Shroud of Deception (1212) is now live. It is purely a roleplaying spell that allows the caster to disguise their appearance while the spell is active. The SHROUD verb may be used to customize to your appearance and you can set up to 3 different profiles to use. In addition, the spell can also mimic the functionality of Shimmer Trinkets to also allow the caster to customize their inventory listing. The SHROUD verb is only accessible if you know the spell or while the spell is active.
Some examples:
>shroud
USAGE: SHROUD [option] {args}
Options:
PROFILE - selects which profile to use when casting Shroud of Deception.
INVENTORY - options to view and set inventory profiles.
VIEW - displays the attributes for a particular profile.
SET - sets the options for a particular profile.
CLEAR - clears the options for a particular profile.
>shroud set 1
Select which attribute to set:
profession
race
culture
gender
hair color
hair style
hair texture
hair quirks
complexion
eye color
eye characteristics
nose
face
distinguishing marks
height
age
uncommon
unique
Profession allows you to select another profession's level based titles and uses your Minor Mental spell ranks to determine eligibility (e.g. to use the Warlock title, a level 70 Sorcerer title, it requires 70 Minor Mental spell ranks. The Uncommon and Unique options unlock once the caster knows 50 Minor Mental spell ranks and allows you to override your complete appearance. Uncommon are a list of options to pick between and Unique is for a rare service ability to completely customize it yourself.
GameMaster Estild
GS4-ESTILD
SHIELD
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/02/2021 01:25 PM CST
Good morning, Estild & Team,
Can we get a "build" or "body build" option to shroud, even if the only option for now is 'none'?
My monk has a body build from Rumorwoods; it's off the shelf and not custom.
Since shroud doesn't cover this, every profile sees it and it can clash with the other features.
Example:
You see Abcxyz the Exemplar.
He appears to be a Dwarf of the Mithrenek Clan.
He is short and has a delicately lithe build. He appears to be in the prime of life. He has
bright golden eyes and copper skin. He has raggedly cut, tied back coal black hair worn in a
single braid. He has a square-jawed face, a flaring nose and a thick mustache and beard.
He has a pouncing arctic fox tattoo on his arm.
I can't visualize a "delicately lithe" dwarf.
Thank you,
Shield.
CHELLARELLA
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/04/2021 03:02 PM CST
May we also have expand options for gender beyond male/female so that 'they' can be reflected?
Speaking softly to Raelee, Kilthal says, "Many things would be different if people listened to ye."
Speaking to Kilthal, Raelee says, "Believe me. I am painfully aware of that."
Speaking softly to Raelee, Kilthal says, "Many things would be different if people listened to ye."
Speaking to Kilthal, Raelee says, "Believe me. I am painfully aware of that."
OM1E5GA
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/04/2021 05:52 PM CST
<May we also have expand options for gender beyond male/female so that 'they' can be reflected?>
I thought the spell only affected the caster, not the caster's group?
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
I thought the spell only affected the caster, not the caster's group?
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
CLTIDBALL
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/04/2021 09:05 PM CST
>>May we also have expand options for gender beyond male/female so that 'they' can be reflected?
>I thought the spell only affected the caster, not the caster's group?
"Them"/"They" are the most common gender-neutral terms used for people who don't identify as male/female. We had a 'them'/'they'-pronouned NPC at EG last year, which was really awesome, and quite a few of us are hoping to have "them"/"they" added as a gender option.
~Cylnthia Kythnis Ardenai
~Inquisitor of Kuon
~Rose Guardian, House Sylvanfair
>I thought the spell only affected the caster, not the caster's group?
"Them"/"They" are the most common gender-neutral terms used for people who don't identify as male/female. We had a 'them'/'they'-pronouned NPC at EG last year, which was really awesome, and quite a few of us are hoping to have "them"/"they" added as a gender option.
