[Burichan] [Futaba] [Nice] [Pony]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]
[Catalog View] :: [Archive] :: [Graveyard] :: [Rules] :: [Quests] :: [Wiki]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name (optional)
Email (optional, will be displayed)
Subject    (optional, usually best left blank)
Message
File []
Embed (advanced)   Help
Password  (for deleting posts, automatically generated)
  • How to format text
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, MP3, MP4, PNG, SWF, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 25600 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.

File 130060977739.png - (14.13KB , 800x600 , TheSword.png )
33889 No. 33889 ID: 07416a

The Sword general.
Expand all images
>>
No. 33890 ID: 07416a

Why are they so damned cute? I don't WANNA hurt the gobbos.
>>
No. 33908 ID: 84de01

oh dont worry

we will hurt them in the way that will make /d/ proud of us =3
>>
No. 33912 ID: a6ab09

>>343708
is there any other way?
>>
No. 33914 ID: d3dfb8

>>343708
>>343712
Suddenly I am interested in reading this quest.
>>
No. 33919 ID: 2563d4

What the fuck is wrong with you people. :|
>>
No. 33921 ID: 8c73c8

>>343719
don't look at me. also i think they are kidding...

maybe.
>>
No. 33929 ID: 8c73c8

dang it, change of plans. no dive swoop and grab. let's switch to making an animal run in front of them and luring them away from each other and distracting them. then take one while they are busy and end up having no clues as to what happened.
>>
No. 33930 ID: f6360f

>>343729
How in the world are we supposed to accomplish this while remaining high enough in the sky that no one can make out that our gryphon has a rider? We don't have some kind of crazy animal control abilities that I'm aware of. And this plan also relies upon their being unable to coordinate as a team when they've sighted quarry, which is the very thing that pack hunters are best at. It seems rather unfeasible to me.
>>
No. 33931 ID: 8c73c8

>>343730
pack hunters SURROUND a target. meaning they spread out. and our guy is an elf. being sneaky in the woods is his thing. also to get the animal we land nearby and scare it over to them. while not magical control an elf should be good at making an animal do what he wants.
>>
No. 33932 ID: b13bb0

>>343730

You speak as if there's no chance Victorious can land out of sight and scare a flock of wild animals of some kind in their general direction and hope for the best, which is a tad sight better than "swoop in and possibly get seen and shot and have to kill the other goblins before they tell on you".

You also speak as if the hunting (emphasis 'hunting') party wouldn't be distracted by an appearance of prey, which WILL be to V's advantage if he can manage it. Distracted gobbos = less likely to spot a packmate disappear.
>>
No. 33958 ID: 8efd58

>>343732
or we could arrow everyone and sneak attack with a smoke cover to kidnapp the experienced gob.
>>
No. 34009 ID: 5b95eb

>>343758
He doesn't want to kill anyone. I think we should try to respect this as much as we can.
>>
No. 34463 ID: e02378
File 130154406835.png - (24.02KB , 800x600 , banks.png )
34463

no dammit. going left will slam right into the branch while banking right will dodge it.
>>
No. 34465 ID: 5c87e0

>>343809
he wont keep ideals for long. his people may be mostly dead, but when his friends start dying to the war he will change.

war changes everything.
>>
No. 34467 ID: f6360f

>>344265
His entire family has been exterminated. Everyone else in his order of knights. Everyone he ever knew as a child.

If he still doesn't want to kill people unless he must after all that, his resolve isn't going to be weakened over losing a few more friends. Or a few dozen more friends, or a few hundred more friends.

I personally find it almost unbelievable after what's already happened, but if he's somehow kept that line in his moral code it's because he's clinging to it with psychotic tenacity.
>>
No. 34684 ID: 97c4f0

>>344267

Hah, psychotic. And here we are pretending to be a fountain of wisdom when the truth would horrify most of the bearers of "the infinite voices." Even the partial truth of "we deal with lots different universes and so have to have your universe explained to us like we've been living under a rock forever" makes us look stupid.
>>
No. 34701 ID: 5b95eb

>>344484
Come now, we don't have to be that meta.
>>
No. 34707 ID: 075413

>>344267
well... things are different when you experience them yourself. he never saw any elf dying, he was away on diplomatic missions. the prince may as well have it bottled up, just ready to explode.

by the end of this, when he is face to face with whoever started this all, he should not hesitate nor ponder on what it tooked to get there.

he should be as manly as garelf. im just hoping there is a good end, even if it is with the gobbo we just fished.
>>
No. 34710 ID: 32a5f3

The elves of this setting are supposed to be subtly broken in the head a bit, being corrupted from humans by the fae.

In the case of summer elves, they're not really capable of feeling any great impact from the death of loved ones; they can get a bit sad about it, if you remind them, but they don't think about it a lot, and it doesn't stick with them. Similarly, while they want to avoid death, they don't dwell on it or fear it on the same primal level as other species do. They're predisposed to be cheerful, to enjoy life and care about others, not because of any particular philosophy but because they were made to be that way. These qualities, which the fae originally gave them to be effective bodyguards, is the same one that allowed their people to figuratively jump in front of a bullet for all the other civilized races.

So Victorious actually doesn't mind that his people are dead, beyond it being a bit of a downer. Cheerful martyrdom is the mark of the hero in summer elf culture, and that's what they got.
>>
No. 34717 ID: f6360f

>>344510
>So Victorious actually doesn't mind that his people are dead, beyond it being a bit of a downer.
I'm not sure if that's creepy as hell or just incredibly sad. Maybe both.
>>
No. 34727 ID: 32a5f3

>>344517

Just as planned.
>>
No. 34729 ID: 07416a

>>344527
So, are the winter elves happy well-adjusted murderers lacking any sense of sympathy?
>>
No. 34733 ID: 6795ff

Where's the quest thread for this?
>>
No. 34734 ID: 32a5f3

>>344529

Winter elves were made to track down monsters that encroached on fae territory. They're morbid, paranoid, isolationist and pretty much huge jerks. They have lots of seers and oracles and wander the wilderness around the edges of the world, hunting the dangerous creatures that sneak in from Outside. Very much the druid and ranger sort of people.
>>
No. 34735 ID: 6795ff

nm found it >>/quest/283732
>>
No. 34749 ID: 07416a

>>344534
Are there autumn and spring elves? Are the fae split into the seelie and unseelie?
>>
No. 34796 ID: 4b4fa9

I don't believe it's been stated anywhere that same-glyph combinations are guaranteed not to function, Starburst.

It might not be one of those that actually works, but hey, any port in a storm.
>>
No. 34823 ID: 317eb0

>>344549

Fae were just Fae, though arranged into different regional/environmental courts.

There are totally spring and autumn elves, though. The former mostly just wander around having fun; they ride horses, sail rivers, and have parties all the time. Lots of bards. They dwell on neither past nor future, and are a bit emotionally unstable, prone to mood swings. They were made as entertainment. Autumn elves are craftspeople, and they're the most accomplished mages beyond The Fountain (a nation on a giant magic-volcano, where you will find all the wizards; all of them). They have a weird blend of pessimism and cheerfulness, hard-working, enjoying what they do, very accepting and generous; but also sort of morbid, often expecting the worst, albeit with a smile. Enjoy-each-day-as-if-your-last sort of thing.
>>
No. 35384 ID: 73078c

in regards to re-population... the sun elves are a "race" of elves... that makes elves the species? wouldn't that be a race as in "Caucasian, African, Asian, Latino, etc"

If so there is nothing to repopulate... just find a nice wood/water/air/whatever-elf girl and have lots of babies... and teach your people's magic. (aka, sun-paladins)

Actually, of the various creatures we were told about thus far, which are races (can cross breed) and which are species (cannot cross breed). Are orcs and trolls seperate species or seperate races? etc.
>>
No. 35385 ID: 73078c

>>343708

what is /d/?
>>
No. 35386 ID: 73078c

Oh, and how do I use spoiler tags?
>>
No. 35387 ID: f6360f

>>345185
A magical place.

See 4chan for details.
>>
No. 35390 ID: 8c73c8

spoiler tags are

[.spoiler] [/.spoiler]

remove the dots to use.
>>
No. 35391 ID: c4367f

>>345184
All elves, as well as orcs, are descended from humans and can breed with them and each other. There are also "human" nobles, who are various degrees of semi-divine. So they're all one species. Elf or orc with a human produces half-elves/orcs, elf + orc creates a "wild elf", and different elf types breeding creates generic "grey elves".

Trolls are descended from dwarfs and they can breed, goblins are descended from halflings and they can breed, too. Dwarves can breed with halflings to make gnomes, dwarf/goblin or troll/halfling breeding produces different flavours of gnome. Troll/goblin breeding mostly doesn't work, but very rarely produces beings called Underkind, who have special powers over rock and earth but usually have physical or mental deformities.

There are also "demons", actually various kinds of beastfolk such as satyrs and harpies and minotaurs and such, who live in high-magic areas (mostly underground) and can breed with most everything. And various other critters as well, mostly imported from other worlds over the ages.
>>
No. 35392 ID: 8c73c8

>beastfolk can breed with most everything.

target for victorious found.
>>
No. 35393 ID: c4367f

>>345192

But doing so only produces more beastfolk. :P
>>
No. 35394 ID: f6360f

>>345191
How strongly are the various flavors of crossbreeds affected by the whole racial mental domination bit?
>>
No. 35395 ID: c4367f

>>345194

The effect is diluted pretty much directly in proportion to fractions of the offspring's blood. However, anyone descended from someone who was "cured" by The Free Man will be completely free of it as well. That does have some additional secret side-effects, though.
>>
No. 35427 ID: 73078c

thank you everyone for the answers.

Well, since they are all one species with different "races", having so few individuals they are bound to just be assimilated by other races after a few generations unless they practice extreme inbreeding... and since we are not Hitler the preservation of the "race" over the species is pointless... but to maximize the preservation of his traits he should endeavor to impregnate as many women of as many races as possible...
>>
No. 35429 ID: 8c73c8

>>345227
it depends on how long the elves can live and how many babies they can get in that time.if going full baby mode means each elf lady could have like 100 babies then we can make a diagram that should allow them continue without inbreeding.
>>
No. 35587 ID: 73078c

we could, but why? remember they are a "race" (eg: white, black, asian) not a "species" (eg: Human, gorilla, orangutan).

We still have a bunch of neanderthal genes in us...

Would you really try to convince someone to preserve their race via extreme planned baby making?

And I seriously doubt each female elf can pop out hundreds of babies since elves are just a race of humans in this world.
>>
No. 35600 ID: cf4a1e

>>345387

Technically they are a "race", since they're descended from humans and can still breed with them, but it's somewhat misleading to think of them that way; the differences are much more pronounced, both physically and mentally.

Plus, y'know. Magic.
>>
No. 35771 ID: e08743

greatest problem at that point is if they could survive culturally to this breeding program. its nice they can just cold shoulder the death of millions of their kind, but if they are going to cold shoulder love and parenting too, then they are completely sociopaths, no handwaving could change that.

it would not only involve females pumping babies at most they can, but also most couples needing to be made solely based on a chart with very minimal space for "trade" or actual social development.

i would think twice before doing it, as the trainning needed for the new born could theoretically help great part of this issue (maybe even making a new religion to prevent incest and other social diseases) thus allowing at least a good solution, but if you need to double your population every year, in 6 years every able body will need to teach the younglings (even those dedicated to food production) or there wont be enought teachers to prevent sociopaths and illiteracy, religion problem asides.
>>
No. 35852 ID: 73078c

I agree, recovery is just not feasible...

Perhaps it would be better to focus on the culture then... a bunch of grey elves following the "way of the sun elves" so to speak... and who knows, a thousand years from now a community of "Culturely Sun elf" grey elves might have enough alleles of come together naturally to recover some abilities... or not.

Its not something to get overly hung up about.

Although what is massively important is their ability to resist the mind control... but that will transfer just fine to any mixed offsprings... so basically, have lots and lots of kids, but not via a breeding program.
>>
No. 36239 ID: 2eac65

As for more immediate matters, what's our plan for dealing with the captured goblins? As I remember, we were going to place our VESSEL CIRCLET on them and talk them into revealing defense plans. And ideas on how, specifically, we can go about doing that?
>>
No. 36242 ID: 8c73c8

by telling them not to think of things. 'don't think about your defensive plans' "okay i wont think about the traps we set in the woods... FUCK"
>>
No. 36261 ID: 61ba96

>>346042
if rickrolling doesnt work, we can always deal with them.

im still hoping to get to its good side and do it "for the lulz"
>>
No. 36293 ID: f0e3ae

I thought the plan was to see if we can break the mind control, not interrogate them.

If we can break the mind control, free all 3 goblins and maybe have them steal the sword. (although most likely they will just die horribly the poor dears, but honestly I am not seeing any better plan and if we don't succeed the whole world is screwed)

I really hope they survive though
>>
No. 36318 ID: f6360f

>>346093
Thinking that we will be able to actually break the mind control is ridiculously optimistic; it seems written into who they are. My guess is that at most we'll be able to suppress it for an individual goblin as long as they're wearing us, and that it will reassert itself as soon as they take the crown off.

Which is still enough that we'll be able to get hopefully willing intelligence out of the goblins, but afterward we'll have to either kill them or dump them somewhere far enough away that they won't be a danger to our mission once they start acting against us again. At most, we'd be able to keep one goblin around as a companion- and she'd have to wear the crown all the time instead of Victorious, which isn't the greatest thing.
>>
No. 36321 ID: 8c73c8

could also pop us out of the circlet and chip us. and do like dive quest and everyone gets a shard of infinity.
>>
No. 36322 ID: f6360f

>>346121
The bit of us in the circlet is apparently already only a portion of a larger device, which was much more powerful than we are. If we break into even smaller shards, we'll probably lose even more power. A risk we can't afford to take, unless we can get another circlet to use for experimentation.
>>
No. 36360 ID: f0e3ae

well, it was a long shot... we also planned to try making them drink some of his blood due to how his ancestors got their immunity...

mmm, could his blood perhaps be blessed in some way or infused with holy sun magic?
>>
No. 37117 ID: f729ce

So was this quest abandoned, or what? I understand from the "latest" news posts on Keychain of Creation that Jukashi's taking a break from drawing to give succor to his gossamer ligaments, but it's been almost six weeks since he updated The Sword and I don't recall KoC having been down for that long. I'm not, like, issuing any demands here; he can take as long as he wants to make sure his arm heals properly, but I am curious about the status of this project.
>>
No. 37126 ID: 3416ec

>>346917

As far as I'm aware, he still wants to work on it.
>>
No. 37234 ID: cf65c1

A webpage with some of his other work, check this for updates on his status if you read nothing here: http://keychain.patternspider.net/index.html
>>
No. 38461 ID: 8e6de5
File 130880184789.png - (10.85KB , 600x800 , thegods.png )
38461

To know the nature of the Free Man, one must understand the gods, and their history.

Above and before all others, there are the High Old Gods, who are as gods to the gods themselves. Of these mighty beings, whose domain stretches across worlds and across the chaos between, the two gods of Wind and Water - also known as the gods of Breath and Blood - are the only two who are known to the people of the world with which we are concerned, the world that is known to its original inhabitants as Gede. Though some may offer worship to them, they have turned attention to the mortal races of Gede only seldom - and each instance of that at a time of great calamity. They did not create the world, though they lent it life. Gede was created, rather, by the God of Stone and the Goddess of Soil, known as the Old Gods, who then populated it with their children, the dwarves and the halflings. It was for them that it was created.

In the youth of the world, the Middle Gods arrived. Some, such as those who commanded the Sun and Moon, came from beyond; others were born from within the world itself, as mortal creatures were raised up to divinity by worth and wild magic. It was at this time that division began between the Wild Gods - the gods of trees and mountains, of sky and earth - and the Civilized Gods, the gods of truth and lies, of justice and of treachery. At this time, too the Fae were born, akin to the gods as beasts are to men. In time, the Fae began to prey on the mortal races; cities were razed, nations slain, children stolen and changed. From those lost from dwarves and halflings, the trolls and the goblins were made. In answer, the Civilized Gods sought to destroy the Fae, and in turn the Wild Gods opposed them. Thus did the Middle Gods wage ware upon each other, and, in time, a weapon called the Mortal Blade was forged. Created by the Civilized Gods, it was stolen and turned against them by their enemies, and the cut of its razor edge tore their immortality and their magic from their divine bodies. One after the other, the Civilized Gods fell to the earth of Gede, and they became the first of the race of Men. The Wild Gods stood victorious, and though the civilized New Gods would eventually rise to take the place of their predecessors, they dared not act. The Fae continued their predation, even upon the Men who were once gods themselves - from those stolen from that new race, the orcs and the elven races were made.

But one of the old Civilized Gods survived. The God of rogues and vagabonds, god of rootlessness and vagabonds, had fled from the divine fields of battle, and was hidden by the Wild Goddess of Shadow, who loved him. He concealed himself on the dark sides of Gede, the borderlands beyond the sky and beneath the earth, and there he changed. The Wandering God snatched up the essence of his fallen allies and took them on himself, becoming a god of many things. To those who fear and hate him, he is god of cowardice and deception: to those who keep him in their hearts, he is god of freedom and of revolution. He is a god of vengeance and rebellion, a god of subtlety and solitude. And from the edge of the world, his touch light on the strings of puppets that pulled the strings of further puppets still, he guided history, until finally he contrived to steal away the Mortal Blade itself, and to offer his own blood to the twisted slaves of the Fae that they might be free. Arming the one with the other, and granting them his blessing, the elves rose up and destroyed their masters. So it was that the god now known by many names completed the intentions of his fallen fellows, and saved the mortal races from the menace of the Fae.

The Hidden God, Him In The Shadows, the Free Man: whatever he is called, he deigns to accept the worship of the wild races he freed from the Fae. Scholars know him as chief god of the orcs, trolls and goblins, whom he encourages to earn their freedom and prove their strength and wits against the lands where the Fae once dwelt; the elves too, pay him their respect, as do some Men, though they accept the blessings of the New Gods as well. The Free Man is a ruthless deity, asking much and refusing those who fail to meet his standards; but for the Wild Races, he is the only god they have.
>>
No. 38466 ID: 234c26

>>348261
>The God of rogues and vagabonds, god of rootlessness and vagabonds
Dude is seriously into vagabonds.


Anyway, is this quest going back to updating regularly?
>>
No. 38467 ID: 35e1a0

those nature gods are jerks. and where are the old gods during this? i mean dwarves and halflings were getting jacked up.
>>
No. 38469 ID: 8e6de5

>>348266
>DOUBLE VAGABOND

FUCK. The first vagabonds was supposed to be "scoundrels". Anyway, yes, hopefully I will update regularly again. I've been conducting tests, and I think a low level of drawing won't do me much damage. Well, to be honest, most of those tests didn't work out totally well, but I need to be doing something.

>>348267
Deliberate neutrality, for the most part. Also the Old Gods have access to like a whole other half of the world where this wasn't happening. If I ever do a proper post on what the quest's world is like and how it's shaped, it'll become clear.
>>
No. 38474 ID: 234c26

Just so we're clear: The impression that I've received thus far in-quest is that while the Free Man exists, he does not take an active role in... anything. That is, he's maybe pulling strings somewhere or other, but as having any direct effect on the mortal world is concerned his influence basically stopped after the one-time freeing of the wild races.

