Let's talk about Lacrymas' homebrew fantasy setting where paladins are eunuchs

[rusty_shackleford]

new theory:
lacrymas is actually a woman

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

If the issue is resolved why remove the arcane magic altogether?

Because I don't want arcane magic in my setting due to the slew of reasons I already mentioned? If I create a setting in which arcane magic exists, I am going to severely limit it there and "solve" the issues. If the issues can really be solved while arcane magic exists. I see that I am vindicated in my perspective when I see the amount of backlash I get all the time when I mention my setting doesn't feature arcane magic.

I think if you've just said that you thought that it's interesting to create a setting with only divine magic most people wouldn't really mind. The reasons you've given are all rather silly, which is why people argue against them.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

I honestly can't tell if Lacrymas is just baiting us or not.

 

[Lacrymas]

The reasons you've given are all rather silly, which is why people argue against them.

They aren't, they are completely in-line with my experiences with fantasy settings. Arcane magic is the single most destructive thing to a setting narrative-wise. And I receive backlash when I mention I want to restrict arcane magic too, so it isn't about "no arcane magic". People just love their wizards and will vehemently defend them against every perceived blasphemy.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I honestly can't tell if Lacrymas is just baiting us or not.

He's a Bulgarian living so long in Germany he has become one of them.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Also I read this and I will exact vengeance upon Hóngwèibīng for tagging me in the first place.

 

[Mortmal]

Instead on working on the story , characters, dungeon design, he takes pleasure into restricting the players.

In my setting, the players are "restricted" insofar as they have to follow the society's rules, like we all have to do every day of our lives. When you break those rules, no matter how trivial and arbitrary (or correct), there are consequences. I have taken special care for almost all rules to make sense in-universe, but I have left some arbitrary ones, like same-sex relationships/intercourse being extremely taboo.

Aaaah i see you forbid the thing to make it even more enjoyable for them, dungeon master in every meanings. Well..your house your rules, there's a public for dark fantasy BDSM.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Also I read this and I will exact vengeance upon Hóngwèibīng for tagging me in the first place.

You are in the realm of Lacrymas here. Gotta transition in order to use your barbarian powers.

 

[Lacrymas]

Instead on working on the story , characters, dungeon design, he takes pleasure into restricting the players.

In my setting, the players are "restricted" insofar as they have to follow the society's rules, like we all have to do every day of our lives. When you break those rules, no matter how trivial and arbitrary (or correct), there are consequences. I have taken special care for almost all rules to make sense in-universe, but I have left some arbitrary ones, like same-sex relationships/intercourse being extremely taboo.

Aaaah i see you forbid the thing to make it even more enjoyable for them, dungeon master in every meanings. Well..your house your rules, there's a public for dark fantasy BDSM.

I have created a setting in which to roleplay, not to engage in power fantasies. That is all. I feel like only people who have never felt socially constrained in any way by our society can't understand the purpose of my setting and have their minds blown by the smell of even the smallest of rules they have to follow.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

The reasons you've given are all rather silly, which is why people argue against them.

They aren't, they are completely in-line with my experiences with fantasy settings. Arcane magic is the single most destructive thing to a setting narrative-wise. And I receive backlash when I mention I want to restrict arcane magic too, so it isn't about "no arcane magic". People just love their wizards and will vehemently defend them against every perceived blasphemy.

So far they've all been completely solvable with few changes to how magic works, and in fact had been solved by many other setting mentioned in the thread. I mean every setting in existence with magic is using arcane magic, they can't all be terrible.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

Instead on working on the story , characters, dungeon design, he takes pleasure into restricting the players.

In my setting, the players are "restricted" insofar as they have to follow the society's rules, like we all have to do every day of our lives. When you break those rules, no matter how trivial and arbitrary (or correct), there are consequences. I have taken special care for almost all rules to make sense in-universe, but I have left some arbitrary ones, like same-sex relationships/intercourse being extremely taboo.

Aaaah i see you forbid the thing to make it even more enjoyable for them, dungeon master in every meanings. Well..your house your rules, there's a public for dark fantasy BDSM.