~Cylnthia Kythnis Ardenai
~Inquisitor of Kuon
~Rose Guardian, House Sylvanfair
DVDMORSE
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 02:01 AM CST
Other people's gender identity is none of my business, but this request makes no sense to me. Grammatical issues aside (Starchitin is not wrong), how does one look non-binary? I've seen people and been unsure of whether they were men or women, but I can't think of anyone I have ever looked at and said, "that person is non-binary." I have seen alterations rejected many times based on the logic that what was being asked for was not something that one could picture (for example, a "ranger's cloak"; how is that different from any other cloak?). I think the same logic should apply here. For Shroud of Deception, you can omit a gender, can't you? That would make it ambiguous, which, in terms of visualization, is all that makes sense to me.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
NAAMIT
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 06:01 AM CST
> For Shroud of Deception, you can omit a gender, can't you? That would make it ambiguous, which, in terms of visualization, is all that makes sense to me. --David
Not how you're suggesting, no. You can't bypass gendered pronouns with 1212 simply by not selecting one; same goes for other appearance options with this spell. The shroud just reflects the character's base selections for the applicable field(s).
Some lady softly says, "Naamit is over-rated."
You reply, speaking to the lady, "At least I have ratings."
Not how you're suggesting, no. You can't bypass gendered pronouns with 1212 simply by not selecting one; same goes for other appearance options with this spell. The shroud just reflects the character's base selections for the applicable field(s).
Some lady softly says, "Naamit is over-rated."
You reply, speaking to the lady, "At least I have ratings."
OM1E5GA
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 08:23 AM CST
<I've seen people and been unsure of whether they were men or women, but I can't think of anyone I have ever looked at and said, "that person is non-binary." I have seen alterations rejected many times based on the logic that what was being asked for was not something that one could picture (for example, a "ranger's cloak"; how is that different from any other cloak?).>
This is what I was getting at. I'm well aware of what nonbinary is, I was just unable to word this portion of my thoughts in a manner I was happy with at the time.
Regardless of my IRL thoughts, most of my characters come from backgrounds where no or very few aspects of one's identity are chosen by one's self (the Dhe'nari, for example), it's either an accident of birth or dictated by others. The idea that one can express a sexuality other then hetero or choose their own profession or spouse is radical to them, if someone suggested folk were choosing their own pronouns they'd more likely then not dismiss them as Zelians... and they'd certainly never come around to asking anyone what pronouns they should be using.
Before anyone gets bent out of shape, keep in mind that I do have a character that refers to himself as "we" and "us" and is def neither Zelian or possessed.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
This is what I was getting at. I'm well aware of what nonbinary is, I was just unable to word this portion of my thoughts in a manner I was happy with at the time.
Regardless of my IRL thoughts, most of my characters come from backgrounds where no or very few aspects of one's identity are chosen by one's self (the Dhe'nari, for example), it's either an accident of birth or dictated by others. The idea that one can express a sexuality other then hetero or choose their own profession or spouse is radical to them, if someone suggested folk were choosing their own pronouns they'd more likely then not dismiss them as Zelians... and they'd certainly never come around to asking anyone what pronouns they should be using.
Before anyone gets bent out of shape, keep in mind that I do have a character that refers to himself as "we" and "us" and is def neither Zelian or possessed.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
KRAKII
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 09:51 AM CST
"a character that refers to himself as "we" and "us"" -- Starchitin
Hey, that's between left-lobe you and right-lobe you; no need for the three of you to drag us into this!
.
.
In the space-age "Anabasis" that John Ringo/David Weber wrote ("March Upcountry", "March to the Sea", "March to the Stars", "We Few"), the native that they encounter early on is "emphatically male" and not prone to wearing a loincloth. At least, they interpret it as being "emphatically male"...
(SPOILER ALERT, for anyone who's thinking of reading those books.)
.
...turns out it is an ovipositor. (Body part with which eggs are laid.)
They were traveling with a female of the species the whole time.
.
John Varley's "Titan" set of books has the centaurs, who have both fore- (human) and hind- (equine) genitalia. Both sets, at each end.
Reproduction is by the human/front parts making an egg, which gets passed, and then implanted in the female hindquarters for equine fertlization. It was entirely possible for four (4) different individuals to be the "parents" of this egg... and there was one interesting genetic layout described in the book with the same individual being all four components.
Hey, that's between left-lobe you and right-lobe you; no need for the three of you to drag us into this!
.
.