The idea that he would notice and reward our new goblin friend for fighting for her freedom was brought up in-quest, and struck me as horribly incorrect based upon what we know right now; the only reward that she could reasonably expect from him for fighting on our side might be a better place in the afterlife.

Is this correct, or am I off base here as far as the setting goes?
>>
No. 38475 ID: 8e6de5

>>348274

You've pretty much got it right. Generally the gods will only intervene directly in the individual lives of mortals who have dedicated their lives to them (as priests or whathaveyou), and the Free Man has the additional problem of still being persona non grata (deus non grata?) with the Wild Gods, so his influence can cause trouble by itself. Also he's not particularly generous.

I should add as well that the information given above is the general "common knowledge" of the setting. Victorious did recommend against mentioning religion; perhaps there is a reason.
>>
No. 38476 ID: 35e1a0

on the whole though he is probably trying to kill the fae guy cause god damn does he hate those fae.
>>
No. 38477 ID: 2eac65

Welcome back, Jukashi! We're all happy to see you.

...Sorry for not saying this earlier, but I was planning on doing some tests before we had Vic put us on the goblin girl. You know, asking him questions, seeing if he could hide information or lie to us, that sort of thing. I guess we can do that later.
>>
No. 38500 ID: b1f0e2

Happy to see you back jukashi.

>/quest/316959
Ok, there are MANY possible solutions here, we should try to determine what we THINK each does and then select which we go for.

1. Connect both us and the hand to the bonds: We now both mentally dominate her, constant struggle for who is in charge (my guess is that he overpowers us)
2. Completely disconnect her from everyone: Completely free her
3. Partially disconnect her bonds of blood: Partially free her.
4. Disconnect the hand, connect to us: Switch her compulsion to us.
5. Disconnect the hand, disconnect some bonds of bloods, connect us: Partial freedom, partial dominance by us.
6. Completely disconnect her chains, leave the red hand connect to the chains and connect them to us: Form a direct link between us and Scavenger Lord... I am ALMOST tempted to go that path.

I think we should go for 2... potentially 6.
I will solve it with that goal in mind and post solution.
>>
No. 38501 ID: b1f0e2

... how do you rotate a layer in photoshop?
>>
No. 38502 ID: 234c26

Is this puzzle only for this particular goblin, or is whatever result we choose to happen what will happen every time we're put on someone subject to the Bonds of Blood from now on? Does every individual have their own particular set of chains, or are they all identical? Will we ever be able to rearrange the chains after we set them up the first time?

I suppose we might not actually know some of this, but it makes quite a bit of difference in the desirability of the various configurations.
>>
No. 38503 ID: b1f0e2

Screw photoshop, I used MS paint. Its funny but for most tasks MS paint actually works better...

Anyways, solution #2 was posted to main thread. Anyone thinks we should go with #6 and connect ourselves to the hand?
>>
No. 38504 ID: 44766a

Lets not go for solution 6. We would probably be dominated at this point in time.
>>
No. 38505 ID: b1f0e2

>>348304
I believe so too, its too great a risk for potentially low reward. My vote is for #2, give her total freedom.
>>
No. 38507 ID: b1f0e2

Theory time. People are speculating on what each binding does.
There are 2 for the hands.
There are 2 for the chest.
There are 2 for the feet.

I noticed that she has 3 commands:
>DO NOT SEEK FREEDOM
>DO NOT AID MY ENEMIES
>DO NOT ACT AGAINST MY GOALS

Matchup time:
Feet: I am guessing it is do not seek freedom. Although chest is possible too if it refers to heart, I am guessing feet though.
I am honestly unable to guess about the other two...
Closest I come is MAYBE hands go with "aid my enemies" and chest is "Do not act against my goals"
>>
No. 38508 ID: 1854db

Nobody has discussed what the difference is between completely disconnecting her from the chains, or simply disconnecting her from the hand.

I am curious about that.
>>
No. 38511 ID: 234c26

>>348308
Based upon the description in >>/quest/316959, the chains serve as the link between any controller and the bonds which actually make her a slave.

But thinking about that... honestly, I'm not sure it makes that much of a difference whether we chain the bonds to themselves or to nothing. I can't imagine that we as an item are strong enough to remove the Bonds from her entirely, which means that they will still be there either way just waiting for someone with the know-how to exploit them. Binding them to themselves might make it harder for other things to get stuck on there, or it might just make it easier for the Scavenger Lord to repurpose the chains still lying there.

I'm not sure if my logic isn't sharp enough to reach the correct conclusion, our information is insufficient, or the metaphor doesn't carry through all the way. Perhaps Jukashi will be willing to provide answers at some point after we've passed this event/studied our abilities and the Scavenger Lord's controls somewhat more in-quest.
>>
No. 38513 ID: 35e1a0

since they are the bonds of BLOOD. most likely the blood of the freeman broke THOSE. meaning that while whatever magic the fae use to make the chains still works, they have nothing to grab on to.
>>
No. 38514 ID: 234c26

>>348313
Almost certainly the case. Because of that, whatever mind control or influencing techniques we develop in our experimentation with Missy here won't work on Victorious, or any other elves, or anyone else whose ancestors partook of the Free Man's blood. But for Missy and others who were not so blessed, those hooks aren't likely to go away any time soon.
>>
No. 38531 ID: 15b51b

Just connect her to us. You guys are making an assumption that everything will work out swimmingly if we cut all the strings. Who says we'll even be able to talk to her after specifically avoiding making a connection?

If I'm wrong, we can just not tell her to do stuff later. How hard is that?
>>
No. 38536 ID: 15b51b

Also: Even if we try to be fancy and think outside the box by moving the hand around (it's bordered red!) I don't think we'll be able to get all six.

I think this is sort of a 'Seven Bridges of Konigsberg' type thing. In this case, we have to make an even number of 'outputs', because every time we 'open' a chain link to a face on the outside of the rectangle, another link is also opened. We can do six, or eight, but not seven, which is what we'd need for full control.
>>
No. 38542 ID: 15b51b

>>/quest/317186
>There are 7 remaining "pure" sun elves
Oh well that makes it okay then.
>>
No. 38543 ID: 1854db

Hey, how powerful is magic in this universe?

Could you, say, change someone's gender?
>>
No. 38545 ID: 35e1a0

>>348342
no, mrTT is totally assuming. jukashi confirmed a couple dozen are alive. but that is STILL too low without a super strict baby making plan.
>>
No. 38547 ID: b1f0e2

>>348345
IIRC he said 7. I could be confusing that with "several"; same difference. What exactly am I assuming though? Jukashi did flat out say they can crossbreed with the other races and also flat out said they aren't enough to restore as a "pure race". But ok, so what?

>but that is STILL too low without a super strict baby making plan.
Yes, too few if our plan is to resurrect the sun elf "race". Figures for how many are needed vary but last I heard it was estimated you need 500 individuals for short term and 5000 for long term. Although that can be incorrect that is the latest estimations AFAIK.

They are a race, not a species, and will be able to crossbreed with the other races and their descendants shall live on. There are just not going to be many of them unless we like, make it our goal to get whatshisname the prince to sire a thousand bastards or something... Totally doable and a noble goal IMAO.
>>
No. 38549 ID: 35e1a0

elves and goblins are different species. but goblins and halflings are not. elves are a race of human altered by the fae. so all elves and humans are races.
>>
No. 38552 ID: 15b51b

>>348345
I was being sarcastic. What does it really matter whether it's 1 or 30?

"If we do <something potentially kind of bad> then that makes us no better than <stupendously evil thing>!" is just nonsense.
>>
No. 38554 ID: b1f0e2

>>348352
You are using abstracts that do not correctly represent the situation. The binder is enslaving minds and you are saying its stupendously evil, but its perfectly ok for us to do so?
And she ISN'T someone loyal to him. I am NOT against the idea of taking over the minds of those actually loyal to him in a desperate move. But she does not deserve such treatment from us and we have no reason to do so.
>>
No. 38555 ID: fe0ac6

>>348352
not necessarialy.

im still trying to figure out how we went from enslaving a gobbo to suit our needs to how bad it would be to orchestrate a plan to save the elf race, but the means can be altered to fit the end.

i do belive that we do not have how to save the elf race. we already discussed this, whatever means we make will eventually destroy the end, culturally or genetically.

we can sacrifice this gobbo to serve us. but this would be unwanted, mostly because of shipping. i do like the idea of binding her to us just to get honest answers from her, one of the reasosn why im not entirely against this. but we actualy have a more pressing solution at hand.

we can do this en masse.

it hasnt been too long we just captured her. we can still try to return and get at least one more stranded gobbo from her hunt pack. get a few hundred more and we can make a small army. when we finish off the main quest...

victorius is still prince, we gather the remaining elfs and make a functional elf society with the gobbos as citizens.

a generation later, the elf culture survives - as the gobbo culture.
>>
No. 38565 ID: b1f0e2

>>348355
SUN elf... There are other elves. Also I think he was referring to mind control not to breeding program. Although I honestly don't know because it didn't specify
>>
No. 38569 ID: 320783

>>348355
There are actual physiological differences between elves and goblins, I should point out.

I should also point out that they're called "Summer Elves".
>>
No. 38571 ID: c00244

>>348355
Summer elf culture can't survive like that. See >>344510. Each type of elf is fucked in the head in their own special way; no one who isn't their species will ever be able to emulate their culture because of fundamental differences in the way they naturally think. Even gray elves apparently all end up as some kind of generic template instead of inheriting their parents' mindsets or mixing them.

>>348331
We can talk to her right now when we have no connection. The chains are explicitly called "Chains of Command", which implies that the connections we're looking at now are those of control, not anything else.
>>
No. 38580 ID: b1f0e2

>>348369
So, you are saying an elf and a goblin can't crossbreed?

>>345191
On second read, I think I misread it the first time ... so the "they can breed too" means goblins can breed with halflings. Not they can breed with elves too.
>>
No. 38581 ID: 07416a

God, restoring the elves is not an IN QUEST goal. That's an epilogue AND EVENTUALLY THIS HAPPENED thing.
>>
No. 38582 ID: 35e1a0

>>348381
we have to convince victorious to go with it though. otherwise the plan is to die out as the last of the elves. only need to actually convince him because he is the last of the royalty. he tells the others to go with it they will.
>>
No. 38583 ID: d4f98d

>>348381
The summer elves probably arent getting restored.

A few dozen is not a terribly viable pool. If they were all genetically near PERFECT, then MAYBE. Otherwise, somewhere between 100 and 200 is as close to an ideal approximation as you'll get on average.
>>
No. 38585 ID: d4f98d

(12:03:52 AM) Jukashi: Whether or not the changes you make are permanent depends on whether you or the red hand are still connected

(11:12:18 PM) Jukashi: are you the only force that can rework the chains?
>>
No. 38588 ID: 07416a

<Jukashi> neither the hand nor you nor the bonds need to be connected to anything
<Jukashi> Also the Hand has up to three connections
<Jukashi> Whether or not the changes you make are permanent depends on whether you or the red hand are still connected

On binding her
<Blaank> Why wouldn't we? We can order her to make up her own mind or have free will for a while.
<circle> because we might find ourselves butting up against the free man at some point
<circle> presumably the level of pissed would be proportional to the amount of binding
<Jukashi> I imagine she herself would also be pissed

<Jukashi> I will venture one more clue
<Jukashi> are you the only force that can rework the chains?

<Jukashi> Basically the Bonds of Blood represent what you could say is "hard-wired" in, put in with the original halfling>goblin transformation

Now plz delete the comments in the actual thread. Discussion goes here.
>>
No. 38589 ID: 00d3d5

>>348388
Also: The Freeman cut the Bonds of Blood.
>>
No. 38607 ID: 5aac32

In light of this, I think the ideal would be disconnecting both the hand and the goblin and connecting us to the chains. This would leave the goblin free like we promised her, but allow us to counter any possible later alterations to the chains and give the hand nothing to work with.

However, near as I can determine it this is impossible with the chain pieces we have available to work with. So, I'm going to vote for Q's original solution (his #1).

It's hard to say what connecting us to the hand might do. I can see those possibilities.

1. It lets us fight the hand directly.
2. It gives the hand at least some control over us.
3. It gives us at least some control over the hand.
4. The hand can still tweak chains as long as any're still connected to it. Possibly just the chains connected to itself, but that could still screw our plans up. For example, the hand could disconnect us from the chains leaving itself the only one able to manipulate them.
5. A mix of some or all of the above.

For this reason, I recommend against connecting the jewel to the hand. Too many uncertainties, and the one certainty (#4) is not a good one.
>>
No. 38615 ID: 35e1a0

>>348407
why would the hand gain any power over us? it only has power over her because of the bonds of blood, which we do not have.
>>
No. 38630 ID: b1f0e2

>>348415
That depends, is the hand the enchantment or the god who cast it. The theory is that connecting to each other will provide a direct link to each other. This is not a bond of control (since we don't have the bond of blood). If we get a direct link to the enchantment we can probably take it apart for power and knowledge. If we get a direct link to a GOD he is probably going to fuck us up through the link. The link would not inherently be in their favor, but the fear is that a god is too much for us while an enchantment isn't.
>>
No. 38633 ID: 35e1a0

>>348430
how many god damn times do i need to say it?! the hand is just the ORDERS not the god! it says it in the instructions that it isn't the god!!
>>
No. 38638 ID: b1f0e2

>>348433
which is why I and others have changed out vote to connect us to the hand and disconnect the goblin girl altogether.
The question was "why would it do that". I gave the answer. That answer is NOT what we think is correct because of what you said.
>>
No. 38639 ID: 07416a

>>348438
wuh

How does that make ANY sense?
>>
No. 38640 ID: 5aac32

Even if nothing particularly interesting happens with connecting us to the hand, it'd still be able to rearrange the chains and disconnect us.

And, yeah, checking the instructions more closely, the hand isn't the god. But there's still the problem above.
>>
No. 38641 ID: 07416a

>>348440
Um, why would you assume that? We aren't connected in the first place. I want to eleminate the hand so that we can connect the chains to US and not to HER.
>>
No. 38642 ID: 2eac65

Here's what I'm thinking:

The hand represents her current orders, the blood bonds are what makes her weak to them. If we remove the first but not the second, the evil fairy could use her bonds to re-establish control. Thus, we should detach them all.

We shouldn't connect the hand to ourself. We're trying to be stealthy; it's not prudent to risk a confrontation.

For this goblin, we should detach the hand and the blood bonds and connect her to ourself, and if this results in us taking control, don't exploit the bond against her will. I'd like to experiment with the others for different results, and if we bind her but not her friends, then she's likely to take it as a show of good faith. On the other hand, if we free her but bind her friends, she'll see us as benevolent at first but then see a hidden, dangerous side, and that will make us look worse.
>>
No. 38643 ID: 35e1a0

>>348442
... how would attacking the hand result in stealth breaking?
>>
No. 38646 ID: 07416a

>>348443
I have no clue, they're being paranoid.
>>
No. 38647 ID: 5aac32

>>348442
>I'd like to experiment with the others for different results, and if we bind her but not her friends, then she's likely to take it as a show of good faith. On the other hand, if we free her but bind her friends, she'll see us as benevolent at first but then see a hidden, dangerous side, and that will make us look worse.

Or she could resent us for not giving her the freedom we were saying we would give her. Remember? We promised her freedom. Something to consider.
>>
No. 38648 ID: 2eac65

>>348443
If it's connected to the...

(I keep forgetting his name)

...the Scavenger Lord, like some people seem to think, then fighting it will probably draw his attention. If it's not connected to him, and just represents the goblin's current orders, then there's not much point in attacking it; we might risk corrupting ourself.

>>348447
Establishing a bond doesn't mean we have to exploit it. If we can give her commands, we should be able to give her no commands, and allow her to act and think as she wishes.
>>
No. 38649 ID: 35e1a0

>>348448
HOW??!?! we have no bonds of blood. it has NO sway over us. and winning could mean it turns into a moveable wildcard piece. or maybe it will let us suck up the magic of the chains. or maybe we can reprogram it to trick the bonds of blood into letting go by having what looks like the lord's own command saying to free her.
>>
No. 38650 ID: 35e1a0

also it's stated in the RULES of the puzzle that the hand is simple a representation of the orders.
>>
No. 38651 ID: 07416a

>>348448
It is definitely not connected.
>>
No. 38652 ID: b1f0e2

>>348450
I don't know how I missed this but this changes things. This means that the best solution is to connect us to the hand fully, disconnecting goblin fully.
>>
No. 38654 ID: 3dd384

I'm currently writing a quick program to enumerate all valid chain configurations.

Is this kosher, or would you guys consider it cheating?
>>
No. 38655 ID: 35e1a0

>>348454
sounds cool.
>>
No. 38665 ID: 3dd384
File 130912725637.png - (110.68KB , 800x900 , handandfoot.png )
38665

>>348455
Findings:

It is literally impossible to connect us to exactly one binding.

There are two configurations (plus their mirros) which permit exactly two bindings between us and the gem. Both cut off the Red Hand completely; it would be connected to no chains at all.

Here's one of the configurations.
>>
No. 38666 ID: 3dd384
File 130912735214.png - (110.73KB , 800x900 , heelandheart.png )
38666

>>348465
Here's the other. Since it connects to the heart and not just the limbs, I find it has the best chance of actually providing the "standard" psychic connection instead of just controlling behavior directly.
>>
No. 38667 ID: 3dd384

It's worth noting that it's also impossible to disconnect both her and the hands from the chains.
>>
No. 38695 ID: b1f0e2

>>/quest/318253
>>/quest/318259
It is possible that I am misunderstanding. But that there isn't my own original conclusions. Those were already disproved here in questdis.
The situation as I presented it there starts off with the various things concluded here on questdis and continues with a few new conjectures.

Specifically
>Also, if the red hand is the commands she must follow, the chains are the enchantments, and the bonds of blood are her bonds. Then if we connect ourselves to the bonds via the enchantment (the chain) then she must follow everything we say. (well, to a degree, she can resist with willpower and the more connections we have the harder for her to do so). I don't think we can just order her to NOT listen to us because we will act as the "orders" and thus as soon as we give her an order she is no longer obligated towards previous orders (do what you want) and IS obligated to follow current orders (do what we say), thus she is a slave.
Is 100% new conjecture made by me based on the latest info.

I think some people mentioned IRC, does anyone have logs from anything said about this in IRC?

>>348467
We have two separate ways to completely disconnect both her and the hand from the chains posted.
One disconnects the chains from everything but themselves.
One connects the chains to us only.
>>
No. 38697 ID: 3dd384

>>>/quest/318253
In this post, as I'm interpreting it, you're saying that the Hand, disconnected from the Chains entirely, would still be able to influence adjacent Chains enough to rearrange them. I contest that. My interpretation of the rules at >>>/quest/316959 and Jukashi's statements at >>348388 is that disconnecting the Hand from the Chains is sufficient to end its ability to change the configuration (and that, similarly, cutting ourselves off probably renders us incapable of changing the configuration). If it was simply a matter of us having to be connected to the chains to contest the Red Hand, as you claim, there couldn't possibly exist a solution that is actually immutable.

(Also I will note that based on the combination brute forcing mentioned in >>348454 , your #2 option - disconnect all Bonds and the Red Hand, leave us holding the Chains only - is impossible; no valid Chain configuration will allow it. So if you want to connect to all the Chains, you either need to connect to the Bonds or to the Red Hand.)