I have created a setting in which to roleplay, not to engage in power fantasies. That is all. I feel like only people who have never felt constrained in any way by our society can't understand the purpose of my setting.

You can roleplay in normal settings too, and it's not like arcane wizards cannot be constrained by society.

 

[Storyfag]

The reasons you've given are all rather silly, which is why people argue against them.

They aren't, they are completely in-line with my experiences with fantasy settings. Arcane magic is the single most destructive thing to a setting narrative-wise. And I receive backlash when I mention I want to restrict arcane magic too, so it isn't about "no arcane magic". People just love their wizards and will vehemently defend them against every perceived blasphemy.

Now listen here, you little dipshit. You receive backlash because you are a self-righteous sanctimonious prick. Instead of saying: I removed arcane magic because I don't care much for it, you

a) firstly provide a convolouted theory that the presence of magic would always logically result in a magocratic totalitarian dictatorship

when called out on how dumb that is, you

b) move the goalpoast to: but arcane magic is soooo difficult to balance because XYZ

when called out on how dumb THAT is (because the same reasons make divine magic equally difficult to balance), you

c) move the goalpoast yet again to: buuuuut I just want stories about human things, not magic

when called out on how dumb THAT is considering you still keep divine magic around, you

d) try to spin it that people just love their wizards and therefore hate your brilliant creation.

No.

We hate the way you present your bland, second hand setting as the second coming of Gygax.

 

[Lacrymas]

You can roleplay in normal settings too, and it's not like arcane wizards cannot be constrained by society.

It's not only about wizards, it's about basically everything I've mentioned outside of only men being allowed to be Druids. I'm kind of surprised though, I would've thought people would like my ultra-traditionalist, theocractic setting in which men and women have strict roles, "homosexuality" (they don't have such words) is extremely frowned upon, and religious zealotry is rewarded and expected.

 

[Lacrymas]

The reasons you've given are all rather silly, which is why people argue against them.

They aren't, they are completely in-line with my experiences with fantasy settings. Arcane magic is the single most destructive thing to a setting narrative-wise. And I receive backlash when I mention I want to restrict arcane magic too, so it isn't about "no arcane magic". People just love their wizards and will vehemently defend them against every perceived blasphemy.

Now listen here, you little dipshit. You receive backlash because you are a self-righteous sanctimonious prick. Instead of saying: I removed arcane magic because I don't care much for it, you

a) firstly provide a convolouted theory that the presence of magic would always logically result in a magocratic totalitarian dictatorship

when called out on how dumb that is, you

b) move the goalpoast to: but arcane magic is soooo difficult to balance because XYZ

when called out on how dumb THAT is (because the same reasons make divine magic equally difficult to balance), you

c) move the goalpoast yet again to: buuuuut I just want stories about human things, not magic

when called out on how dumb THAT is considering you still keep divine magic around, you

d) try to spin it that people just love their wizards and therefore hate your brilliant creation.

No.

We hate the way you present your bland, second hand setting as the second coming of Gygax.

It's adorable you think you have "shown how dumb" anything I've said is. My stance has always been that arcane magic is traditionally too vague and requires immense hoop-jumping in order to justify a lack of mageocratic tyranny, and that it must be heavily restricted to not be a problem. I have decided, however, to remove the cause entirely for my setting. And restrict anything that can potentially lead to the same status quo but with divine spellcasters instead. That is all.

 

[Storyfag]

You can roleplay in normal settings too, and it's not like arcane wizards cannot be constrained by society.

It's not only about wizards, it's about basically everything I've mentioned outside of only men being allowed to be Druids. I'm kind of surprised though, I would've thought people would like my ultra-traditionalist, theocractic setting in which men and women have strict roles, "homosexuality" (they don't have such words) is extremely frowned upon, and religious zealotry is rewarded and expected.

You really have no idea, do you?

I honestly can't tell if Lacrymas is just baiting us or not.

Now I do not have any doubts. It is clinical retardation.

 

[Storyfag]

The reasons you've given are all rather silly, which is why people argue against them.

They aren't, they are completely in-line with my experiences with fantasy settings. Arcane magic is the single most destructive thing to a setting narrative-wise. And I receive backlash when I mention I want to restrict arcane magic too, so it isn't about "no arcane magic". People just love their wizards and will vehemently defend them against every perceived blasphemy.