In the space-age "Anabasis" that John Ringo/David Weber wrote ("March Upcountry", "March to the Sea", "March to the Stars", "We Few"), the native that they encounter early on is "emphatically male" and not prone to wearing a loincloth. At least, they interpret it as being "emphatically male"...
(SPOILER ALERT, for anyone who's thinking of reading those books.)
.
...turns out it is an ovipositor. (Body part with which eggs are laid.)
They were traveling with a female of the species the whole time.
.
John Varley's "Titan" set of books has the centaurs, who have both fore- (human) and hind- (equine) genitalia. Both sets, at each end.
Reproduction is by the human/front parts making an egg, which gets passed, and then implanted in the female hindquarters for equine fertlization. It was entirely possible for four (4) different individuals to be the "parents" of this egg... and there was one interesting genetic layout described in the book with the same individual being all four components.
PRICKLIES
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 10:01 AM CST
Setting aside the "they can't be singular" canard, I wonder how deeply and widely binary gender has been spread through the game.
1212 might be a useful place to tackle nonbinary gender bugs in GS prior to making it an option in the character manager.
1212 might be a useful place to tackle nonbinary gender bugs in GS prior to making it an option in the character manager.
KANDOR
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 10:09 AM CST
Could we positively identify someone's gender by looking at them from a few feet away? We'd be wrong sometimes. We could probably say whether the person appears masculine or feminine, but that is something subjective that the viewer decides. Without delving into solipsism, the matter simply isn't as important in a game like this. I say the same about all the variations on objects we have in the game, too. You might carry a lutk'azi, but it looks like a bow to me.
As far as whether a character is male or female, what does the viewer care? We see what we perceive, and the other person can appear as they wish. In the same vein, if there are races where male and female genders look quite similar, I'd suggest that the gender field simply be removed from what other people see. We see their features.
As far as gender-neutral pronouns go, I'd much prefer we define a proper word of the first-person than borrowing a third-person conjugation (they/them) for the same purpose. I respect what people are using IRL but these are clearly temporary measures until better words are defined.
As far as whether a character is male or female, what does the viewer care? We see what we perceive, and the other person can appear as they wish. In the same vein, if there are races where male and female genders look quite similar, I'd suggest that the gender field simply be removed from what other people see. We see their features.
As far as gender-neutral pronouns go, I'd much prefer we define a proper word of the first-person than borrowing a third-person conjugation (they/them) for the same purpose. I respect what people are using IRL but these are clearly temporary measures until better words are defined.
KRAKII
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 10:17 AM CST
"We could probably say whether the person appears masculine or feminine, but that is something subjective that the viewer decides." -- Kandor
Lythande of the Blue Star, in the "Thieves' World" stories.
Lythande of the Blue Star, in the "Thieves' World" stories.
GS4-ESTILD
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 01:42 PM CST
| CHELLARELLA |
| May we also have expand options for gender beyond male/female so that 'they' can be reflected? |
Unfortunately, it's not possible. While I definitely support the inclusion of such options, the spell is entirely reliant upon the base system in the character manager. So until you we can update the character manager to also support it, it's not possible for Shroud of Deception (1212) to include it.
GameMaster Estild
DVDMORSE
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 03:55 PM CST
>I'd suggest that the gender field simply be removed from what other people see. We see their features.
I would not agree with this exactly. Some people definitely look male or female--even if the person is not what he or she appears. I would, on the other hand, be fine with having an option to eliminate it in descriptions, and perhaps to choose a gender for appearance that is not what the character's actual gender may be.
>As far as gender-neutral pronouns go, I'd much prefer we define a proper word of the first-person than borrowing a third-person conjugation (they/them) for the same purpose.
Yes, this is the idea--not exactly a conjugation or third person, but your overall point is right. Again, I don't care how anyone else identifies gender--none of my business--but using a plural pronoun for one person is simply confusing.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
I would not agree with this exactly. Some people definitely look male or female--even if the person is not what he or she appears. I would, on the other hand, be fine with having an option to eliminate it in descriptions, and perhaps to choose a gender for appearance that is not what the character's actual gender may be.
>As far as gender-neutral pronouns go, I'd much prefer we define a proper word of the first-person than borrowing a third-person conjugation (they/them) for the same purpose.
