empaths should sit in their guild and heal because anything else will cause shock. I can point out several times where I say that empaths shouldn't be cut out of firing the mangonel on pure playability issues alone. But you write what you want.
And Ythik. When I said this:
<<The empath doesn't want to hurt the critter, and isn't even trying to, they're just swinging they're blade in front of them, and if the critter happens to run into it, then oops!
I was refering to a possible new aspect to dancing with critters. Please feel free to actually read my posts before commenting on them.
For the record, I didn't insult any GM. I think there should have been tweaks to what shock does and the bugs worked out of it before the definition of shock was released. No one was chomping at the bit for that. It could have waited until the ingame mechanics were changed to accomodate the new view on it.
Anyway, thanks to the people who kept the discussion polite. I'm done with it. Had I realized what an affront to some people what not understanding an evolving system was, then I wouldn't have even tried.
Grasi's Player
YTHIK
Re: Manipulate
06/27/2003 10:42 PM CDT
> Okay, so help me out here. Empathy has a 'range'.
Yes as evidenced by the fact that at lower levels perc health picks up only the room you're in, and as you get more empathy you can extend that range. Trylaine, for example, and the empaths in the archivist document had a very large range. In my opinion they shouldn't be able to fire mangonels without shock. As things stand now though, the mangonel has a range that far exceeds any player empaths range.
And honestly, it wouldn't hurt to have all the information before you start arguing. It's not sight that matters, so your whole situation with a blind empath is completely irrelevant.
>I was refering to a possible new aspect to dancing with critters
It isn't going to happen, it was pointless to bring up and done in a sarcastic manner.
>I think there should have been tweaks to what shock does and the bugs worked out of it before the definition of shock was released.
The active words here being 'I think.' My point was that it's entirely possible the GMs thought about all the things you've brought up and decided that you're wrong. Hence nothing was changed because nothing needed to be changed.
> Had I realized what an affront to some people what not understanding an evolving system was, then I wouldn't have even tried.
You know, it certainly seemed like most of the time you were doing your best to not understand.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
Yes as evidenced by the fact that at lower levels perc health picks up only the room you're in, and as you get more empathy you can extend that range. Trylaine, for example, and the empaths in the archivist document had a very large range. In my opinion they shouldn't be able to fire mangonels without shock. As things stand now though, the mangonel has a range that far exceeds any player empaths range.
And honestly, it wouldn't hurt to have all the information before you start arguing. It's not sight that matters, so your whole situation with a blind empath is completely irrelevant.
>I was refering to a possible new aspect to dancing with critters
It isn't going to happen, it was pointless to bring up and done in a sarcastic manner.
>I think there should have been tweaks to what shock does and the bugs worked out of it before the definition of shock was released.
The active words here being 'I think.' My point was that it's entirely possible the GMs thought about all the things you've brought up and decided that you're wrong. Hence nothing was changed because nothing needed to be changed.
> Had I realized what an affront to some people what not understanding an evolving system was, then I wouldn't have even tried.
You know, it certainly seemed like most of the time you were doing your best to not understand.
~Y
Ever wonder about those Elotheans? Check out the library at:
http://www.bakshiloa.com
DIVERC1
Re: Manipulate
06/28/2003 12:01 AM CDT
Per GM-Reexa's posts of a few days ago #114, 6/25/03.
<<As it stands now, Shock is the reflexive mental flinching that accompanies the attempt to cause harm combined with the simultaneous focusing on the direct target of that harm. >>
GM-Reexa further elaborates:
<<But the question is, what is the focus of the intent in firing it[mangonel]? To damage the ship. As a player you know that pirates might/will die as a result, but what you are actually doing is damaging the ship. You aren't focusing your intent on hurting a person, you are focusing on wood and sailcloth.>>
Per Ythik's posts:
<<As Mikiri pointed out, Shock is physical. It happens when my empathy is overwhelmed cause I go to hurt something. Mangonels do not cause shock because my empathy does not sense the pirates. They do not exist on my empathy radar.
If something is not appear to my empathy I can cause all the damage to it I want. I could start avalanches at the tops of mountains to crush cities at the bottom. I can drop rocks off cliffs and smash things at the bottom.>>
I'm not sure how you got to this from the current definition of Shock linked with the Empathy ability?
Younger empaths can't distinguish non-empaths in the room, so what you're saying is that because they can't pick this non-empath up on their radar, they can have at it?
Paschein, player of
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
<<As it stands now, Shock is the reflexive mental flinching that accompanies the attempt to cause harm combined with the simultaneous focusing on the direct target of that harm. >>
GM-Reexa further elaborates:
<<But the question is, what is the focus of the intent in firing it[mangonel]? To damage the ship. As a player you know that pirates might/will die as a result, but what you are actually doing is damaging the ship. You aren't focusing your intent on hurting a person, you are focusing on wood and sailcloth.>>
Per Ythik's posts:
<<As Mikiri pointed out, Shock is physical. It happens when my empathy is overwhelmed cause I go to hurt something. Mangonels do not cause shock because my empathy does not sense the pirates. They do not exist on my empathy radar.
If something is not appear to my empathy I can cause all the damage to it I want. I could start avalanches at the tops of mountains to crush cities at the bottom. I can drop rocks off cliffs and smash things at the bottom.>>
I'm not sure how you got to this from the current definition of Shock linked with the Empathy ability?
Younger empaths can't distinguish non-empaths in the room, so what you're saying is that because they can't pick this non-empath up on their radar, they can have at it?
Paschein, player of
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