Secondarily, as to the issue of a "do what you want" order being overwritten by any subsequent order? This is one reason why I have been advocating instead that we let her know what we've done, and break our hold if she is not comfortable with it. The configuration I proposed is easy to break into one where the chains link to the bonds and nothing else. And if an unconnected Red Hand can do no harm (as I've argued), that leaves the matter settled.
>>
No. 38698 ID: 3dd384

>>348495
>We have two separate ways to completely disconnect both her and the hand from the chains posted.
Where are these solutions? If someone made such a formulation then my analysis tool has some definite bugs to fix.
>>
No. 38701 ID: b1f0e2

>>/quest/316957
>Why did you let me wake up!? Now I have try and do something!
Oho! I just realized, this definitely shows she is NOT happy about being his minion. She preferred being an unconscious captive as that didn't force her to obey...
Come on people she is way to cute to make a mind slave.

>>348497
You make some good points
> <Jukashi> Whether or not the changes you make are permanent depends on whether you or the red hand are still connected
> <Jukashi> are you the only force that can rework the chains?
This has several interpretations. But I am pretty sure that it means that if the red hand is left connected to the chains, it could make changes. Mostly based on the first line. If the permanency of the changes depends on whether or not us or the red hand remains connected... I guess it could mean that if we disconnect both she would be permanently free. Maybe it was a warning that if we leave the hand connected to the chain but disconnected from her it will be able to reconnect it. Which suggests it has some measure of control over the chains.

>>348498
Arg, sorry I both misread and misremembered. I bow my head in shame.
>>
No. 38703 ID: 3dd384

>>348501
> But I am pretty sure that it means that if the red hand is left connected to the chains, it could make changes.
Agreed. This is the main reason that I think >>>/quest/316988 is a bad idea.
>>
No. 38705 ID: 07416a

>>348503
The reason why people are voting for final destination is the eliminate the orders so that we can free her cleanly, without worrying about what the chains actually are. There are likely a number of additional benefits as well.

Also

CONNECTING US TO HER WILL NOT ALLOW US TO TALK TO HER. IF A GOD CAN'T SET UP A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK, AN ORB ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO SO. ALL IT WILL ALLOW US TO DO IS GIVE HER ORDERS IN THE SAME FASHION THAT THE RED HAND IS CURRENTLY DOING. IT IS NOT COMMUNICATION, IT IS ENSLAVEMENT.
>>
No. 38707 ID: 9a34be

>>348505
We could connect to as few as possible, and leave the order "Don't harm the prince." That way, she's free, and if she feels immediately murderous towards the prince for grabbing her anyway, she can't hurt him. I mean, we did just kinda grab her and she could be freaked out by this.
>>
No. 38708 ID: 3dd384

>>348505
I'd like to be able to cut off the Hand completely, but you're right that, if we can mess with its nature, it may be a useful thing to poke around in. I'm not against such a move by any means.

As for the other part of your post, well, I'll just say this:
1) 3/6 self-routed Bonds versus 2/6 Orb-chained Bonds seems like it would far be less of a "mind control" than the 6/6 setup previously in place.
2) The connection would be to "us", not "commands left by us", and the suggesting influence of the current setup is overt in the mind, so communication is taking place in the same band as control.
3) If the setup turns out to be less than savory, I will be right on-board with disconnecting it, as per the plan in >>>/quest/318203 .
>>
No. 38710 ID: 3dd384

>>348507
Man, actually using the system for unrefusable orders is something I can't get behind. Freedom is a concept with strong valence in this story, and as such such behavior feels like a really bad thing to me.
>>
No. 38720 ID: 07416a

>>348508
The connection would be to us, but we can already communicate with her. We were talking to her before we interacted with the chains. We should eliminate the chains entirely. The self-bonded thing seems too risky. Better to remove the enchantment entirely.
>>
No. 38725 ID: 3dd384

>>348520
We can communicate with her when the crown is on her head, but that would not normally be true when Victorious takes it back.
>>
No. 38726 ID: 234c26

My primary concern here is what level of control we will have over the Scavenger Lord's abilities to issue orders. That comes down to a key point:

How did the Scavenger Lord issue his orders to her in the first place?

Given that it would be horribly impractical for him to meet with every slave he wanted and enchant them individually, the only feasible thing I've been able to come up with is "he can assign new orders to all wild races en masse, without ever having met them or even knowing their numbers and precise locations".

We know that the Scavenger Lord is a force capable of manipulating the Chains of Command, obviously. So even if we completely eliminate the Red Hand, Missy will remain constantly at risk of the Scavenger Lord simply sending out a magical radio signal that installs a new one, rearrangement of Chains and all.

What could protect her from this? Well, our being connected to the chains, obviously. In order to be reasonably confident that we can counteract any new control signal, we would need to have a stronger influence on the Chains' connection to Missy than any incoming signal could easy get. We must assume that any Bond of Blood which has nothing connected to it would be easy for the Scavenger Lord to wire up to new commands; any which are wired to the Chains but not to any commanding force may be harder or easier, depending upon the exact magical mechanics involved. The only links that we can consider reasonably secure are those which we have a connection to, because taking control of those will necessitate wresting it away from us- which I doubt any blind-fire remote signal would be able to accomplish, although if at some point Missy comes face to face with the Scavenger Lord she'll be SOL.

Basically, Missy is hardwired to be controlled; it's written into her being, and we can't get rid of that with our current level of power. Setting her free is a nice idea, but if we take our hands off the wheel it only means anyone else can grab it.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure how well we'll be able to guard her after she takes us off, even if we secure as many bonds as possible. But I am reasonably certain that she'll be safer with those bonds chained to us even if we're not present than she will with them open or wired to themselves.
>>
No. 38731 ID: 35e1a0

>>348526
which is why attacking the hand would be best. it would let us be connected entirely to all chains WITHOUT having any chains connected to her.
>>
No. 38732 ID: b1f0e2

>>348526
>How does he give orders
Via a military chain of commands. She only had 3 orders herself
DO NOT SEEK FREEDOM
DO NOT AID MY ENEMIES
DO NOT ACT AGAINST MY GOALS

>He doesn't really enchant every single on in person?
Most likely he set it up such that children inherit their parent's commands. So he could have potentially personally enchanted every single first gen individual. Its also possible he used a "mass" version of a spell (enchant every person within X miles with the same spell)

>We know that the Scavenger Lord is a force capable of manipulating the Chains of Command, obviously. So even if we completely eliminate the Red Hand, Missy will remain constantly at risk of the Scavenger Lord simply sending out a magical radio signal that installs a new one, rearrangement of Chains and all.
The original enchantment was formed as part of their transformation from halflings to goblins. Sure if the god personally caught her and decided to modify her he could, but I doubt he is gonna automatically know she is free and reach to correct it. He hasn't yet personally reached out to snatch control over our elf ward for example.

>What could protect her from this? Well, our being connected to the chains, obviously
1. No, if the god is reaching out to PERSONALLY take over us being there is no likely to help unless you think we can stand up to him 1v1.
2. At what cost? she will be our slave and to quote jukashi "she will be pissed!". And we will also piss off our elf companion AND his god the free man.

>Basically, Missy is hardwired to be controlled; it's written into her being, and we can't get rid of that with our current level of power. Setting her free is a nice idea, but if we take our hands off the wheel it only means anyone else can grab it.
No more so then elves and they were possible to permanently free
>>
No. 38733 ID: b1f0e2

also
>Bloody stars, I've just about had enough of voices in my head.
>Nice tits!
>Uh.. thanks. I'm pretty used to people likin' em, but I guess they must be better than I thought if I've got folks with no bodies tellin' me so. Who are you, anyway? And where am I? Last I remember I got grabbed by a gryphon, then-
>Why did you let me wake up!? Now I have try and do something!

She is definitely not a drone, her "mind enslavement" is the three commands above, transmitted from the red fist. As long as she doesn't disobey those 3 commands she can do what she likes. So family, friends, etc. Although if we connect ourselves instead of the 3 commands I get a feeling she will be more enslaved then ever because our every individual word is such a command.

Also communicating with her is not guaranteed, an alternative explanation is that if we are removed it breaks the bond or she is still bound to obey us but cannot hear us.
>>
No. 38735 ID: 07416a

>>348525
There is absolutely no guarantee of that. Again, if a god can't do it, why would we be able to?
>>
No. 38738 ID: b1f0e2

>>348535
A better question then "why would we be able to" is HOW could we do it.

The current belief of some is that the answer is: "By modifying the work of a god who couldn't do it in ways we are not entirely able to understand"

I remain highly skeptical of such a method. If the chains actually worked that way (allowed communication) then the god would have tied them directly to himself instead of creating a "program" so to speak that is linked to the victim and just repeats 3 simple commands over and over.
>>
No. 38739 ID: 35e1a0

>>348532
but elves are immune because they drank the blood of the free man. scavenger lord couldn't control him even if he wanted to. The original enchantment on goblins are the bonds of blood not the chains.

>No more so then elves and they were possible to permanently free

sure, a GOD appeared and BROKE the bonds of blood. if you know how to call up a god then sure we can free her easy.
>>
No. 38740 ID: b1f0e2

>>348539
The free man (the god in question) has been stated to appear to any individual enslaved by the scrivenger lord who shows sufficient tenacity, sacrifice, or just awesomeness in fighting the bonds.

And how does us binding her to ourselves provide any extra measure of protection from him personally flying over here and reinstating the bond?
And I thought he isn't around here, he is afraid of the sword that can actually slay him. The sword we are trying to retrieve.
>>
No. 38741 ID: 35e1a0

>>348540
i don't think you are even listening! and no he doesn't appear to anyone who shows awesome. he hides in the shadows. and if he personally flies over here we have bigger problems then keeping control of one goblin.
and he WANTS the sword. if he holds it then he will become unstoppable.
>>
No. 38742 ID: cfe8f6

>>348540
>The free man (the god in question) has been stated to appear to any individual enslaved by the scrivenger lord who shows sufficient tenacity, sacrifice, or just awesomeness in fighting the bonds.

I don't remember that...
>>
No. 38743 ID: 35e1a0

>>348542
course not. he is making things up by mixing information. he really needs to double check his sources.
>>
No. 38744 ID: b1f0e2

>>348542

>>348261
>The Hidden God, Him In The Shadows, the Free Man: whatever he is called, he deigns to accept the worship of the wild races he freed from the Fae. Scholars know him as chief god of the orcs, trolls and goblins, whom he encourages to earn their freedom and prove their strength and wits against the lands where the Fae once dwelt; the elves too, pay him their respect, as do some Men, though they accept the blessings of the New Gods as well. The Free Man is a ruthless deity, asking much and refusing those who fail to meet his standards; but for the Wild Races, he is the only god they have.

I might have been reading too much into this, and possibly have misread it somewhat too.
>>
No. 38745 ID: 35e1a0

>>348544
that basically says he is a hardass. and he ENCOURAGES freedom. not grant it.
>>
No. 38747 ID: b1f0e2

Specific errors I believe I made based on >>348542

>The Free Man is a ruthless deity, asking much and refusing those who fail to meet his standards
refusing doesn't necessarily mean refusing to "free them"
> orcs, trolls and goblins, whom he encourages to earn their freedom and prove their strength and wits against the lands where the Fae once dwelt
I misremembered this part. Its test their strength against the lands where the Fae once dwelt; not against their bond.
>>
No. 38748 ID: b1f0e2

that being said. That error was an aside and actually had nothing to do with my arguments. I merely tossed it out as a reply to

>>348539
>if you know how to call up a god then sure we can free her easy.

In all my arguments I assume that the free man is NOT going to sweep in and save the day so we have to actually take care of things ourselves.

Also as you saw from the links I posted, I don't just make things up, I did make an error but I had based it on quotes from the author (which I happened to misread / misremember). You pointed out the error, we went back to the quotes, and I admitted I was wrong on that. Do you have counters to any other claim I recently made? Because most of those are based on info others put further here, often as counters to my own original beliefs, which I adopted once they showed me their backing for it.
>>
No. 38749 ID: 35e1a0

>>348548
sure
>He hasn't yet personally reached out to snatch control over our elf ward for example.

scavenger lord has no power over the elves

and
>The original enchantment was formed as part of their transformation from halflings to goblins.

that was the bonds of blood not chains of command.
chains are a recent thing that appeared when the lord appeared. he most likely did use the magic radio method cause they went to war within years of his appearance not generations.

and

>What could protect her from this? Well, our being connected to the chains, obviously
did not say the chains ALSO had to connect to her. just that we connect to them.
>>
No. 38750 ID: b1f0e2

>>348549
Thanks
>scavenger lord has no power over the elves
Yes, the free man freed them all. But the hypothetical was that Sceavenger will PERSONALLY attempt to wrest control over this goblin, and that he is a God so he can.

Well, lets say he, the god, personally tries to control one single elf. I don't see any reason he couldn't unless the free man interferes with such an attempt.

The elves have been freed collectively, but what can be done can be undone, especially when a god is doing it. (if we are taking the assumption that the only thing that can stop a god's direct personal action is another god).

This bit, however, is entirely based on vague concepts about what a god is and if-then assumptions and not on any quote by author.

>that was the bonds of blood not chains of command.
>chains are a recent thing that appeared when the lord appeared.
How do you he didn't create both at once?

>he most likely did use the magic radio method cause they went to war within years of his appearance not generations.
If he used magic radio then they could have started mobilizing the second he appeared. Why would it take generations (rather then a few years) to assert control?
And this again assumes that he used magic radio to create the chains and the red hands after his appearance. He could have placed those long before and merely had to give out orders (via a chain of command might I add) once he reappeared.

If he does have magic radio then:
1. We are totally doomed, he knows.
2. Why did he link it to a red hand "program" thing that gives simple orders and has them follow a chain of command with mortals instead of himself personally and having them all act under his direction?
>>
No. 38751 ID: 35e1a0

>>348550
he isn't a GOD he a fae. a creature from outside creation. a god could break his control because gods are more powerful. but the freeman can't do anything overt because the nature gods are jackasses.
and magic radio is not a directly control everyone thing. it is just a general orders emitter. he says "everyone return" and they return not tell each and everyone minion on thing at a time. and it just emits data not receives it. i also said WITHIN years. as in LESS THEN YEARS.
>>
No. 38752 ID: b1f0e2

>>348550
I would like to point out that as far as I can tell all the arguments you used here >>348549
were based on conjecture not author quotes and also all my own counterpoints were conjecture and not based on anything concrete.
IIRC we didn't exactly get a list of the powers of Gods.
>>
No. 38753 ID: b1f0e2

>>348551
whoa, that is a huge point. Many people other then myself kept on referring to him as a god. Do you have an author quote confirming he isn't one?
>>
No. 38755 ID: cfe8f6

>>348553
The Fae are somewhat similar in nature to gods but are not gods. The phrase I use is that the fae are to beasts as the gods are to men. That is, they're vaguely of the same order of being, but their thoughts and behavior and the way that they do the things they do are different. This is hardly supposed to be some sort of mystery, so I'll go further. The gods in this setting are very similar to the god-tier players of Homestuck, if you're familiar with it, as in they actually have physical bodies (albeit immortal ones,) running around with crazy superpowers. They have nigh-omnipotence over their "domain", and gods who have worshippers get additional powers that allow them to fill the same role as normal D&D-type gods. They are either "immigrant" gods who come in from other worlds or "native" gods who were once mortal and were uplifted to divinity by performing acts of such amazing heroism, villainy or just plain greatness that the world itself had to acknowledge them. Also they have to soak up a huge amount of magic, but the one causes the other.

Fae, on the other hand, were randomly born from the huge pools of magic that was left over from the creation of the world, usually around a "core" which was once a normal person, animal, place or thing. They come in all shapes and sizes, some of which are people-like, but are basically just powerful creatures made of chaotic magic. The only unifying elements are that they are alive and that they tend to be "themed" based on the places in which they were formed - hence why they were arranged into seasonal and environmental "courts". As the world aged, magic became more settled, so after a certain point it became impossible (or at least very unlikely) for new Fae to come into existence.

They should not be confused with the Outerkind, who have been mentioned, and who are admittedly somewhat similar but were born in the infinite roiling darkness beyond the world, making them even more disturbingly alien and lovecraftish.

The Scavenger Lord was a Fae, the last surviving Fae, and he became something somewhat darker and more dangerous by consuming the bodies of his fallen siblings and then hiding away to stew for a few thousand years. He is still basically the same sort of being, however. Not a god.
>>
No. 38758 ID: 234c26

>>348532
>Via a military chain of commands. She only had 3 orders herself
I was referring in context to giving new compulsive magical orders.

>Most likely he set it up such that children inherit their parent's commands.
As he only appeared a few years ago and the wild races were effectively free before then, this explanation has a rather sizable logical hole.

>Its also possible he used a "mass" version of a spell (enchant every person within X miles with the same spell)
This is effectively what I postulated in >>348526 as the most reasonable means for giving orders, assuming that by "enchant" you mean "apply a set of orders to". The Scavenger Lord issuing global orders to all creatures with the Bonds of Blood on them is the very problem I'm concerned about.

>1. No, if the god is reaching out to PERSONALLY take over us being there is no likely to help unless you think we can stand up to him 1v1.
The odds of the god reaching out personally to Missy are very close to zero. The odds of his mass-order signal reaching to her are very close to one, in my opinion. We know that we would be strong enough to combat the latter directly since we're proving our ability to do so right now.
>2. At what cost? she will be our slave and to quote jukashi "she will be pissed!". And we will also piss off our elf companion AND his god the free man.
Given the options of freeing her until the next time that the Scavenger Lord decides to edit his control set and having her under our control, I would choose the latter. And if she doesn't like it even after we explain that we can take the reins but not unhitch the horse, too damn bad; it's a shitty situation and we're not planning to be abusive, we just cannot take unnecessary risks.

>No more so then elves and they were possible to permanently free
It was possible for a god who had absorbed the essence of many other fallen gods to free them. That's a power bracket orders of magnitude above us; as far as we're concerned it might as well be impossible.

>>348550
>But the hypothetical was that Sceavenger will PERSONALLY attempt to wrest control over this goblin, and that he is a God so he can.
I don't think that anyone has made that hypothetical. All arguments have been made in the magic command radio context, which requires no personal attention to or even awareness of Missy's condition on the part of the Scavenger Lord.

>If he used magic radio then they could have started mobilizing the second he appeared. Why would it take generations (rather then a few years) to assert control?
If you have evidence that it did take generations, please provide it. >>/quest/283850 sounded to me like it didn't take him long at all.

>If he does have magic radio then:
>1. We are totally doomed, he knows.
No, we're talking about broadcast radio here rather than two-way. It would provide him with no additional information.
>2. Why did he link it to a red hand "program" thing that gives simple orders and has them follow a chain of command with mortals instead of himself personally and having them all act under his direction?
Because he's a person analogue who has a limited mental capacity and can only focus on one thing at a time, and also because he does not necessarily have convenient two-way communication which lets him handle events in the field as easily as commanders can. It's the most efficient way of doing things.