Yes, this is the idea--not exactly a conjugation or third person, but your overall point is right. Again, I don't care how anyone else identifies gender--none of my business--but using a plural pronoun for one person is simply confusing.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
SHIELD
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 03:58 PM CST
Estild,
What about the other features that are in character manager, like body build, wing descriptions, and ???. Can these be settable via 1212, even if the only option is "none" in the short term?
Thanks,
Shield
KRAKII
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 05:06 PM CST
">As far as gender-neutral pronouns go, I'd much prefer we define a proper word of the first-person than borrowing a third-person conjugation (they/them) for the same purpose.
Yes, this is the idea--not exactly a conjugation or third person, but your overall point is right. Again, I don't care how anyone else identifies gender--none of my business--but using a plural pronoun for one person is simply confusing." -- David, quoting & replying
.
I typically do this as "s/he" (as using the fewest characters for me to type).
.
I believe I have seen "hier" (drop the last of "his" and the first of "her") for the possessive, though I do not often use that construct; some times with an 's' (so "hiers"). I do not recall which book I saw this in, but it mattered to the storyline.
Yes, this is the idea--not exactly a conjugation or third person, but your overall point is right. Again, I don't care how anyone else identifies gender--none of my business--but using a plural pronoun for one person is simply confusing." -- David, quoting & replying
.
I typically do this as "s/he" (as using the fewest characters for me to type).
.
I believe I have seen "hier" (drop the last of "his" and the first of "her") for the possessive, though I do not often use that construct; some times with an 's' (so "hiers"). I do not recall which book I saw this in, but it mattered to the storyline.
GS4-XYNWEN
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 07:38 PM CST
>As far as gender-neutral pronouns go, I'd much prefer we define a proper word of the first-person than borrowing a third-person conjugation (they/them) for the same purpose.
They/them is pretty much an acceptable first person, gender neutral option and has been for hundreds of years. At some point, it suddenly became "wrong" and we were all raised this way, when it's just not true. It's time to get past that and just accept that they/them can be singular or plural. You can tell from context. Much like we do with "you" singular and "you" plural.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
--Xynwen--
World Team, MHO GM
>Emails for MHO business should go to GS4-MHO@PLAY.NET
"My real name is Mephistopheles, but you can call me baby"
They/them is pretty much an acceptable first person, gender neutral option and has been for hundreds of years. At some point, it suddenly became "wrong" and we were all raised this way, when it's just not true. It's time to get past that and just accept that they/them can be singular or plural. You can tell from context. Much like we do with "you" singular and "you" plural.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they
--Xynwen--
World Team, MHO GM
>Emails for MHO business should go to GS4-MHO@PLAY.NET
"My real name is Mephistopheles, but you can call me baby"
KANDOR
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 08:08 PM CST
>They/them is pretty much an acceptable first person, gender neutral option and has been for hundreds of years. At some point, it suddenly became "wrong" and we were all raised this way, when it's just not true. It's time to get past that and just accept that they/them can be singular or plural. You can tell from context. Much like we do with "you" singular and "you" plural.
Just because it's been used before doesn't make it a great solution. I agree it's acceptable, but we already have grammar with many complex exceptions. What's difficult about adding a new word? We add several each year, mostly for concepts that are of considerably less importance than this.
Also, I'd contend the "suddenly became wrong" part isn't necessarily true. Certainly the English grammar changes over time, but this article is talking about exceptions made by people for something that can be difficult to write about. People make exceptions to proper grammar every day. If it used to be right, and suddenly became wrong, when did that happen?
Just because it's been used before doesn't make it a great solution. I agree it's acceptable, but we already have grammar with many complex exceptions. What's difficult about adding a new word? We add several each year, mostly for concepts that are of considerably less importance than this.
Also, I'd contend the "suddenly became wrong" part isn't necessarily true. Certainly the English grammar changes over time, but this article is talking about exceptions made by people for something that can be difficult to write about. People make exceptions to proper grammar every day. If it used to be right, and suddenly became wrong, when did that happen?
DOUG
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 08:13 PM CST
>>You can tell from context. Much like we do with "you" singular and "you" plural.