Now listen here, you little dipshit. You receive backlash because you are a self-righteous sanctimonious prick. Instead of saying: I removed arcane magic because I don't care much for it, you

a) firstly provide a convolouted theory that the presence of magic would always logically result in a magocratic totalitarian dictatorship

when called out on how dumb that is, you

b) move the goalpoast to: but arcane magic is soooo difficult to balance because XYZ

when called out on how dumb THAT is (because the same reasons make divine magic equally difficult to balance), you

c) move the goalpoast yet again to: buuuuut I just want stories about human things, not magic

when called out on how dumb THAT is considering you still keep divine magic around, you

d) try to spin it that people just love their wizards and therefore hate your brilliant creation.

No.

We hate the way you present your bland, second hand setting as the second coming of Gygax.

It's adorable you think you have "shown how dumb" anything I've said is. My stance has always been that arcane magic is traditionally too vague and requires immense loop-jumping in order to justify a lack of mageocratic tyranny, and that it must be heavily restricted to not be a problem. I have decided, however, to remove the cause entirely for my setting. That is all.

True, to show you anything you would have to have eyes to see. Clearly, you do not.

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You can roleplay in normal settings too, and it's not like arcane wizards cannot be constrained by society.

It's not only about wizards, it's about basically everything I've mentioned outside of only men being allowed to be Druids. I'm kind of surprised though, I would've thought people would like my ultra-traditionalist, theocractic setting in which men and women have strict roles, "homosexuality" (they don't have such words) is extremely frowned upon, and religious zealotry is rewarded and expected.

If it's not about wizards why remove them from the setting?

 

[Lacrymas]

You can roleplay in normal settings too, and it's not like arcane wizards cannot be constrained by society.

It's not only about wizards, it's about basically everything I've mentioned outside of only men being allowed to be Druids. I'm kind of surprised though, I would've thought people would like my ultra-traditionalist, theocractic setting in which men and women have strict roles, "homosexuality" (they don't have such words) is extremely frowned upon, and religious zealotry is rewarded and expected.

If it's not about wizards why remove them from the setting?

 

[Gangrelrumbler]

You can roleplay in normal settings too, and it's not like arcane wizards cannot be constrained by society.

It's not only about wizards, it's about basically everything I've mentioned outside of only men being allowed to be Druids. I'm kind of surprised though, I would've thought people would like my ultra-traditionalist, theocractic setting in which men and women have strict roles, "homosexuality" (they don't have such words) is extremely frowned upon, and religious zealotry is rewarded and expected.

If it's not about wizards why remove them from the setting?

If you can roleplay in setting with wizards and wizards can be constrained by society why not get rid of all these other things and leave wizards alone? Every problem caused by arcane magic can be caused by divine magic just as well.

 

[Bara]

Going to girl only school to become a barbarian is probably the weirdest shit I've read in this thread, and this thread started with castrate paladins.

See what I mean about innocent questions?

 

[Lacrymas]

Every problem caused by arcane magic can be caused by divine magic just as well.

Not really, at least not entirely. Divine magic requires, by design, filters. One such filter is the theme itself, spirituality and nature. Another filter is the religious dogmas. You can't be a priest without a religious dogma, you wouldn't be a priest otherwise. You'll have to think up a very, very good reason for why mages allow themselves to be corralled and controlled by anyone, including other mages and personal codes of conduct. Arcane magic is also individualist and only requires force of will by the user, there is no outside force regulating it. It's not that it isn't possible to create a setting in which mages don't present such a huge narrative problem, it's just that they are very, very rare, and I'm not sure they have good reasons for that either. I have also chosen to concentrate on other stuff and not have to think about a way to justify arcane magic restrictions.

 

[hell bovine]

Magical world conquest by conjuring fish & chips, only on the codex.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Ever thought about writing for Vice, Lacrymas?

 

[Lacrymas]

Ever thought about writing for Vice, Lacrymas?

How is my ultra-traditionalist setting where "gays" (they don't have such words) are shunned and women are "bound to the kitchen" Vice material?

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Was asking in general.