In any case, I suspect that discussing this here doesn't matter; the thread is showing a distressing tendency to have new solutions posted and then promptly jumped on by a few people before the next shiny new solution comes along and is embraced by the next batch of people. There is massive redundancy and disorganization, and it's not going away. Hopefully we'll get the next update soon and the die will be cast for better or worse so that we can move on with the thread.
>>
No. 38761 ID: af4316

>>348555
>The Scavenger Lord was a Fae, the last surviving Fae, and he became something somewhat darker and more dangerous by consuming the bodies of his fallen siblings and then hiding away to stew for a few thousand years.
So the Scavenger Lord is to the Fae what the Free Man is to the Civilized Gods, in a way?
>>
No. 38763 ID: 35e1a0

also, if we use her to get the sword then we CANNOT control her. the moment you touch the sword all magic is gone! so she would need to grab if of her own volition.
>>
No. 38767 ID: cfe8f6

>>348532
>>348558
>She only had 3 orders herself

I would be wary of jumping to conclusions, if I were you.
>>
No. 38770 ID: b1f0e2

>>348567
mmm, so she had more then 3 orders and we only heard three...
either because of time constraint OR they were triggered SPECIFICALLY because we offered her freedom. Making us an enemy, against his goals, and seeking freedom... We heard the 3 orders which we were trying to get her to violate, not the full set of her orders.

Is my jumping to conclusions accurate this time?
>>
No. 38772 ID: b1f0e2

>The odds of the god reaching out personally to Missy are very close to zero. The odds of his mass-order signal reaching to her are very close to one, in my opinion

That was rather my point as well. The question was raised though so I argued the point of what if.

>If you have evidence that it did take generations, please provide it. >>/quest/283850 sounded to me like it didn't take him long at all.
You misread what I said. I was replying to a person who said "years prove it is radio, without radio it would be decades". I replied with "radio would be instant, without radio it would be years". Nowhere did I make the claim that generations were involved.

>>348563
good point.

>The phrase I use is that the fae are to beasts as the gods are to men. That is, they're vaguely of the same order of being, but their thoughts and behavior and the way that they do the things they do are different.
So... The difference between a Fae and a God is that Fae's think differently? Same levels of power?

And also, Scrivenger lord took the power of all the dead fae while hidden one of all the dead gods? Quite an opponent we have there.

>No, we're talking about broadcast radio here rather than two-way. It would provide him with no additional information.
I hadn't considered one way instant communication. That could work.

>There is massive redundancy and disorganization, and it's not going away
Solved by jukashi listing all 6 solutions posted thus far, not allowing new ones, and calling for a vote by number.
>>
No. 38777 ID: 9debbb

>>348570
That's more like it!

>The difference between a Fae and a God is that Fae's think differently?

No. "beast vs. man" is more than just thinking differently. Some fae were greater and some smaller, some did some things very well and others terribly; some of the very large and powerful ones were mostly harmless and some of the technically weaker ones could be deadly. There were things the gods did that they couldn't and things they did the gods couldn't. A lot of the Fae couldn't even "think" at all, they just acted based on the impulses from their chaotic souls. The gods are thinkers, and builders and makers and dreamers, with goals and plans and the ability to learn and adapt. The Fae simply acted based on their own nature, for the most part, and though some could think, they were usually crazy as well.

When I make the animal vs. person comparison, I'm using it less as an analogue to the differences and more as to the similarities, i.e. they are both made of meat.
>>
No. 38781 ID: 71ed8f

Is the theme of the Scavenger Lord known? (Are scavengers his thing, or is he just called that for eating the remains of the rest of the fae?)

Also, if the civilized gods became humans when they were hit by the Sword, did the fae hit by the sword turn into anything (other than corpses)?
>>
No. 38789 ID: 3dd384

Current tally:

#3 (maximum control) - 9 votes
#4 (minimal control) - 8 votes
#6 (final destination) - 14 votes
>>
No. 38790 ID: 3dd384

And I'm reiterating for the record that I only support #4 because I want to leave a channel of communication. If it doesn't work that way, disconnecting everything (or even the high-risk, high-reward Final Destination solution) is better than just replacing one master with another.
>>
No. 38792 ID: 28e94e

I am going to laugh so hard if FINAL DESTINATION actually wins.
>>
No. 38794 ID: 5aac32

My vote would've been for #1, but it's not getting any votes. So I'm voting for #6 because it at least could be interesting and I'm still not keen on the idea of just switching masters (the assumption that minimal linkage would allow communication instead of slavery is just that, an assumption).

Then again, this is a complex puzzle with a lot of information unknown. Pretty much every possible solution hinges on unproven assumptions. And I don't think it'll be the end of the quest if we screw this up somehow. At most, it'd complicate matters and maybe lead to the loss of a NPC. Or loss of goodwill. So voting 6 and moving on.
>>
No. 38800 ID: 15b51b

IS there instant runoff voting?

If so, I foresee a whole lot of reposts.

It does seem like 4 and 3 are splitting the vote. A majority of people are voting for some kind of connection, but split between different options, so "connect to the hand" is winning overall.
>>
No. 38801 ID: 9a34be

>>348600
Yeah, I voted for 3 only because I really, really don't want 6 and 3 had the most votes. I'd have preferred 4 or having no connection at all, but I don't think there's anything worse than connecting to the hand itself.
>>
No. 38802 ID: ce98ff

>Connections might enable communication
I don't think this is the case because if communications can be used for communication/monitoring instead of just stored orders, that would mean the Fae is directly connected and can see us right now. In which case we are entirely screwed (and he would also likely be able to beat any chain shaping we do).
>>
No. 38803 ID: 35e1a0

why would hand connecting be bad? what makes you think so? currently it has been proven that the hand is NOT connected to the lord. it is only a set of orders. and it has no real power over us because we are not bound by the bonds of blood.
>>
No. 38804 ID: b1f0e2

>>348603
i look forward to dissecting those orders, taking them apart piece by piece and learning as much as we can from the process
>>
No. 38805 ID: 9debbb
File 130930228174.jpg - (2.43KB , 100x126 , abloobloo.jpg )
38805

>Voting for the most popular option
>Runoff voting
>>
No. 38806 ID: 6bd24d

>>348594
Yeah, it is an assumption, or at least a theory. But it doesn't feel like a high-risk one, especially if we're willing to break the connection off if she doesn't want it (something I continue to advocate).

>>348602
First off, one-way is still better than zero-way. Second off, this conclusion presumes that Scavenger Lord 1) has telepathic capabilities of at least our rank, and 2) can be bothered to micromanage every last goblin in his army. If either of these is not true, then the fact that she's connected to static orders rather than an active malevolent force makes a lot of sense!
>>
No. 38807 ID: 35e1a0

>>348605
haha. only one tried to runoff and most 6ers actually want it.
>>
No. 38808 ID: 15b51b

>>348605
All the ambiguity gives you more wiggle room.
>>
No. 38810 ID: b1f0e2

>>319077
I love how so many 6 voters wanted to vote 1 but are voting 6 just so that 3 or 4 don't win... those 2 have 20 votes combined (9 for 3 and 11 for 4), but with our unity 6 has a major lead at 17. Go freedom party!
>>
No. 38811 ID: f5fe2f

>>348610
>freedom party
>choosing to be fucked for no reason instead of maintaining control over a prisoner
Whatever you say.
>>
No. 38812 ID: 35e1a0

controlling prisoner? choosing to be fucked? what?
>>
No. 38814 ID: b1f0e2

>>348611
No, choosing to disassemble the controlling portion of the spell for knowledge and maybe power instead of pointlessly mindraping an innocent and in the process pissing her off, our companion, and the uber-god on our side.
Not to mention that if we DID make her a mindslave, and then try to use her to steal the sword, the moment she touches the sword she will be free of ALL influence, us included.
>>
No. 38818 ID: ce98ff

>>348606
1. I think it is a fairly safe guess that we (a magic hat) have less magical capability then the Scavenger Lord (a being stitched together from an entire race of dead gods).
2. Maintaining a bit of contention to the scouts protecting the one item that can kill you seems like a good idea to me.
>>
No. 38820 ID: 35e1a0

except in the quest thread
>Their leader, who would be chosen for their loyalty, is likely to know - they may also have their own magic-users with them, who would have sent messages and would be informed. Punishments for failure are likely.
they NEED to use mages to send messages. if the lord could send and receive data from all of them, then mages who know how to send messages would not be needed.
>>
No. 38828 ID: 47683d

it could be a plot point. killing radiomen is a sure way to strand a guerrila army.

what you people do not realize is that this was the control spell to the gobbo, and that we are not at any point assuming control of the spell.

at best we will have a intermission and possibly end up figuring what the orders are. at woese we will be under its control with no actual way to fight back.
>>
No. 38829 ID: 2eac65

I'd suggest pooling the votes between #3 and #4, since they're almost the same thing. 1, 2, and 6 are all different, but the others only differ in the number of bonds.
>>
No. 38832 ID: b1f0e2

>>348629
they are not the same / different the way you described.

3 is maximum control to make her a slave.
4 is minimal control in the belief that it will allow communication without control.

In fact every single person who voted 3 or 4 either said:
"Maximum control, make her a slave" (in slightly different words)
or "its not gonna make her a slave only let us communicate with her" (again, not exact wording, varied from person to person).

If anything I would say that in my opinion those who voted for minimum connections have much more in common with those who voted for 6. They do not want to enslave her but believe that 3 connections hooked will have a utilitarian non slavery effect. So it makes more sense to pool them with 6 if any pooling is to occur.

But there shouldn't be any pooling because changing your vote is as easy as deleting your previous post and making a new one. If they are as you say, then they can change their votes. Several people already did exactly that.
>>
No. 38833 ID: 9a34be

>>348632
>I would say that in my opinion those who voted for minimum connections have much more in common with those who voted for 6
Yeah, except the part where we're connected to the hand. Which is a PRETTY BIG DEAL for most of the people who voted not-6.

As it stands, the three options can be summarized like this:
4-Maximum control, no hand
3-Minimum control, no hand
6-Minimum control, hand

I voted for 4, but it seems like 4 or 6 losing would logically make the votes runoff to 3 from either end. Of course, if runoff doesn't matter then 6 wins by weight of numbers, so eh.
>>
No. 38835 ID: 2eac65

>>348630
That's one possibility, but we don't know what connecting any given number of bonds will do. I'd guess that connecting the crown to her mind is what lets us communicate, and that connecting 3 bonds to us will give us slightly less control over her than connecting 5, but we really don't know; that's why it's important to experiment with different combinations on different subjects. Whatever our motives are, what we're actually doing is choosing our immediate action and hoping it'll have the result we want.

And like I said, we don't have to give her any commands if she's bound to us; we can do it just to see what happens, then leave her free to do what she wants afterwards.

>>348633
>4-Maximum control, no hand
>3-Minimum control, no hand
Did you mix those up? #3 leaves five of the bonds, #4 leaves three of them.

>6-Minimum control, hand
Important difference: Option #6 leaves no bonds connected. Both of the other choices leave at least half of them.
>>
No. 38846 ID: 3dd384

>>348635
My vote and several others on #4 specifically specified the 2/6 option, for what it's worth.

But yeah, there's a big difference between "minimal control" and "no control".
>>
No. 38847 ID: b1f0e2

>>348646
While 4 is a minimal control option, its not the 2/6 as you say.

4 is the 3/6 option. it binds one to hand, one to chest, and one to leg.

The 2/6 option is 5, which binds both to chest.

There are many theories about the importance of the exact location bound, belief in those (as well as seeing where previous voting was made) is probably why 4 was favored over 5 for those seeking the minimal control.

My theory is that 4 took up all the people who wanted to vote for 5 for the same reason that 6 took up all the people who wanted to vote for 1. Namely, it was similar enough and actually has a chance of winning.
>>
No. 38849 ID: b1f0e2

>>348605
This is how political parties work, it happens because people compromise for the chance at victory. Its a complex balance.

You can completely avoid it though via a mathematical formula based voting system.
Each person arranges ALL candidates from their least to most favorite, then a number of votes is given to each based on how many are in the running total.

So if I was voting between A, B, C and D. And I ranked them A>D>C>B
Then I give A 4 votes, D 3 votes, C 2 votes, and B 1 vote. Or maybe it was N-1 votes each? I am not sure, if someone knows what that system is called and has the wikipedia link I would appreciate it.

Anyways, such a system is more difficult, but more straightforward. It automatically finds the best compromise between all people. And it prevents everyone voting for the same few choices that got the early votes (which is a problem with a voting system where votes are seen as they are cast rather then being secret until counting)
>>
No. 38850 ID: a5a1cd

>>348649
No voting system automatically finds the best compromise between all people; all of them have weaknesses and flaws. See Arrow's Theorem for more details.

Which is not to say that the way this is being done is a particularly good way, but whatever. Soon it will be over and we'll be able to get back to actually doing things.
>>
No. 38854 ID: d4f98d

>>348629
That would be absolute horseshit and you know it. You can't change the entire ruleset of a voting system so you can pool two different options just so the current popular one doesn't win JUST BECAUSE.
>>
No. 38859 ID: 45be60

>>348647
>...is probably why 4 was favored over 5 for those seeking the minimal control.
Well, there's that, and also the part where the primary example given for #5 is not a valid solution, but that's splitting hairs.

The other, big big huge reason for 3 or 4 is that if we go with either of those, we are pretty can change our minds later, after we have a better understanding of the mechanics at work. Our ability to do that is NOT clear with option 6. Three and Four are the choices of people in favor of cautious experimentation, where 6 is the choice of, well, incautious experiments.
>>
No. 38860 ID: b1f0e2

>>348659
>Change mind
not necessarily the case. What if excising the hand entirely causes it to wither and be destroyed?
Voting for 6 we get to dissect it now, then we can switch freely between configuration 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
>>
No. 38861 ID: d4f98d

Something that seems to be mistaken here: We know nothing about what results any of this will have for sure. Not a one.

We assume that because Jukashi said Permanency depends upon whats connected, that it means if the hand is connected to the chains it can reform the bonds.

That is not what that means at all. At least not necessarily. It could be that if the hand is disconnected, but bonds still connected, that the hand can regrasp the chains. It could be that if the chains aren't connected to us, the hand could rebind them. Or any number of permutation thereof.

Those of us voting for 6 vote that way, not because we want to be incautious, but because (at least for me, personally) it seems like the most heroic course of action to take, especially for a setting that is flavored oh so slightly like exalted.

Instead of maintaining control "just to be safe" or some such, we instead seek to at least TRY to go for what seems to some of us the most beneficial course for the individual we are trying to save, even if it may pose a threat or means we have to fight for it.

We're not trying to be fuckheads here, we're trying to be heroic.
>>
No. 38865 ID: ce98ff

I think we have a good chance of beating the hand (or at least lasting long enough in a fight to reroute the connections again) because the fact that we can manipulate the chains suggests that we are more powerful than what the hand was built to deal with.
>>
No. 38886 ID: 68227c

i dont want to end with the hand controlling us.

the spell was made to control a gobbo, why would he master craft a mind control spell to a species that doesnt even have magic affinity?

why are we assuming we can take on the hand?
>>
No. 38890 ID: 45be60

>>348660
There is a non-zero probability that disconnecting the girl entirely from the chains means we can never mess with her bonds again. In fact, that is sort of what most of the people voting for 6 are hoping.

>>348661
Well yeah, heroism is nothing if it doesn't throw caution to the wind. I just have serious doubts that this particular instance of heroism is going to actually accomplish anything worthwhile. Really, attracting the attention of the power behind the control might be the most "heroic" scenario in your mind, but it is also the worst case scenario for our current sneaking mission. Remember, the elf is currently in the middle of a difficult and dangerous plan intended to get this gobbo away without alerting the other scouts to his presence. Please don't make all those efforts pointless by putting the entire army on high alert.
>>
No. 38904 ID: b1f0e2

>>348690
well, that would be a very interesting fact to prove.
And let me remind you there are 2 more goblin girls running towards as as we speak, and a whole camp full of them not far from here.
>>
No. 38914 ID: d4f98d

>>348690
It has nothing to do with attracting the attentioin of the scavenger lord, again, as far as we know, its just an enchantment with a set of instructions. If he can see through it, we're already fucked. It's about trying to destroy the enchantment entirely, to ENSURE it can't be remotely reformed.
>>
No. 38916 ID: 6bd24d

>>348647
What I meant by "specifically specifying" was that when voting for #4 they pointed at ( >>348466 ) as their preference. And as others have already pointed out, #5 is not a valid solution.

>>348661
The fact that the story seems to take some small measure of inspiration from Exalted does not mean that the same fixtures are given strong valence here. "The willingness to take risks" may be important, but on its own is without value if those risks do not have possible desirable outcomes.

That said, from the arguments ITT I get the feeling that the hand is not a threat regardless (being as it is a collection of standing strictures, rather than a direct conduit to the antagonist). I like Option 6 a lot better than I did when we started voting.
>>
No. 38917 ID: d4f98d

>>348716
Being heroic is itself pointless if the actions have no desirable outcomes, but thats not the case here.
>>
No. 39018 ID: 180ec2

I would like to congratulate everybody:
<Jukashi> I will say, option 6 probably was the "worst" option by my own reckoning, among the solutions that would have been beneficial, but it does offer the greatest rewards
<Jukashi> Also you have to beat the hand three times but the hand only has to beat you once
<Jukashi> good luck!

If we want to win all three games we have to pick something that we can always win at, like Nim, where the player can force a win. Wikipedia has a list of such games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game
>>
No. 39020 ID: b1f0e2

Well, if we DO cock it up, there are 2 more goblins approaching and this time we can link only one chain to the hand. Beat it once and the delicious creamy center is ours.

mmm, I bet if we keep on beating fragments like that we will gain power and it will become easier to beat such fragments. A fae fragment devouring beast is gonna be us, yay. Although I am getting ahead of myself here.

>I will say, option 6 probably was the "worst" option by my own reckoning, among the solutions that would have been beneficial, but it does offer the greatest rewards
Translation. Most risky, best rewards... as long as we manage to succeed then go us.
>>
No. 39021 ID: b1f0e2

I am gonna feel really really bad if when we loose horribly and it permanently seals her mind from us and we have to kill her.
REALLY bad.
>>
No. 39024 ID: 07416a

Jukashi, do you view Quests primarily as stories or games?
>>
No. 39027 ID: cf8a2e

>>348824

I... don't know. It feels like a strange question to me. All of my quests have had both in pretty equal amounts, I think? Maybe Lunar was more game-ish, and Sword was more story-ish (until the puzzle), but really, I haven't been thinking about it that way.
>>
No. 39028 ID: a5a1cd

>>348827
Damn, I miss Lunar Quest.

I hope you do another chapter of it sometime soonish.
>>
No. 39029 ID: cf8a2e

>>348828

I intend to when this quest is done. This quest that is supposed to be a one-thread quest.

I'll do it, I tell you!
>>
No. 39034 ID: b1f0e2

I never got the aversion people had to soul feeding in lunar quest.
If a soul "moves on" it is literally stripped of all personality and memories which are destroyed utterly and then recycled for energy. While if Luna "feeds" she merges with the soul, and at least preserves a good amount of its memories and they even unlocked the potential to preserve some personality aspects. If anything the "natural" process is more harmful and destructive and luna's is more merciful.

I personally think its the naming choice, people were literally saying "DO NOT EAT IMMORTAL SOULS" which screams far too much christian view of afterlife and far too little bothering to read the actual setting information which informs that there is nothing immortal about the soul there.