All languages I know or have studied have a masculine, feminine and neutral method of expression. These methods are extended to the genders they align with. English, and American English do, as well.
Perhaps we should rely on it.
Doug
All languages I know or have studied have a masculine, feminine and neutral method of expression. These methods are extended to the genders they align with. English, and American English do, as well.
Perhaps we should rely on it.
Doug
DVDMORSE
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 08:41 PM CST
>They/them is pretty much an acceptable first person, gender neutral option and has been for hundreds of years. At some point, it suddenly became "wrong" and we were all raised this way, when it's just not true. It's time to get past that and just accept that they/them can be singular or plural. You can tell from context. Much like we do with "you" singular and "you" plural.--Xynwen
Actually, this is not exactly true. Yes, "they" has been used as a neutral pronoun when the gender of the referent is unclear, such as "anyone" or "everyone." It has also been marked as a pronoun agreement error in formal English for a very long time in that usage. But I'll bet you can't give a single non-modern example of "they" used with a known referent, a specific person. Even the dictionary definition you cited points out that such use is modern and not traditional. And it is very confusing. I read an article a couple of days ago about the Dutch translator who was chosen to translate Amanda Gorman's poetry. The translator identifies as non-binary, and the article kept referring to this person as "they." It was confusing as hell.
--David
"At a moment like this, I can't help but wonder, 'What would Jimmy Buffett do?'"
OM1E5GA
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 08:58 PM CST
<They/them is pretty much an acceptable first person, gender neutral option and has been for hundreds of years. At some point, it suddenly became "wrong" and we were all raised this way, when it's just not true. It's time to get past that and just accept that they/them can be singular or plural. You can tell from context. Much like we do with "you" singular and "you" plural.>
This is correct and I do not dispute it. What is missing from this, however, is that there are generally specific contexts when they/their/them is used in the singular instead of he/his/him or she/hers/her.
Usually people use they/their in the singular when the subject's gender is unknown to the speaker (ex a they have been referred to by only their title or profession previously), the gender of the subject isn't readily apparent (ex androgynous individuals or animals), gender of the subject is unimportant (ex in the first set of parenthesis of this sentence), or the exact identity of the subject is being deliberately concealed (ex as a police officer might do when discussing a witness in protective custody). Outside these contexts, it's generally bad form to use they/their in the singular and most would consider it rude to be referred to in this manner if they were involved in the conversation and none of those conditions were met.
If the objective is to indicate someone's androgynous to the point I cannot tell their gender simply by looking at them, bring it. However, if the objective is to bring modern ideas into Elanthia... I don't think I'm capable of saying it better then Doug did in post 702 above.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
This is correct and I do not dispute it. What is missing from this, however, is that there are generally specific contexts when they/their/them is used in the singular instead of he/his/him or she/hers/her.
Usually people use they/their in the singular when the subject's gender is unknown to the speaker (ex a they have been referred to by only their title or profession previously), the gender of the subject isn't readily apparent (ex androgynous individuals or animals), gender of the subject is unimportant (ex in the first set of parenthesis of this sentence), or the exact identity of the subject is being deliberately concealed (ex as a police officer might do when discussing a witness in protective custody). Outside these contexts, it's generally bad form to use they/their in the singular and most would consider it rude to be referred to in this manner if they were involved in the conversation and none of those conditions were met.
If the objective is to indicate someone's androgynous to the point I cannot tell their gender simply by looking at them, bring it. However, if the objective is to bring modern ideas into Elanthia... I don't think I'm capable of saying it better then Doug did in post 702 above.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
ZHOUY1
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/05/2021 10:12 PM CST
Isn't this whole discussion about Shroud of Deception where you are using magic to appear as anything? I don't see how someone appearing to be androgynous is at all weird (or even "modern", considering the numerous references to androgyny in antiquity) in this context. It probably isn't happening in the first place due to mechanical reasons anyway.
On another mechanical note I did notice the other day that the age field can be missing when looking at someone with a disguise, which tipped me off to the illusion.
On another mechanical note I did notice the other day that the age field can be missing when looking at someone with a disguise, which tipped me off to the illusion.