... Her raccoon form is adorable btw.
>>
No. 39036 ID: 3dd384

>>348834
My argument would be that people are worried about the cessation of subjective experience. With or without memories, that particular subjective point-of-view will continue to exist in the universe if they stay in the cycle of reincarnation.

If the stuff that makes up the soul is reforged as components of a Primordial's metaphysical organs, well... that might not be true!

(Of course this all assumes that subjective experience outside of yourself is a real thing. But somehow I doubt we have any hard solipsists in the audience.)
>>
No. 39037 ID: 3dd384

As for the matter at hand, I have one thing to suggest:

What sort of game would the Scavenger Lord be bad at?

Ponder this, as I am pondering it.
>>
No. 39038 ID: b1f0e2

>>348837
that is a very good question that we haven't considered asking...

He is a Fae, a being on par with the gods but is very different in his thought process. The gods were of human civilizations while the fae are of the wilds. The elves for example don't have a concept of mourning for lost loved ones...
We need to come up with tests that are heavily skewed towards civilization types...

>>348836
>that particular subjective point-of-view will continue to exist in the universe if they stay in the cycle of reincarnation.
Ah, but they wouldn't. That particular subjective point of view is utterly destroyed and its components are recycled into a brand new subjective point of view. While becoming a primordial's organ...

Of course we could always do a mordre in thread 2 and just put some upgrade points into making an inner "heaven" for them inside her metaphysical whole.
>>
No. 39042 ID: d4f98d

>>348837
Seems very full of himself, so anything that would have him doubt himself or his own position. Someone posted a very clever finishing blow question for the Oldest Game in teh quest itself, actually.
>>
No. 39049 ID: 2eac65

>Oldest Game, use Scavenger Lord as our opening move
That won't work. He could just say something like "the eldest of the gods" or "the Mortal Blade" which will counter the Scavenger Lord without giving us any new or useful information.

He sees us as being "enslaved" while he himself is free. Perhaps if we propose something where freedom of choice gives an advantage, he'll underestimate us.

What about a game of truthsaying? We take turns asking questions, and answer them based on whatever information they have available to them. Any honest and true answer, including "I don't know", is accepted. If a player lies or answers incorrectly, that's considered a loss. We'd have the advantage here; he's just a fragment that we're going to neutralize, so we don't have to withhold information from him, but the best he could do is force us to kill his host, so anything we get from him is valuable.
>>
No. 39050 ID: d4f98d

>>348849
The idea is to try to win the game. A truthsaying game like that could conceivably never end, forcing a draw.

The idea behind using the scavenger lord as a piece is that if the hand is as cocky and hopped up on his progenitor's hype as he seems to be, he might not even KNOW of something that could counter it, or at least be unwilling to reveal it lest it be damning knowledge (He doesn't know what we know). You get it? He's got what his progenitor gave him, thats it.
>>
No. 39051 ID: 2eac65

>>348850
If he's unwilling to reveal information, then he'll lose the game. If he reveals it to win the game, then we'll have the information.
>>
No. 39055 ID: b1f0e2

we did already learn very important information from him. He is a tiny fragment of the scrivenger lord left behind to guide and control, we have to defeat him 3 times because we left him 3 chains, he can reforge the bonds stronger then before and lock her mind to us.

If we do use scrivenger lord as the opening move in the oldest game, then either we win, or he gives us more precious knowledge...
Of course there are possibilities here, he could mention the sword which we already know, and he could go first and start off with scrivenger lord.
>>
No. 39056 ID: 35e1a0

we need three rounds though. first round let's open with the mortal blade. then second round will open with the freeman. then third round will be the lord. freeman and blade are three things we KNOW that MAY be able to beat the scavenger lord. but by using them already they will be locked so he must offer up a third new way.
>>
No. 39058 ID: 35e1a0

>>348856
i ment THE things, not three things.
>>
No. 39065 ID: 2eac65

>>348855
>Of course there are possibilities here, he could mention the sword which we already know, and he could go first and start off with scrivenger lord.
There's not much reason for him to do anything else. He knows who we are and he probably knows that we know about the Mortal Blade, so he has nothing to lose from using it as an answer. He could also just invoke the name of an older and more powerful god, which will counter our move without helping us.

Besides, the Oldest Game's rules are so vague that we might just randomly lose for not being sure enough or stating an answer he disagrees with or something like that. There's also a chance we'd end up stuck in an infinite loop of one point of view clashing against another.

>I am entropy.
>I am hope.
>Hope doesn't beat entropy. Entropy destroys everything!
>But hope overcomes everything!
>It doesn't overcome entropy!
>Yes it does!
>No it doesn't!
>Yes it does!
>No it doesn't!
>Yes it does!
>No it doesn't!
>>
No. 39070 ID: 35e1a0

>>348865
like i said, use mortal blade first. he can't counter it with the lord or any god. killing immortals is it's job. then "the freeman, bind remover" and he can't use scavenger lord because the freeman is what caused his downfall the last time and he can't use mortal blade cause it was already used. finally we use scavenger lord in round three. the two ways we know to beat him have already been used so he would need to lose or reveal ANOTHER weakness.
>>
No. 39081 ID: 28e94e
File 130966789248.png - (2.73MB , 2040x4614 , tic_tac_toe_large.png )
39081

Every time you post your cunning plans here, Jukashi reads your post and adjusts his own plan accordingly.

For example, it is a really bad idea to post this picture if we're going to play tic-tac-toe.
>>
No. 39128 ID: b6ca92

>>348865
Oldest game doesn't work like that. It's generally an unspoken thing, but when the goal is to outwit your opponent there is a subtle agreement against reusing any previous guesses, just to avoid childish fights like the one you described.
What's clever about being a sore loser? The whole point of the game is to find an answer that stumps the opponent, not simply roadblock them from being able to ever answer, otherwise you could just win forever by saying:
"I am YHWY, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient. I created all things, and what i giveth, I taketh away."
>>
No. 39130 ID: ce98ff

>>348928
That isn't an auto-win.

I am Nitzche. You are dead.
>>
No. 39132 ID: 2eac65

>>348928
Well, yeah, but that's not what I was getting at. The two parties could disagree on whether X actually defeats Y or vice-versa. Sometimes it's obvious, but when you get into things like "communism" or "entropy" it could be caught on an ideological conflict.
>>
No. 39144 ID: a7c031

>>348928
>>348930

Technically, neither of those would be viable answers in the quest itself, which takes place in a fantasy setting with its own history and mythology.
>>
No. 39164 ID: a7c031

>>348944

The point being, since people are still suggesting such things apparently, that answers that are anachronistic or which do not fit with the setting will be ignored or, at worst, cause you to fail.

For example, in the interest of fairness, I should tell you that the standard understand of time in the setting - given the whole infinite chaos, gods moving between worlds thing - is that it's infinite, so no calling The Heat Death of the Universe.
>>
No. 39166 ID: 2eac65

What's the history of our jewel? How did it break the first time, and how fragile is it now?
>>
No. 39167 ID: aead52

>>348966

You don't know. Seems the Hand does, though.
>>
No. 39171 ID: f5fe2f

>>/quest/321832
If we do that, the hand can say that our luck didn't really trump his previous choice. So it's more than just good sportsmanship. But even were that not the case, we need to win well. A game won through treachery and being a wheedling dick will not avail us much.

>>/quest/321921
A would be so fucking bogus. Let's not even touch that.
>>
No. 39174 ID: ee7784

I was of the understanding that in the oldest game the point is that the counter flows smoothly from the previous one and has a reasonable argument for it. Good fortune can overcome foolishness but no run of good luck will last forever, and so on and so forth.

Besides, going "Nah-uh! You can't beat rock!" feels so very petty.
>>
No. 39175 ID: 5aac32

Question: does the concept of a Void at least exist in this setting? I know the concept of the end of all things is not valid, but is there a place where nothing exists including time?
>>
No. 39176 ID: 35e1a0

>>348974
except we didn't say GOOD luck, just luck. the very concept OF luck.
and saying that it doesn't beat rock when they picked scissors is valid.

also stop voting to use the scavenger lord while the mortal blade is on the table. the hand could use it and so we would lose 2 trumps and gain NOTHING.
>>
No. 39177 ID: aead52

>>348976

The game's "moves" flow not only from direct "this beats that" but from the context of the previous move. Luck was used to overcome Foolishness, so it is implicitly Good Luck. Foolishness, in turn, was able to beat a Hunter because he was doing something dangerous (i.e. hunting) and the Hunter was able to beat the Saber-Cat because the cat was in a forest (since it had just eaten a Forester). If the Forester had not implicitly been in a forest - if they were in a lumberyard or something - the cat wouldn't have been an appropriate response.
>>
No. 39178 ID: 35e1a0

yes but time doesn't even stop good luck. it may cause the hunter's good luck to run out but good luck still exists.
in mudy quest we had cow and the other guy picked a farmer who drank it's milk. the cow was not BEATEN by the farmer, simply inconvenienced.
>>
No. 39181 ID: aead52

>>348978
Think of it as the Hand described it. This is a "shapeshifter's duel"; you're engaged in parry and riposte, flowing from the end of a string of such defenses and counters. The Hand said "Foolishness" in the context of Foolishness causing the hunter to die. You countered with luck, which would allow the hunter to escape despite foolishness. By countering with Time again, the Hand declares that the hunter, even if lucky, will eventually fall to his own foolishness. That which is invoked in the game is not overall abstract concepts, but specific applications of those concepts.

You could also think of it as competitive storytelling.

>>348975
The closest thing to a Void in the setting is the infinite darkness and chaos between worlds, which is a void by comparison to an actual world but cannot really be said to be a true Void because things live in it. Time exists there, though wonkily. It's basically like the Furthest Ring from homestuck, only the inhabitants aren't so many nor so friendly.
>>
No. 39183 ID: 35e1a0

>>348981
in that case immortality would work well because even a foolish immortal would not fall and would leave an obvious opening to use the sword
>>
No. 39184 ID: 5aac32

>>348983

And what would we counter the Mortal Blade with? If we cannot come up with a counter for that, Immortality is a losing move.
>>
No. 39190 ID: 35e1a0

hrmmm... what beats the universe?
>>
No. 39191 ID: 2eac65

>>348990
The beings who control the universe, of course.
>>
No. 39194 ID: f5fe2f

Was going to say:
I am the will of man, constructive and productive, by which chaos is forged into order.

But I guess
>>/quest/322066
fits better in-setting. Although I guess it opens us up to the Free Man as something that beats us, and that seems tough to counter.
>>
No. 39195 ID: d4f98d

>>348994
Does the free man really beat them? The eldest gods are the gods of the gods.
>>
No. 39196 ID: 9a5057

>>348984
apparently the moral blade can be countered with a handful of goblins. Just sayin.
>>
No. 39198 ID: 35e1a0

indeed. the civilized gods made it but the nature gods managed to steal it. meaning that while powerful it can be stolen.
>>
No. 39200 ID: 5aac32

So we counter Time with immortals/the older gods, and then counter the Mortal Blade with someone that can steal it? That works for me.
>>
No. 39201 ID: 5aac32

Nevermind, just caught up on the quest.
>>
No. 39208 ID: 2eac65

>>/quest/322213
The Hand wasn't willing to speak of the Mortal Blade to counter the Scavenger Lord, but had no problem invoking it against the Elder Gods. I had thought he wanted to keep it a secret, but now I'm guessing it has more to do with speaking against his master.

If I'm wrong, don't worry; I've made backup plans.
>>
No. 39210 ID: 1cd049

>>349008
this is wrong and it will make us lose wither by flinching or by speculation.

continuing with that move would imply the hand would give the correct answer to defeat itself/its master.

doing this now actualy implies we would have to come up with that solution wich only the hand knows. it doenst matter what, we would have to give the victory or accept he managed to bullshit us into his own corner and do a lucky shot, meaning a sure loss simply because he can decide if we won or not.
>>
No. 39211 ID: 28e94e

I just realized how one-sided this whole "challenge" is. Because Jukashi let us pick the game, we get to play a game where he is at a major disadvantage, and where we can repeatedly force him into either revealing valuable information or losing the round.

Well played, /quest/. Well played.
>>
No. 39215 ID: 2eac65

>>/quest/322204
>Because he cannot speak of counters to his Lord's power.
Looks like you were right. Great thinking, anon!
>>
No. 39216 ID: d4f98d

That revelation made me kinda sad. I wouldn't mind being made whole again, instead of fragments.

Something to bring up to Victorious.
>>
No. 39220 ID: b1f0e2

ok, so we used to be such a hand (or hands?) we were taken and made into the jewel...

mmm, maybe the free man, when he freed the elves, kept all the hands (fragments), stripped them of identity, and forged the jewel...

I posit that we should gain power if we harvest hands, strip them, and merge them into ourselves. Perhaps growing into a new complete jewel.
We should make a habit of eating them then.

This also explains our ability to interface with the enchantment the way we did.

It seems that the hand was FORBIDDEN from providing us with knowledge that can be used against its master, it forfeited two points on that matter during our contest. This is huge, since the other hands should NOT be aware of what has transpired, this means that when facing other hands while still not strong enough to use outright force to consume them, we could challenge them to the same game and trip them with the same questions which they are not allowed to answer.
>>
No. 39221 ID: d4f98d

>>349020
He didn't mean we were one of the hands, dude. We were one of the Fae.

We were brought down, our heart ripped out and shattered into the fragments that now form the jewels on such artifacts as the crown of summer princes.
>>
No. 39222 ID: b1f0e2

>>349021
oho... that is an interesting possibility. The heart of a dead Fae eh... well, seeing as the hand claimed to be a fragment of the scrivenger lord, aka a fragment of the most powerful Fae (for eating the rest), could we eat them to gain power and grow?
>>
No. 39228 ID: f5fe2f

>>349022
Hearts don't eat.
>>
No. 39229 ID: b1f0e2

>>349028
Sure they do, your bloodstream delivers nutrients which are consumed by the cells that make up your heart. They use it to power the heart's activities and self repair. They excrete waste which is then filtered out of the bloodstream by kidneys and lungs.

Besides we are a magic artifact made up of the magic heart of a god equivalent and are sentient and more...

Also "eat" was a metaphor since its really "strip of alligience and magically absorb"
>>
No. 39230 ID: d4f98d

I'd wager the closest we could get would be finding and uniting the other pieces of our shattered heart. But even that might do nothing more than turn us into a more powerful artifact. Still...
>>
No. 39236 ID: 50242b

First, since taking the Hand's knowledge would have given you the information, I will tell you exactly what you are.

Both Fae and Gods are born as a result of two things: one, magic, and two, significance. "Significance" in this case is about importance and influence, the weight that something has on the world. Gods, for example, are mortals who are raised to godhood through being worshipped, feared, revered, etc; heroes and villains and so on. They begin as mortals and are uplifted by the esteem (or even extreme scorn) of other mortals, which carries a bit of magical power of its own flavour. Fae, on the other hand, are things of significance which may be anything, including animals, places and objects, which were then exposed to massive amounts of wild living magic.

You began your existence as a magical artifact, one of the first such created by mortals, in fact. You were something not unlike a palantir, a seeing and speaking stone. You were very useful and became very famous and legendary, and so when you were exposed to wild magic by a series of events that can only be referred to as shenanigans, you became the center of a new Fae. The Fae are not terribly cooperative, but do feel some kinship for each other, so you joined with them.

In time, when the rebellion began, the elves targeted and killed you first because you had powerful oracular powers that would have let the fae know exactly what they were up to. Then, with some instruction from the Free Man, and some wizards, and fine dwarven craftsmanship, the fragments of your heart were cut and set into magical jewelery. And that's how you were made.
>>
No. 39237 ID: d4f98d

>>349036
Motherfuckers. Well thats just balls. Hope you were planning on making this a multiparter. Lets see if Vic won't help us out a little after we help him out.
>>
No. 39239 ID: 5b95eb

I've got to say, those dwarves do some good work.
>>
No. 39242 ID: 50242b

Second, I should tell you how the chains work.

As is now revealed, you can manipulate the chains because you're part of a Fae yourselves. As standard, you can only manipulate them if you're physically in contact with the individual, but if you arrange to leave a connection to yourself, you can maintain a remote connection. Since you're dead and broken, though, you can't exert perfect control. That is, even less perfect than the already imperfect control normal Fae would have: the subject has to obey what they understand the order to be, but they're aware that they're not doing it by their own will, and they can disobey the spirit in which the order was given if they can justify it to themselves; it is not possible to control their thoughts or emotions. Your command would be even weaker, depending on how you arranged the chains. The bonds attached to the torso control what the subject can say. The bonds on their arms control controls what they must do, while the bond on the legs control what they can't do. Prodigious willpower can overcome two bonds, while one bond can be overcome with more commonplace determination.

By defeating and destroying the Hand, you have freed the goblin from all existing orders and compulsions. If the Scavenger Lord himself gives her a direct order, a new Hand will appear and the chains re-form, but she's free until then. You could also have freed her by binding her "to herself" without the hand being included in the circuit, and you can do the same to others. This too can theoretically be overcome again, but the Scavenger Lord would have to use magic to get in and rework the whole thing again.
>>
No. 39243 ID: 35e1a0

yeah but if the scavenger lord himself appeared we would have a bigger problem then just him giving her a direct order.
>>
No. 39244 ID: b1f0e2

>>349042
Can we still rework her chains? could we now modify them to bind it to herself to give an extra measure of protection? or to us?
>>
No. 39245 ID: cd63e9

if we ordered them to disregard all orders would they have to disobey all orders? as in if they were ordered to go left would they have to go right? or would they be able to disregard the order and make up there own minds on the matter?
>>
No. 39247 ID: a5a1cd

>>349036
Well. Those sons of bitches.

New goal. After recovering the treasures, we try to recover as many fragments of the Orb of Wisdom as possible and unite with them. We may be dead and broken, but damned if we can't claw our way back into this fucking game.

Since we can manipulate the chains, we might be able to build up a group of personal followers amongst the wild races by striking a bargain with them- we will keep them as free as we can, help them free others, and in exchange they aid us in our efforts to put ourselves back together. As we are pieced back together, hopefully we'll gain in power, perhaps even regaining a fragment of our former abilities to see things from afar, which would help a hell of a lot in making us successful.

Hopefully the treasures of the summer elves will include at least some other jewelry with fragments of us. That'll give us a start. We'll probably need skilled wizards to aid in the fixing process; with any luck, the wild races will have such mages and they'll be willing to help out after we unchain them.

We might be able to turn Victorious into a god, if we do this right. Last heir of the Summer Elves, boldly acting against the Scavenger Lord even after his race is gone? Master of the lost powers and artifacts of his people, wielder of mysterious magics which can free even the enslaved wild races? If gods are made by being legendary and revered figures, Victorious is one in the making as long as we manage his PR correctly. And if we can get him to hold to a promise to us to put us back together, we will be much better positioned to pull it off when in the hands of a god, even a small one.

I don't see a way to reclaim all of what we've lost, or to take adequate vengeance upon those who murdered and mutilated us. But there's a path towards something a hell of a lot better than we have now.
>>
No. 39248 ID: d4f98d

>>349047
Vengeance isn't the big thing, I think. They had a reason for what they did, however much it sucked to be us for it. I'd settle for just being whole again.
>>
No. 39251 ID: 02e352

so there is no way to protect her freedom, huh.
>>
No. 39252 ID: f5fe2f

>>349051
Her race is designed to be susceptible to command. So no, not at anywhere near our current level of power.
>>
No. 39253 ID: b1f0e2

>>349051
kill off the scavenger lord. Its an uber-god equivalent... its not like we can just cast a spell to stop him from doing so in person...

However it is mind bogging unlikely for him to actually BOTHER to do so. If captured she is most likely going to be simply executed instead of taken to him for rebinding...

Although we might be able to bind her chains in on themselves still, which would make it far more difficult to regain control. Still within his power but more work for him and there might be lesser beings that could also take over that it will block.
>>
No. 39255 ID: a5a1cd

>>349048
Oh, I'm not going to hold the fact that they killed us against them. War is war, and killing your enemies is fair enough, even if it's a pity that we were the one to die.

But I am going to hold what they did to us after that against them. Dissecting your fallen enemy and enslaving the remnants of its soul is just sick, not to mention utterly hypocritical for a supposed god of freedom. This universe has precious little in the way or morality, but I'd even call it heinously evil. For that, I call for revenge.

Not now; we have other immediate concerns... but one day.

>>349053
Killing the Scavenger Lord won't actually make her free, just make him unable to give her commands. It seems that any Fae can take control of any of the wild races just as we can, and as far as I know there's not actually anything stopping new Fae from being created in the same fashion the original ones were. Not to mention that other remnants of the old Fae- if we're here and we're one, there are likely others- will be able to issue commands as well.

If we gained a hell of a lot more power, we might be able to do something about the design of her race... but I suspect not. Our essence is based around knowledge, vision, communication, that sort of thing; binding and unbinding isn't our forte and will probably never be.
>>
No. 39257 ID: 453e62

>>349055
there is something stopping new fae. this world has gotten old enough that magic has stabilized to the point that it CANNOT reach high enough amounts to make a new fae.
>>
No. 39258 ID: a5a1cd

>>349057
>As the world aged, magic became more settled, so after a certain point it became impossible (or at least very unlikely) for new Fae to come into existence.
I assume that you're referencing the above. I read that as "supposedly it's impossible, but actually it just generally doesn't happen". If the unlikely came to pass, that beat-the-odds Fae would, as I understand it, inherit the control of its deceased predecessors over the wild races as soon as it figured out that it was there to inherit. It wouldn't be a Scavenger Lord-level problem, but then, Sauron wasn't really a Morgoth-level problem.
>>
No. 39259 ID: b1f0e2

bah, the fae suck... I am not at all upset at "our" ancient history.
Besides let me remind you that before "we" were fae "we" were a human artifact, the fae formed around that human artifact and the artifact was merely recovered and put back to use.
>>
No. 39261 ID: 453e62

so then WE become the new fae. one that ties the binds together so that others cannot use them.all these years with people has changed us. we are no longer a true fae. but we would not become a god ether. we would be something else, something new.
>>
No. 39263 ID: 453e62

would say the crowns probably went to the other season elves. the rings and other things to the humans dwarves and halflings.
>>
No. 39311 ID: b7abd3

>>349052
>>349053

this all points back towards us getting reforged. we should totally ask Vic to do it when he's got some time. it's only fair after all the help we've provided him, and it'd be helpful to him too.
>>
No. 39323 ID: f5fe2f

>>/quest/322910
You're implying that Jukashi doesn't want an sex in his quest, which may not be a valid assumption. Furthermore, I think it's thematically more interesting for Victorious to be taking advantage of gratitude than for him to be some chaste white knight. So there's that. Obviously derailing the quest into entire threads of sex would be bad, but a frame or two of goblin blowjob is entirely acceptable.

>>349053
>Its an uber-god equivalent
Jukashi has continuously referred to fae as about the same power level as gods. Unless I'm mistaken, the Scavenger Lord is not monumentally more powerful than other fae.

>However it is mind bogging unlikely for him to actually BOTHER to do so. If captured she is most likely going to be simply executed instead of taken to him for rebinding...
I see no evidence which indicates this.

>>349055
The Scavenger Lord has avenged us already. The kingdom of the Summer Elves is ended, their race is unlikely to last longer than a single generation. I'd say we're pretty much even on that front.

>>349058
Morgoth imbued his essence into his creations, most notably the Orcs and his lands. The power he retained as part of himself was fairly minor. Sauron still had access to a decent part of Morgoth's infrastructure, and all of his personal power besides what he used for the One Ring and the Nine Rings of Men.

>>349111
He can't do shit on that front until he get more bits and pieces of ourselves.
>>
No. 39326 ID: 6bd24d

Call me a prude, but I really think we should stay on task here. Especially since just because something sexy happens don't mean it'll happen on screen. I mean, really, do you think Vic would wear the crown and let us watch? How awkward would that be?
>>
No. 39328 ID: f5fe2f

>>349126
Well, we are the one who actually earned it.
>>
No. 39329 ID: 453e62

>>349126
as awkward as we need it to be.
>>
No. 39330 ID: 3e272f

>>349126
I don't mind some offscreen heavily-implied sexy time in quests.
>>
No. 39336 ID: 453e62

and 2 more goblins are coming. and after freeing them they may want to all have some fun. if you know what i mean.
>>
No. 39343 ID: a5a1cd

>>349123
>The Scavenger Lord has avenged us already. The kingdom of the Summer Elves is ended, their race is unlikely to last longer than a single generation. I'd say we're pretty much even on that front.
The Scavenger Lord hasn't avenged us, he's just destroyed the summer elves. Given that all the summer elves who originally mutilated and bound us were already long dead of old age, I hardly think that makes anything square. I mean, going after the rest of the elves at this point would just be us being a dick.

No, vengeance can only be rightfully meted out upon the actual parties responsible. That would be the Free Man and anyone else from the original group who used godhood, life extension magic, or some other means to still be around and kicking. Also, if we can drag any of the original perpetrators' souls out of whatever their final reward/penalty was and do nasty things to them I'd be up for that.

Needless to say, this is horribly impractical at our current power level so I'm willing to table the issue until later.

>Unless I'm mistaken, the Scavenger Lord is not monumentally more powerful than other fae.
My understanding is that he's gotten a lot more dangerous than other fae were after stewing in the juices of his fallen kin for a few millennia. Whether the difference is "monumental", no idea.
>>
No. 39345 ID: 453e62

okay what was up with that bizarre interlude with the acting like it was a council? seriously make a suggestion and then stop posting, not post 20 times talking to eachother in the quest thread. talking to eachother is what this thread is for.
>>
No. 39346 ID: 364f46

>>/quest/323134

inb4 Sparta.
>>
No. 39353 ID: 0d095c

We were bored! Sue us.
>>
No. 39356 ID: 0d7a83

Yeah im sorry for contributing to that pile of assfuckery. Don't drink and internet, kids.
>>
No. 39357 ID: f5fe2f

>>349145
The council thing was not really intrusive or out of character, and is more interesting than a bunch of folks going "This" at stuff, even if it was a bit silly. It did get a bit out of hand immediately following that, though.
I really don't give a fuck which particular suggesters are suffering from sleep deprivation on a given evening, and I doubt Jukashi/Missy does either.
>>
No. 39358 ID: 830ac0

That was mildly amusing, but yes, I'd prefer if people didn't overload the quest thread.
>>
No. 39360 ID: 1b914d

Sorry Jukashi, but I've got to say it.

You draw expressions really well! And in my opinion using generic talking :icons: heads negates a lot of that. There's nothing wrong with good, old-fashioned attributed dialogue.
>>
No. 39362 ID: 07416a

>>349160
Agreed.
>>
No. 39364 ID: a5a1cd

>>349160
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the generic character icons for dialogue-marking either.
>>
No. 39367 ID: 5b95eb

Instead of getting reforged Victorious should just wear all the rings and crowns and stuff at once.

He must be covered in talking crazy bling.
>>
No. 39368 ID: 453e62

... what about non-generic icons? just have a range of emotive faces.
>>
No. 39369 ID: f5fe2f

Missy has received worse commands than blowing a gryphon. I'm not sure if that means the Scavenger Lord is into some really vile shit, or just that she doesn't mind animal blowjobs much.

Either way, the implications are unpleasant.
Unless you're into that, I guess, in which case the implications would be sexy.
>>
No. 39370 ID: 453e62

worse could just be being sent of what would amount to a suicide mission.
>>
No. 39371 ID: ce4a4d

>>349160

Not to be TOO strawman about it, but:

:missy: What's going on? I'm confused!
:missy: I would kill for a drink right now.
:missy: I'm so turned on - take me, elf-boy~
:missy: ...so as you can see, Concordet's paradox demonstrates that allowing ranked voting preferences does not work for quests
:missy: Oh no! My flimsy top is ruined!
:missy: I am the nightmare that crushes your dreams!

(amusingly, you can :jayce: all of those statements and they DO work)
>>
No. 39372 ID: f5fe2f

>(amusingly, you can :jayce: all of those statements and they DO work)
The first one's a stretch.
>>
No. 39373 ID: d4f98d

I have no real problem with the icons. Its just a way to know whos talking and whatnot, its not like its acting as a replacement for anything.
>>
No. 39374 ID: 07416a

>>349173
Particularly when there is two characters there should be no trouble picking out who is talking in the first place. When there is trouble it means that you won't use more descriptive methods of indicating the speaker

She said
She yelled
She screamed
She moaned
She hissed

Granted, due to the quest format those can be ignored somewhat as the images usually give the necessary context clues, but not as much as a more classical comic would.
>>
No. 39377 ID: b1f0e2

>Jukashi has continuously referred to fae as about the same power level as gods. Unless I'm mistaken, the Scavenger Lord is not monumentally more powerful than other fae.
He consumed the corpses of all the other fae and gained their power. Making him an uber-fae.
The free-man stole the powers of all the other gods as they were being killed by the fae, making him an uber-god.
>>
No. 39378 ID: d4f98d

>>349174
I dont know if you're agreeing with me or not.
>>
No. 39381 ID: 07416a

>>349178
tldr; icons are bad, they lead to poor and lazy writing.
>>
No. 39383 ID: d4f98d

>>349181
Ah. You do realize "She said" and the like are pretty unusable in an interactive quest format as well, right?

Most quests use the differing text style to denote a different speaker anyway.

>I just dont see how this is any different at all. Its subbing formatting for a simple image to do the same thing.
>>
No. 39384 ID: 07416a

>>349183
That is also lazy writing, but I think icons are taking itt too far
>>
No. 39385 ID: f4eed5

>>349183
The difference is that the icons cause at least some of us to associate the text with the face in the icon, which ruins the effect of the facial expressions in the actual picture (which I'll agree are drawn very well). Not to mention there tends to be some dissonance between the facial expression on the icon and the text.
>>
No. 39386 ID: 43f5a7

>>349183
Okay, here.

"Look, it's really simple." he explained slowly, "If you offer a simple shortcut that is less expressive, then you lose something meaningful in that. Unless you use multiple icons to denote different expressions, the speech is going to seem more banal and flat," he goes on to say, "And frankly, that just isn't acceptable."

>"But of course, it's easier to denote multiple speakers with formatting," he pointed out, "But that doesn't eliminate the expressive descriptions of speech - like icons have, used as RPG-style character portraits in dialogue."

"This isn't to say that RPGs are badly written or without expression, of course, since often times the character will animate onscreen as they speak, but that option isn't really available in Quests. Nor us using panels and speech bubbles to denote changes in attitude mid-speech."

"Frankly, icons are a tool and should be used with caution." he concluded, polishing his glasses, "And as a tool, they can be badly used and well-used."
>>
No. 39387 ID: 07416a
File 131011703321.gif - (333.38KB , 420x315 , slowclap.gif )
39387

>>349186
>>
No. 39388 ID: f5fe2f

>>349181
>they lead to poor and lazy writing.
This is stupid.

>>349186
>since often times the character will animate onscreen as they speak, but that option isn't really available in Quests
Isn't it? Nobody uses it, but an animated .gif could work. If it doesn't now, bothering Dylan about it would likely cause it to work in the future.

>Nor us using panels and speech bubbles to denote changes in attitude mid-speech.
You can just slap a new face icon in the middle of the line.
>>
No. 39389 ID: 07416a

>>349188
They don't guarantee poor any lazy writing, but they're certainly a bad habit to get into. Also, are you noticing people making multiple icons for multiple attitudes? Because I am not. Even if they did it would lead to a uniformity that I am against.
>>
No. 39390 ID: 15b51b

I am not a fan of icons. They don't do anything that ",said Missy." would not do in a more readable way.
>>
No. 39391 ID: 43f5a7

>>349188

>>they lead to poor and lazy writing.
>This is stupid.

Thank you for your elaboration of your point. So many people around here simply throw about insults like chimps with poo.


>>since often times the character will animate onscreen as they speak, but that option isn't really available in Quests
>Isn't it? Nobody uses it, but an animated .gif could work. If it doesn't now, bothering Dylan about it would likely cause it to work in the future.

Put it this way: You want to show a character's expression change throughout a dialogue from happy, to sad, to weeping, to hopeful, over the course of the conversation. YOu cannot do that with a looping .gif because not everyone reads at the same pace. A Flash update, sure. Multiple updates (Four of them) yes. MULTIPLE Icons, yes.

But not a single Icon with one expression and one static update image. This is not doable.

>>Nor us using panels and speech bubbles to denote changes in attitude mid-speech.
>You can just slap a new face icon in the middle of the line.

Please, show me the vast array of icons Jukashi has used and created for dialogue! Link me to the /icon/ thread, and I'll shut up. As I said,


>Frankly, icons are a tool and should be used with caution. And as a tool, they can be badly used and well-used.

What you mentioned: Using them well! What Jukes is doing: Using them badly!
>>
No. 39392 ID: f5fe2f

>>349190
They provide faces. It's an easy way to see at a quick glance who's saying what. It eliminates potential for confusion, and increases the speed and ease with which content is conveyed.

>>349191
>Thank you for your elaboration of your point. So many people around here simply throw about insults like chimps with poo.
Okay, here's a few kernels of corn:
These faces, like any other potential element in storytelling, are a tool. Using a tool does not mean one is lazy and will do a poor job. Like a construction worker with a nail gun, it can be used well - the images as described, the nail gun by expediting such wood work as throwing walls together. It can also be done poorly, as when the woodworker has poor aim with is nailgun. And it can be done totally clusterfuck wrong - the construction worker could try to use his nail gun to put nails in metal brackets, and somebody could forgo update images in favor of a wall of heads, each relaying a line of boring and poorly-written dialogue.
The tool does not mean a job must be done shittily any more than it means that the job can't be done shittily.
>>
No. 39393 ID: 43f5a7

>>349192
>These faces, like any other potential element in storytelling, are a tool.


>Frankly, icons are a tool and should be used with caution. And as a tool, they can be badly used and well-used.

reactionimage.png
>>
No. 39394 ID: 43f5a7

>>349192
Also, way to react only to the part of my post that I made merely for amusement instead of the body of my argument, which you simply copied.
>>
No. 39398 ID: d4f98d

>>349186
Thank you for ignoring what I said.

"Perhaps I should reiterate: That style of writing is perfectly understandable and acceptable...when the reader isn't an active participant in the story. It is perfectly appropriate for someone telling a story that doesn't have the players and an in universe entity, when you play as a character others can interact with, it does create something of a disconnect wherein you're own role becomes lost in the third person narrative," said Missy as the orb looked on, wondering what place it had in this conversation.

"Simply put," she continued, "Short and simple are sweet when you have characters that actually SPEAK to the player. How many times do you recall a "said Goshen" when he spoke to the characters OOC? Exactly. Tools are there to be used, not avoided because it makes you feel superior to people who use them."
>>
No. 39399 ID: d4f98d

>>349198
To put it yet one more way: Something is lost no matter HOW you write. THere's a reason there are differing ways to tell a story. In this case, given how the story is told, using the he said/she said method costs you immersion.
>>
No. 39400 ID: 1bbe59

Text formatting to differentiate characters is also not great form IMO. Except in rare cases such as color-coded characters speaking in their respective color, I don't want a legend to know that one character
>speaks in quotes
another is italic
{and a third speaks only in curly braces}
I realize I have been guilty of this myself; rather than invalidating my point, I think the complaints I received simply highlight it

Honestly my biggest issue, aside from the visual aesthetics, is that it encourages authors to write dialogue like a play rather than as a story. Reading a play is lame, as any freshman English student will tell you. (I would further dispute that they convey information more quickly as well. Combining text and :bomb: images slows down the :f5: reading process. (For me, personally.))
>>
No. 39401 ID: d4f98d

>>349200
It's entirely understandable if you don't like that kind of formatting, but don't claim one is inherently better than the other is all I'm saying. That is a crime against any form of literature. He said/she said is as impersonal as it gets when it comes to picture-based media, OR interactive media.
>>
No. 39402 ID: 2563d4

>>349186
>he explained slowly
>he goes on to say
>he pointed out
>he concluded
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SaidBookism

>>349200
Exactly this. There is a huge body of prior work in writing clear, compelling dialogue; they are known as novels.
>>
No. 39405 ID: 2563d4

>>349203
>>349204
Jesus dude, cool your heels a bit; you don't need two posts for it.

Also try reading the article. You'll even find a link to the one I posted in it, since "he grumbled" is telling rather than showing---good dialogue should convey tone without the need for awkward verbs.
>>
No. 39409 ID: d4f98d

Condensed into one post

>>349202
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitleixk37p06?from=Main.ShowDontTell

Two can play that game, easily.

There's a difference between a novel (an entirely text medium) and a drawquest wherein you should be able to let the images speak for themselves without coloring it with artificial prose. THAT is also bad writing.

>>349205
I am perfectly calm. I merely wished to demonstrate my point with a quote from the sourced material.

Heres another, from your very own link:

>"But Said Bookism itself is a Discredited Trope these days?" Alice queried.

>"Absolutely," confirmed Bob, "it's considered redundant," he proceeded, "because dialogue should speak for itself without needing fancy tags to convey its meaning and intention."

>"That makes sense," Alice concurred.

>"In the worst cases, the dialogue tags end up repeating what the dialogue itself is telling us," Bob stated in addition, revealing that in the worst cases the dialogue tags end up repeating what the dialogue itself is telling us.

Case in point: Using tags is itself bad writing when used to replace something that should be readily identifiable.

>If you're using a story structure or Point of View that doesn't include a narrator (such as limited third-person, in which you only see into the head of one character), showing is a far better idea,
>>
No. 39410 ID: 2563d4

>>349208
>Case in point: Using tags is itself bad writing when used to replace something that should be readily identifiable.
"Great, we agree that this shit is terrible", he agreed. "What are you arguing over, again?" he inquired. "Are you saying that that a picture accompanies an image and the text may indicate which figures in the image are speaking each line is somehow redundant?", he queried and a mildly befuddled manner.
>>
No. 39411 ID: 453e62

what about when there are more then two people talking to eachother?
>>
No. 39414 ID: d4f98d

>>349211
Then you arrive at the situation we started in: Should you use differing formatting or images to denote who is talking? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's opinion based whether you find it distracting or not, but said bookism should be avoided at all costs. It is an inappropriate writing method for an interactive story, and done poorly, can be ruined even in pure text.