WELCHA
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/06/2021 01:08 AM CST
>>You can tell from context. Much like we do with "you" singular and "you" plural.
You mean, you, y'all, and all y'all? ;)
- Andreas
You mean, you, y'all, and all y'all? ;)
- Andreas
DOUG
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/06/2021 03:36 AM CST
>>Isn't this whole discussion about Shroud of Deception where you are using magic to appear as anything?
Yes, yes it is.
>> You see a tall, slender figure with features hidden by a deeply hooded, radiant white robe.
But even something as androgynous as that requires a pronoun, which inevitably links the Elf to 'he'. The discussion that ensued isn't about the need for androgynous appearance, which already exists in myriad ways.
It was about the pronoun 'outing' the clearly non-binary choice of the individual attempting to so appear androgynous. (Which, I personally suggest just may possibly not be the only motivation - eh?)
Doug
Yes, yes it is.
>> You see a tall, slender figure with features hidden by a deeply hooded, radiant white robe.
But even something as androgynous as that requires a pronoun, which inevitably links the Elf to 'he'. The discussion that ensued isn't about the need for androgynous appearance, which already exists in myriad ways.
It was about the pronoun 'outing' the clearly non-binary choice of the individual attempting to so appear androgynous. (Which, I personally suggest just may possibly not be the only motivation - eh?)
Doug
ALLENM20
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/06/2021 05:48 AM CST
I don't understand this need for everyone to want to label themselves. The more we try to differentiate ourselves from one another via sexual preference, race, religion, etc. the more cracks appear in our shared identity as humans.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| A squeaky halfling nearby asks, "Why you playing with orcs heads and troll rearends?!" |
CLUNK24963
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/06/2021 07:32 AM CST
>>I don't understand this need for everyone to want to label themselves. The more we try to differentiate ourselves from one another via sexual preference, race, religion, etc. the more cracks appear in our shared identity as humans.
IRL +1
IGS - hey! I'm a dwarf.
Clunk
(Buy your swords at CBD weapons in Zul Logoth.)
OM1E5GA
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/06/2021 07:40 AM CST
I gotta go with Clunk on that one..... sept I'ma gnome!
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
NAAMIT
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/06/2021 08:47 AM CST
Thanks for the reasonable response, Estild. I, for one, would make use of gender-neutral pronouns if the game had mechanical support for it.
Some lady softly says, "Naamit is over-rated."
You reply, speaking to the lady, "At least I have ratings."
Some lady softly says, "Naamit is over-rated."
You reply, speaking to the lady, "At least I have ratings."
MAYLAN
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/06/2021 08:49 AM CST
I like the idea, especially in a game that is all about character customization. Sounds like it can't happen for 1212, but hopefully androgynous concepts work their way into future concepts or designs for GS. More choices are always good.
+1
~Land Pirate Maylan~
+1
~Land Pirate Maylan~
CHELLARELLA
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/08/2021 12:10 PM CST
I suppose I should clarify my question. I was asking about it from the view point of gender neutrality. Not only for the purpose of having that option for those would you wish to use it but also because in some cases, our concealers may not reveal the full (gender, not sexual) identity of a character. I understand the mechanics around it would not make it possible. Thank you all for your input.
Speaking softly to Raelee, Kilthal says, "Many things would be different if people listened to ye."
Speaking to Kilthal, Raelee says, "Believe me. I am painfully aware of that."
Speaking softly to Raelee, Kilthal says, "Many things would be different if people listened to ye."
Speaking to Kilthal, Raelee says, "Believe me. I am painfully aware of that."
KCOX
Re: Shroud of Deception (1212)
03/10/2021 10:51 AM CST
For the most part, doesn't he/she in game mostly refer to how the game refers to said person when someone "looks" at them? If that's mostly the case, then as a step in the right direction, the game should just use the person's name in their description. We already see everyone's names anyway.
Example:
<look Doomwizard>
You see Doomwizard, who appears to be an elf.
Doomwizard is in good shape.
Doomwizard is wearing...
Example:
<look Doomwizard>
You see Doomwizard, who appears to be an elf.
Doomwizard is in good shape.
Doomwizard is wearing...