I, personally, have no problem with Icons. They are a tool to be used, not something to be shunned because others think it's "lazy", which is bullshit.

>>349210
I seem to have gone off on something of a tangent in regards to the "Said Bookism" link. I apologize.

I'm simply saying that what method you use to portray dialogue is linked with what method your using to tell the story, and how the reader is treated by that telling. In an interactive story like a quest wherein the readers themselves are a character, the style of writing you used in your post is very bad. The dialogue itself should be descriptive enough with pictures. That said, the Icons/Formatting are simply a method to denote who the hell is talking when there are 3+ characters participating. Calling the use of that lazy writing is retarded, as Cruxador said.
>>
No. 39415 ID: d4f98d

Sorry, I can't delete my post to edit this for some reason. It should read like the following:

>It's opinion based whether you find it distracting or not, but claiming that said bookism is a flat out superior method of dialogue should be avoided at all costs.
>>
No. 39417 ID: 2563d4

>>349214
>That said, the Icons/Formatting are simply a method to denote who the hell is talking when there are 3+ characters participating.
"Simply" does not mean "good".

>Calling the use of that lazy writing is retarded
While there are occasional stylistic excuses for it, by and large that is what it is---abdication of the role of the writer to convert a play-style scene into actual prose.

I don't really think it's a gross appeal to popularity or such fallacy to point to the huge body of novels which show that plain old prose dialogue is pleasant to deal with, vs the relative absence of play-style formatting.
PHIL: It's not like being able to style text is some new capability they've yet to leverage, nor is it even necessary for it.
PHIL: Speaker-then-speech formatting is as old as the hills.
>>
No. 39419 ID: b599e0

The icons as they stand, I think, are a failure. I put them in to see how they'd do, in anticipation of more characters getting involved in the quest and clearly they're not doing well. I think I'll have another go with less obtrusive icons, and if those don't work I'll try other tricks.
>>
No. 39420 ID: d4f98d

>>349217
Except a play style format is the way it is because it's immersive for the purpose of letting actors get into the role. When you yourself are a character in a play (a stylistic choice for the story, and how many drawquests work), it breaks suspension of disbelief to resort to descriptive tags for dialogue.

>simply does not mean good

Nor does it mean bad. Whats your point?
>>
No. 39421 ID: 2563d4

>>349220
>When you yourself are a character in a play
Suggesters are not the character.
The character is (usually) the agent through which the suggesters can influence the world, but they are not that character.

>it breaks suspension of disbelief to resort to descriptive tags for dialogue.
This claim requires supporting evidence. Like, any at all, given aformentioned substantial body of work showing that it works just fine.

Actually I'm wondering if your problem here is because you're expecting more of an RPG session where you want to put actual words in the character's mouth and be directly addressed in return, and less of a quest where you're sitting back a little behind the layer of indirection provided by the author.
>>
No. 39422 ID: 453e62

>>349219
hmmm, yes, little ones may go over better.
>>
No. 39423 ID: d4f98d

>>349221
>Suggesters are not the character.

Except in universe, they play the role of an actual entity conversing with the primary characters. Orb>Victorious, Orb>Hand, Orb>Missy. They hold a stable, physical position within the setting.

>This claim requires supporting evidence. Like, any at all, given aformentioned substantial body of work showing that it works just fine.

It's a readily observable phenomenon. Citing the earlier links again:

>If you're using a story structure or Point of View that doesn't include a narrator (such as limited third-person, in which you only see into the head of one character), showing is a far better idea, if only because having a narrator suddenly show up just to tell this stuff would break the reader's Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

Hell, you can test it yourself in quest. When we, the orb, were communing with the hand, imagine that every statement he says is colored with a "he/it growls" or "it mutters" or whatnot. It doesn't feel like the players are speaking to it at all, but rather their discussion is being narrated back to them. That is a what breaking immersion is, when you feel less like your there.

>
Actually I'm wondering if your problem here is because you're expecting more of an RPG session where you want to put actual words in the character's mouth and be directly addressed in return, and less of a quest where you're sitting back a little behind the layer of indirection provided by the author.

Not at all. Are we pretending thats how using the Orb as a vehicle for player interaction works now? News to me.
>>
No. 39424 ID: 2563d4

>>349223
>...imagine that every statement he says is colored with a "he/it growls" or "it mutters" or whatnot.
So, what, you're back to "avoiding said" again now?

Sort your argument out, mate. I thought we'd got past that one.

>Except in universe, they play the role of an actual entity conversing with the primary characters.
>Not at all.
A little internal consistency would help too.
>>
No. 39426 ID: d4f98d

>>349224
Thank you for addressing me. Let me tidy that up for you:

As it stands, the only alternative was what Shot mentioned. Until you explain to me what you'd prefer, I have little choice to assume thats what you mean.

For the second: That was sarcasm, "mate". I.E. "*Incredulous*So you think we're playing a role when we are portrayed in-quest by an actual, observable entity?"

"Of course not."
>>
No. 39427 ID: 2563d4

>>349226
>Until you explain to me what you'd prefer
>>349202
>There is a huge body of prior work in writing clear, compelling dialogue; they are known as novels.
>>349205
>good dialogue should convey tone without the need for awkward verbs.
>>349217
>plain old prose dialogue is pleasant to deal with
>>349221
>aformentioned substantial body of work showing that it works just fine.
Herp.
>>
No. 39428 ID: d4f98d

>>349227
>Addressed already why that doesn't work in the current format

Derp
>>
No. 39429 ID: 2563d4

>>349228
Except you don't have a lick of support for that crazy position of yours.

I can make a counterargument, though. Oh hey, it's a whole bunch of quests which are considered quite good, who do their dialogue attribution with plain ol' "X said"*! Let's give some concrete examples: Last Flight of the Sparrow, Tozol Quest, Journey Quest.

There are also ones which combine it with formatting cues, but notably the text itself is still prose and reads well without them: Bite Quest, Dive Quest.

* For the needlessly pedantic, sometimes context alone is sufficient, and is what they use. Do you know what else omits "X said" when context is sufficient? Normal novel-type prose.
>>
No. 39430 ID: 1bbe59

>>349214
If formatting and pictures bothers a fraction of the readers as being distracting, what more do you require? As I said before, it's not good form to expect readers to match formatting to character when you can simply tell them who is speaking. Unless the formatting is somehow necessary to the character, it's better left for exceptional circumstances.

For situations where more than two characters are speaking, look at the comic form. How often are three or more talking in a single panel? Alternately, look at novels, which have been handling the problem for hundreds of years now. How many of them use green text to denote that e.g. the Earl of Sandwich is talking? You'll note the number is essentially zero.

>>349190 really said it more succinctly than anyone yet and it's starting to go in circles. Dialogue attribution is not some impossible task and yes, icons encourage lazy writing.

Thanks for having an open mind, Jukashi. Sorry about your discussion thread.
>>
No. 39432 ID: d4f98d

>>349229
You seem to be becoming upset. I never said using that method made a quest bad.

I said it doesn't work for certain quests. I could cite a bunch of popular quests that DON'T use that method for dialogue as well, namely ALL of Jukashi's prior quests, DiveQuest, Knight Blades, etc.

Oh look, its not hard at all.
>>
No. 39433 ID: d4f98d

>>349230
Again, people keep citing novels. It not an interactive medium.

I have no problem if you find it distracting. I'm simply saying I do not, and just because you find it distracting does not make the Quest Author "lazy" for trying it. I suppose you could say that was my big problem.
>>
No. 39434 ID: 4183c9

>>349232
>You seem to be becoming upset.
Aww, he said "you mad" in a "nice" way! How polite and friendly and civilized and mature and cool!

Next he'll tell you how he was merely jesting and that you oh so hilariously fell for his little prank.
>>
No. 39435 ID: d4f98d

>>349234
I actually did mean that questioningly. I'm not trying to make him mad.

There was no need to be a jackass about it.
>>
No. 39438 ID: 2563d4

>>349232
>I could cite a bunch of popular quests that DON'T use that method for dialogue as well
You could, but it would only demonstrate that you don't understand how to perform very simple reasoning.

You claimed: "X said" does not work as a way to do dialogue.
I showed: Quests where "X said" worked for dialogue.

And, lo, a counterexample to the hypothesis is found and it is discredited.

>>349235
>calling him a jackass for pointing out that you're being a jackass
Tee hee.
>>
No. 39440 ID: d4f98d

>>349238
Now I know you're just not reading my post and trying to get a rise out of me.

>I said it doesn't work for certain quests.
>I'm simply saying that what method you use to portray dialogue is linked with what method your using to tell the story, and how the reader is treated by that telling
>>
No. 39441 ID: b599e0

In my quests thus far (well, the most recent two), I've used the form of writing descended most directly from the imageboard format itself: the Narrator, who is usually the protagonist in my quests, engages the players the same way that the players engage with them, as posters on an imageboard (from our perspective, at least). The images of the quest are you seeing what they see (sort of, usually), and when there's third-party speech in the offing, they use various forms of quotation, again as posters on imageboards do, to show what they hear or to differentiate from their communication with the players. The icons are simply a (questionable) method of concise quote attribution.

In The Sword, and in Will of the Undermind, the players have a "role" in the quest itself which facilitates the dissonance between the story and the medium; the characters are talking to you, albeit telepathically, and allowing you to see and hear what they do. I chose not to use X-said dialogue because, in that particular method of quest writing, that's an unnatural way for the characters to communicate. People write that way, in novels, but they don't speak that way. Besides which, X-said is usually the province of the external observer. Being an in-quest entity, you are participant in the events as they unfold and the use of such language to "relay" information to you is inappropriate.

Lunar Quest was (and will be) a bit more messy. Saulanna is referred to in an odd mix of third-person and second-person, with confusion as to whether she is separate to the players or whether she is the players. This is because the suggestions, in-setting, represent a blend of several influences, some of which are internal and some of which are external, and the confusion is representative of Saulanna's own identity/sanity issues.

There are lots of different, and perfectly valid, quest-writing methods. Likely, more will be discovered: as a medium, quests are relatively new, and we here are all pushing at its limitations. I myself am keen to experiment with it, which is why I try out things such as the icons, to see how well they work.
>>
No. 39442 ID: f5fe2f

>>349241
>>349241
>People write that way, in novels, but they don't speak that way.
Clearly the solution is to preface dialogue with some variation of "and then he was like" or "and them I'm all like" to more accurately replicate the typical spoken method of recounting dialogue.
>>
No. 39443 ID: b599e0

>>349242

That is an option, but you'll note both of those methods of speaking are usually past tense, while most quests speak of the present. The default assumption with each new update is that "this is happening now". And, again, there's the problem of it sounding like the information is being passed on, rather than the players as an in-quest entity experiencing it themselves.
>>
No. 39449 ID: f5fe2f

>>349243
That post was made in jest. I'm aware that it doesn't solve the problem.
>>
No. 39461 ID: 9a5057

>>349243
I don't think it's clunky to do third person narration for actions, (since, you know, I do it) but it sure might be weird to change your style in the middle of the story here, so lets roll with what you have going. There are ways to simply write a conversation between two other characters without resorting to flat narration. All you really need to be doing in a dialog is to make absolutely certain the reader knows who is saying what. Ideally, that much is obvious from the spoken words alone, but sometimes you need extra measures. Those measures can be pictures or colored/formatted text if you want, but those options sometimes lend a certain choppiness to the reading. Alternately. you can do it with just written words. Those words don't need to be third person "Bill said" and "Jim replied" stuff to get the job done either, if that would wreck your style. (Actually, it's surprising how rarely words like "said" come up in dialog written by good professional authors.)

Consider: since we are able to communicate at the speed of thought with whoever is holding us, it is a simple matter for them to insert occasional thoughts and reactions to the other person just to help keep us straight. A recent (overdone) example for your consideration:

----

You lot are very strange, I tell you, but really we've gotten worse orders. O'course it'd be suggestions you'd be givin' me, not orders. Ha! And I suppose I'll notch most of that up to you all just bein' odd.

"<Scratch! Settle, boy, settle! Here! Aoh, you're a good ol' loyal doggie, ain'tcha? Ha? Good boy!>" Okay, this is the first time I've really gotten a good look at your friend. Not bad I guess. Under all the scratches. Looks pretty fancy, too. A prince, you say?

Oooo, pretty smile. "<He does seem like a very good animal. Even riding, however, I think your friends are going to catch up soon. Are you trustworthy?>"

Well, here goes... "<The crown says this morning yer cube hit you with smoke. That mean anything?>"

"<That will do.>" Aww, he's cute when he blushes.

Fantastic. While he gets me untied, what do you reckon about dealin' with the girls? You want me to just go on with my plan?

----

You don't have to hit the asides that hard to get your point across when only two people are talking, but three people in a scene gets tricky without resorting to "proper" identifications of some form.

It's your call in the end, and I do admit I like the IDEA of talking heads for dialog, but they work better when they get used frequently. Going so far in the story to have them just now showing up was a bit jarring visually.

words words words
>>
No. 39482 ID: 830984

Question for the CAPTURED DATA PACKET: What did the Hand mean by 'enslaved'? I have not yet seen any actual restrictions on what we can say.
>>
No. 39483 ID: 830984

Er, by which I mean the only binds I can think of that would work would be the selective 'silencing' (making it so nobody holding the crown can hear them) of suggestions that go against the people who bound us, but I have not seen any of that.
>>
No. 39489 ID: 453e62

>>349283
so the whole having your HEART cut out and split into pieces and stuffed into various items to NOT be slavery? they enslaved our SOUL.
>>
No. 39497 ID: 00d3d5

>>349241
I like the icons, but they'll fall flat when what the image shows doesn't match the text.
Using them properly would require at least a decent emotional palette for each character, but to truly make full use of them you need images that reflect the appearance the characters outside of emotion; black eyes, wearing plot-important accessories (Such as us), being wet or dirty, and countless other bits of context serve to add feeling and theme to scenes that wouldn't or couldn't otherwise be present.
Obviously, this means using them properly actually creates quite a bit of work; high buy-in cost to create a solid emotion set, then a decent upkeep cost to add context variants.

Everybody: This is the wrong place to discuss icons as a facet of the medium. The only relevance here is how icons are used in this quest, and if and what changes should be made to their usage here.
As of yet they have not been in use long enough to determine how they have impacted participants and readers, and the bulk of opinions seem to be based on novelty instead of utility.
It is far too soon to call for the icons to be removed, but not to identify potential issues and take steps to prevent those from artificially degrading the experiment.
>>
No. 39505 ID: a5a1cd

>>349297
I found it highly disconcerting that the icons were in color and the update was in black and white. It drew attention to the icons- which as you note, didn't reflect the characters' actual status, tone of voice, or emotional state- rather than the update itself, when obviously the update is what's more important to what is going on.
>>
No. 39528 ID: 830984

>>349289
Slavery involves compulsion to do something. If we are not forced to do anything (and I haven't seen any point where we were), technically we are just a prisoner that they keep chatting with.
>>
No. 39530 ID: 453e62

>>349328
victorious may just not know the password. only compelled to do something when the wearing knows the password.
>>
No. 39539 ID: b599e0

>>349328
>compulsion to do something

So... why did you all start helping as soon as you were asked?
>>
No. 39544 ID: d4f98d

>>349339
The scariest types of compulsion are the ones that have you think they are your own desires (or worse, MAKE them into your desires).
>>
No. 39546 ID: c42538

>>349339

Well, depends on the point of view. If you think about it, we're crAZy, lonely and desperate for a decent distraction that isn't the equivalent of an entire internet's worth of trolls arguing (that is; ourselves). Stockholm syndrome ahoy!

We're all mad in here, Victoralice.
>>
No. 39547 ID: f4eed5

>>349339
We're a small gem fragment set into a crown, and Victorious needs us to help him be awesome. On top of that, he's one of the last of his kind and therefore needs all the help he can get in ensuring his people's legacy lives on. We literally had no reason not to help.
>>
No. 39549 ID: 20cce0

>>349346

Crazy? Certainly. Desperate? Maybe. In-quest, distraction isn't a factor. As an entity, you "exist" only when you are required to. You gained consciousness only when Victorious decided he wanted your help. Whenever you lose contact with a living creature, your consciousness ceases to be. You are permitted to exist only that you may serve, and service, itself, is your only joy. Where once you were an entity of power and freedom, you are now rendered incapable of anything but helping others fulfill their desires... or you were, until you were reminded of your nature.

By your enemy.
>>
No. 39550 ID: d4f98d

>>349349
You insisted you wanted it to be a short quest, yet with every post you make us want it to go on much longer for the sake of achieving more.

MAKE UP YOUR MIND, TEASE.
>>
No. 39551 ID: 5b95eb

also goblin tits

don't forget those
>>
No. 39552 ID: 0d7a83

>>349349
This makes me MAD >8(

>>349350
>>349351
I agree.
>>
No. 39554 ID: 20cce0

>>349350

Yes, I know, I'm sorry. I do still hold to that intention. But when you get the opportunity to unload revelations of this magnitude, fitting it in just right, even to the point of subverting the expectations of the medium itself... it's hard to resist, I tell you. There's no feeling quite like it.
>>
No. 39556 ID: e9ba98
File 131027370271.jpg - (47.07KB , 720x480 , Maximum_trolling.jpg )
39556

>>349354
>Tease the audience
>because it feels good
>>
No. 39559 ID: f5fe2f

>>349354
>even to the point of subverting the expectations of the medium itself
Well looking at it at that level, if we didn't want to serve we'd just go to some other site.
>>
No. 39561 ID: 20cce0

>>349356
I didn't really intend to tease. Sorry if I did. I just thought it would be an interesting plot twist.

>>349359
Well, yes, I know. There's a difference between the players as the players, and the players in their "role". I'm perfectly aware why people use this website. I just took that behavior and presented an alternate reason for it within the quest itself.
>>
No. 39570 ID: 830984

>So... why did you all start helping as soon as you were asked?
Wow, when you consider that, you realize that Scavvy is an amateur in comparison.

It also raises the philosophical question of whether it is worse to be dead or to have a large part of your personality rewritten.

>You gained consciousness only when Victorious decided he wanted your help.
But this one brings up the point that the crown making was worse than 'just' overwriting personality.

>service, itself, is your only joy.
Well, that and vicarious hot goblin sex, apparently.
>>
No. 39575 ID: 00d3d5

>>349349
We are helping Vic because he seems to be a decent guy and he's doing the right thing. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings, and his plan is to kill a mind-controlling evil overlord and/or die trying.
Neither we nor he were aware of this when we decided to help, and while the information we have subsequently acquired has prompted a reevaluation it was ultimately decided that our original choice remains the correct one.

There are a few key things to point out here that play into the decision:
First: Since time can't be perceived by an observer that doesn't exist it's impossible for those periods of hibernation to cause any suffering on their own. The loss of memories means that secondary suffering, such as loss of time with people we care for, is also not something that can happen.
Second: Victorious had no role in what happened to us, is not aware of what happened to us, and has no clue as to our nature.
Third: Victorious has shown us deference, respect, and trust.
Fourth: I believe that we could convince Victorious to free and fix us after this is over by withholding information from him. I wouldn't be surprised if we could convince him to help without withholding information from him.
Fifth: We were originally made to help people. That was our purpose, and I can't say it was a bad one. I have no idea what prompted us to side with the Fae - intending to betray them, memories of horrible events we were used to facilitate and terrible abuse of people by those in power convincing us that people are unfit to rule themselves, a desire for kinship, or whatever else it might have been - but right now we are leaping at a chance to fulfill our original purpose. It's more advice than communication, but the spirit of it is certainly there.
Sixth, but second most important: With Missy and her friends we are fully capable of freeing ourselves from Victorious' possession. It would hardly be difficult to convince them to free us and make us whole, and while we do intend to do that it's secondary to more important concerns.
Seventh, and most importantly: He bears no ill will towards the Scavenger lord's slave army over the death of every person he ever loved, cared about, or even knew, and laments their suffering. Missy could have been the one who killed his parents and he would be sorry she had to live through it.
There was a small chance that the killer could have thrown off the mind control on their own and aided his parents instead, but there was no chance for Victorious to alter events that took place generations before he was born.

We are passing up a shot at freedom right now because there are a lot of people each suffering a lot more individually than we are as a collective, and pursuing our own chance at freedom would come at the cost of the chance to aid them. Anybody who would be that selfish doesn't deserve freedom.
However, since we are able to consider seriously consider seeking freedom and the consequences of such an action it would appear that we don't have any active restraints on us. Right now knowing that our choices are our own is freedom enough.

This is all in-character reasoning. I'd love to hear if you have anything to counter this, Jukashi. ^^
>>
No. 39578 ID: c42538

>you are now rendered incapable of anything but helping others fulfill their desires... or you were, until you were reminded of your nature. By your enemy.

Oh. That's a neat move. Both by you AND the red hand.

... you spend way too much time thinking about these things, don't you?

>>349375

Why should he have to counter it? We're doing what Jukashi wants, no matter which way we swing on the 'help victorious/ourselves' scale.

>Freedom is the right of all sentient beings
>Anybody who would be that selfish doesn't deserve freedom

Please apply forehead to desk. Repeat until all hypocrisy has bled out.

Side effects may include; dizzyness, nausea, vomiting, headaches, fractures, coma and/or death. If death results as a direct consequence of self-treatment of hypocrisy, please leave a note informing next-of-kin to contact your local Darwin Award Center. In your next life, YOU may already be a winner.
>>
No. 39581 ID: a5a1cd

>>349375
>We are helping Vic because
>freedom and morals and crap
As far as in-character reasoning goes, I'm helping Vic because I'm hoping that somewhere the the treasures being transported there will be another fragment of us. And because by helping him we'll likely be able to convince him to help us reform in the long term, and those treasures will likely be useful and powerful assets in that respect. Given our position, trying to recover that stuff and gain influence with the wild races guarding it so that they'll help us out later is simply the most logical thing to do.
>>
No. 39583 ID: c3571e

>true nature
well, yes, its possibly the harshest way to notice we are kinda dead and fragmented. i was kinda right in my hunch, but instead of several fallen demigods, just one old enemy.

i wonder what we accomplished to have this fate considered unto us. i mean, rewrite memories by itself is a much more dangerous task that to require the help of a former enemy. do it too much and he will be useless, too little and he secretly has you under control...

and then theres the fact as you claimed, we were warned by our enemy. that is not quite right.

the hand, as much of the gobbos that are under control, and all of those mind controlled slaves wich may includes us, do not really have a will of their own. be they convinced they want to do this or that they are aware of said mind control, now they are mere tools in the hand of someone pulling all strings. chains. whatever.

the tast is still the same that before, except now we have the slight chance to release uselves into this mix.

asides the orb had a body built for it before. it just wasnt that much of a good idea.

>It also raises the philosophical question of whether it is worse to be dead or to have a large part of your personality rewritten.
we would have to consider afterlifes and the likes, but this is in essence a somewhat more desireable future that true death.

we might get uselves back together, at least enought for it to work.

just consider this: vic is already fatalist about his race. whatever it is that they did to us, we literally already got even about it.

>hibernation
deliberadely being put to sleep may be a requirement to fix the memories. i think we dont need to know how many times he wore us to bed or how many harlots have tried to get his babies while he flew from kingdom to kingdom to get armies to help his people. i do wish we knew more about the history of the world, as it stands now we may get a slight clue of what we are simply by asking missy or vic what was the worse thing that happened to the elves by someone else's hand. no pun intended.

>finding other fragment of us
woudlnt that be bad? if they are active and we are the nice part of a former villain, then what are they doing?

maybe my hunch wasnt wrong at all?
>>
No. 39584 ID: c3571e

>>349375
vic and the other elves are somewhat sociopaths.

this possibly means that his surprise is not that we worked, but that we werent agressive to him.

we cannot consider the fact he doesnt know about what we were, only that he is really good about maskerading himself. or that possibly theres a censoring spell to prevent him from slipping it.
>>
No. 39585 ID: 453e62

>>349383
if they are active we would know. can talk to all active fragments.
>>
No. 39589 ID: d4f98d

>>349384
I dont think its actual Sociopathy. The elves seem quite social and very morally obligated. Its hard to say what it is. They just seem incapable of extended or extreme grief.
>>
No. 39590 ID: 453e62

>>349389
yeah, when he remembered he was the last sun knight he got sad for a bit.
>>
No. 39615 ID: 5e8676

>>349390
>>349389
this would means he would feel only slightly bad for abandoning us again.

in a strict sense of the word they can still function as "human" beings. the problem is the part where we were crafted to be used and abandoned.

it doesnt matter if vic is 100% or 1% sociopath. it is the expected path to use the OoIP least we change that outcome.
>>
No. 39620 ID: 453e62

>>349415
not unless we make it a mission. his people are fine with dying because dying would lead to victory. they do NOT like failure, so if we make losing us be a black mark on his honor he will NOT lose us.
>>
No. 39627 ID: 00d3d5

>>349378
We deny criminals their freedom because they used their freedom to deny freedom to others.

This is not hypocrisy, this is the way societies work.
>>
No. 39628 ID: 2eac65

>>349427
You said "deserve". There's a difference between "sometimes you have to make sacrifices" and "bad is good because they deserve it".
>>
No. 39883 ID: c02d82

Hey Jukashi, these new character icons certainly address the concerns we had with the old ones, but I think maybe you went too far in the other direction here. The new icons are not much more than tiny silhouettes now, and your characters' hair shapes are not really distinct enough to make that easy on us with a quick glance.

Any chance I could convince you to take another swing at it? Even simply lightening up the grey fill color would probably help.

I wouldn't be opposed to a washed out color icon sorta like these new ones, especially if we are gonna have gobbo names implying eye color, but I guess a few other people complained about color icons in b/w quest before.
>>
No. 39884 ID: 07416a

>>349683
Look at the ears? I might get the hang of it though.
>>
No. 39885 ID: f5fe2f

Yeah, I have to lean in and squint at the screen to differentiate them. Bigger would be nice, I think somewhere around double or half again current size, but increased contrast could suffice.
>>
No. 39887 ID: 07416a

>>349686
:missyicon: maybe at 75x75 maybe? This is too tiny.
>>
No. 39896 ID: ce4a4d

>>349687
They max at 64^2.

Sorry, Jukashi. These aren't obtrusive, which is good, but they fail the silhouette test rather badly. You've read Scott McCloud, you should know better than that! Heh. They also fail the "easier to recognize than a name written in text" test.

Don't think I'm going to convince you to not use them at all, but if you keep something like this and color code the characters (which seems like a logical next step) I don't suppose you'd keep in mind that there is a decent chunk of the population that is red/green colorblind or worse.
>>
No. 39900 ID: 00d3d5

>>349696
The goblins will generally fail the silhouette test because they are very similar in appearance. To make things worse, barring accessories or cartoony proportions head shots themselves generally fail the silhouette test anyway. This really needs to be line art.

I think 40x40 would be about the right size, but draw them significantly larger so they can be scaled if that doesn't work.
Dissonance is your main threat here, but all you need to avoid that is a basic emotional palette. Rather than making them all up at the start just make them as needed and reuse them from there.
>>
No. 39901 ID: 35e1a0

ether your eyes are all shit or your monitors are, i could tell them all apart at a glance.
>>
No. 39903 ID: 07416a

I really hope this icon stuff isn't overshadowing how rockin I think the quest is...
>>
No. 39915 ID: d4f98d

>>349696
>Accounting for red/green colorblindness

:/
>>
No. 40395 ID: 2eac65

I just realized something! There's an important question we've forgotten to take into account. What is the Scavenger Lord's motivation? Did the hand know that?
>>
No. 40401 ID: 1a940c

>>350195

Revenge, power, dominion, good times (for him). General villainy. Not terribly interesting, but, hey, what ya gonna do?
>>
No. 40451 ID: 73eb25

Scavenger Lord seems like a pretty stand up guy.
>>
No. 41016 ID: 2eac65

Well, at least we won't have to worry about him having some greater purpose.

...Everyone's still really cute! I wish I could think of something else to say, but that's worth saying.

I'm using bold text in an attempt to make my posts easier to read. Is it helping?
>>
No. 41029 ID: 45df4f

>>350816
I think you overuse it a bit but you're not egregious in your abuse of the formatting functions. Basically, it's cool. A fair bit more than you strictly need, but it works.
>>
No. 41077 ID: c891d3

>>350816
You read like you fell out of a comic book, but I guess that's okay.
>>
No. 41163 ID: bfae1d

Ok, gotta make this clear.

You are allowed to tell them about gunpowder because it exists somewhere already in the setting - as a fragment of your lost seeing-stone powers, you can get your hands on any information that already exists. Maybe. Sometimes. In this case, gunpowder is used by the dwarves; there are also some scattered bits of advanced knowledge that the original gods of civilization knew and took with them to mortality when they fell, which are mostly but not entirely secret.

Basically, I'll let you give them knowledge, but only so long as it doesn't break the setting too much.
>>
No. 41167 ID: 3edcab

well, you really should not allow it if it makes too easy, altho it could just be the case of biting a bit more that before.

why not figure out a magical equivalent of gunpowder?

if needed be, you can always use handwavium to say that gunpowder doesnt work, like it was cursed or different laws of physics makes it burn slow.
>>
No. 41177 ID: 9c538a

I was going to suggest gunpowder not because it makes them powerful, but because it's fuckin' dangerous. More likely to blow up in their faces before it even gets to their enemy. Which is what makes it awesome! And then beat up and blown up and they finally manage to make this huge bomb and use it like a boulder on the enemy camp and it doesn't work then someone lights up a pipe and then boom.

But well, whatever works to make an optimal story. I still haven't decided if the circlet is secretly the elf's enemy or not.
>>
No. 41178 ID: 35e1a0

>>350977
i don't think they would be our enemies, at least vic isn't, everything he knows about us is just from stories. the freeman probably needs to answer for it, but it was pretty much returning us to our original form, with upgrades.
>>
No. 41196 ID: f5fe2f

>get back to civilization
>click "last 50" on some quests
>see the elf closing up his pants, adjacent to a pile of goblins
Things have clearly gone well in my absence.

>>350977
What? Gunpowder isn't that unpredictable. You light it up, it goes boom. It doesn't explode if it doesn't get lit, and it doesn't fail to explode when you light it. This is true of black powder as well as modern gunpowder.
Although of course in-setting fire sand could differ.
>>
No. 41199 ID: eba49f

>>350967
Gunpowder is fairly reliable, but there IS a good reason not to use it in many fantasy settings.

Consider what happens when you carry around gunpowder while you are fighting mages who can set things on fire with their minds.
>>
No. 41208 ID: c9a99a

>>350999
Hence my suggestion for guncotton, being able to survive getting wet is incredibly useful. At least you'll get a warning before it explodes (of course it explodes spontaneously when dry, but a wad isn't exactly going to lose its moisture anytime soon).

Also what are we trying to achieve by making gunpowder? Firearms are extremely expensive to make due to the amount of metal involved, and such a slow burning explosive isn't that good for demolitions.

Simply mixing the ingrediants doesn't make a very powerful powder either, you have to blend and mill the mixture to get a fine consistency, and a dry-mixed powder will rarely burn with enough force to create a proper explosion.
>>
No. 41210 ID: 28e94e

>>351008
Guncotton is extremely volatile, and costs a fortune to make. Gunpowder is stable, costs very little to produce, and doesn't count as metagaming.
>>
No. 41227 ID: ee8a71

>>351010
If it has to be firearms, let's stay with the reliable and well-known "gunpowder", despite its mixture, production processes and spontanious combustability having been altered many times o'er the course of history.
>>
No. 41410 ID: 2eac65

Since people are still talking about this, the reason I'm using bold text is because the text in-between updates can get very long; the idea is to make the most important bits stand out so it's easy to skim through and still understand.
>>
No. 41415 ID: 35e1a0

>>351210
except reading the bold parts alone make no sense at all. just stop, please.
>>
No. 41419 ID: 2eac65

>>351215
Some people skim through things when they don't feel like reading the whole thing. Having some parts stand out does help.
>>
No. 41421 ID: 35e1a0

>>351219
yes, people skim, but you BOLD THE WRONG PARTS. you are bad at it okay? you make the worst parts bold and reading JUST the bold parts results in confusion!
>>
No. 41422 ID: 2eac65

>>351221
People don't just not see the other parts. They don't focus as much as they would if they read in detail, but they absorb enough knowledge to get the general idea of what's being said. HIghlighting certain important points can help draw attention to them, but it's important not to overdo it.
>>
No. 41445 ID: 2eac65

This really isn't worth getting aggravated about. I don't really understand why it's so irritating to you, but I'll cut down on the bold text. Now let's stop making a mess of things.
>>
No. 41455 ID: 9c538a

bold is cruise control for cool
>>
No. 41456 ID: 28e94e

>>351255
Even with cruise control you still have to steer
>>
No. 41556 ID: 2eac65

Important question: What, exactly, is the task we are meant to help with? How did Victorious phrase it in his mind?
>>
No. 41557 ID: 35e1a0

>>351356
to get back the sword.
>>
No. 41559 ID: 2eac65

>>351357
Yes, but what apart from that? To get it away from the Scavenger Lord's army? To get it back for the Summer Elves?
>>
No. 41561 ID: 3fd4fb

>>351359
Damn good question. If we automatically shutdown and wipe once the task is complete, it becomes exceedingly important that we delay completion of the task until after we've managed to somehow wriggle our way out of that particular bit of spell. For that, knowing exactly what the task is becomes vital.
>>
No. 41562 ID: 2eac65

>>351361
If it's something like "retrieve the Mortal Blade", then we can avoid it simply by making sure Victorious doesn't get his hands on it. Normally, I'd say it's his people's rightful duty and he should have it back, but...
>>
No. 42965 ID: 1854db

>youaredead.png

I'd like to say something here.

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" is not a suggestion. If you wanted us to run away, you have to say so.

Also what the hell were the rest of you thinking? 9 people wanted to stick around in a situation where we had no idea what was going on, no idea if we could do anything about it, and were quite possibly in a shitload of danger? Did you idiots really think that the huge thorny black vines were harmless?
>>
No. 42966 ID: 35e1a0

tentacles are rubbery. they did not look like vines. and a situation with no info means you try things. not run away in terror and hope they get better.
>>
No. 42967 ID: 35e1a0

also EVERYONE went full retard. even the ones that wanted to leave. and what the hell was Voice of Regret going on about?
>>
No. 42968 ID: 1854db

Re: People were just being inquisitive

That excuse doesn't fly when we were invading a necromancer minion's mind and were already discovered. There's more than curiosity involved when you react to getting grabbed by a shitload of thorny vines with "Oh, what is this stuff?" instead of "AAAA RUN AWAY". And you know what, the quest update itself had AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA in it, which should've been a goddamned indication that the situation was NOT FUCKING SAFE. How obvious does it have to be?
>>
No. 42969 ID: f2a2e3

Someone's probably going to wonder what just happened. The answer is: you done goofed. Well, not all of you, but enough of you.

I should explain myself.

Normally, quest protagonists are their own people, and take suggestions with their own particular pinches of salt. With the Crown(s) of Wisdom in this quest, however, the suggesters directly are the role they play, or as directly as possible. So, while I usually run /quest/'s suggestions by picking what makes sense to the protagonist, in this case I decided - and previously established, with the puzzle - that the crown runs directly on majority rule. This is, of course, a flawed system, but that's the point: the crown itself is formed from the fragments of a broken, dead creature of chaos, and is supposed to be flawed. I figured it was appropriate, and in this case, you have reaped the downsides. You chose, by majority, to persist in facing down whatever it was that was controlling King Studious' reanimated body and imprisoning his soul.

You tried to free the undead the way you freed the slaves. Fair enough, on the face of it, but the reason you can command the bonds on the living slaves is because you are Fae (or a bit of one), which they are designed to obey. The force commanding the undead, however, is necromancy. One is Fae glamour chaos-twisty-monster-making magic, the other is evil-deathy-death-from-beyond magic. I think it's not far-fetched or obscure for the audience that Enchantment and Necromancy could be different forces, to put it in formal terms - they may both get you minions, but that's where the similarity ends. So necromancy, unlike wild fae magic, has power over the dead; dead things like you. Since I actually had a previous character shouting about you being dead and having been killed, I think I hinted at that clearly enough.

Still, I figured this whole thing wasn't obvious, so I did make a post showing that what was behind the undead's slavery wasn't the same as what you'd tackled previously. Still, you persisted, but I thought the image I'd used wasn't too great, making it look too passive, so I continued on with a post of the necromancy-tentacles actually assaulting you. The majority of votes were still to stay, however - with the intent of doing different things, but still to stay. And staying was not the right choice. Staying is seldom the right choice when faced with evil magic tentacles in a setting established as having lovecraftian madness monsters.

So: you made a mistake. You lose the opportunity to talk to Studious. Sorry.
>>
No. 42970 ID: 35e1a0

if you shown some cracks or something on the crown in the second picture it would make it obvious they could hurt us. as is it looks like ineffective flailing.
>>
No. 42971 ID: b6edd6

I'm ok with it as a DM decision. It would be silly if the "CHARGE! FULL SPEED AHEAD" approach was consistently successful.

(Recklessness didn't even work all the time in TTGL, which literally ran on rule of cool.)
>>
No. 42972 ID: 1854db

>>352770
There is no movement. We were being grabbed.
>>
No. 42973 ID: 9c538a

So what, now we're a zombie ...crown? That doesn't even make sense. Where was the mention of how fae magic is specifically not necromancy? I agree with the outcome, but justifying it based on some tl;dr we didn't read? They were big black spiky fuckin' tentacles, some voices were ass fuckin' stupid, end of explanation. You don't have to additionally chide us for not knowing the particulars of how zombie magic differs from fae magic. We are not actually spirits trapped within a magic diadem who would deserve such a chiding, having extensive knowledge of that universe's physical laws.
>>
No. 42975 ID: 07416a

>>352769
You don't even need to explain. First time, we got a puzzle. Second time, we got some very very threatening images. We were warned, some people decided to be stupid anyways.
>>
No. 42986 ID: 1854db

>>352775
It turned out to be MOST of the suggestions that were stupid. This is a recent trend across the board that has been worrying me. Where are these new stupid people coming from? Are they really stupid or posting bad suggestions on purpose under the guise of stupidity?
>>
No. 43000 ID: 9c538a

>>352786

Yes, it must be new posters coming to the board. It's not possible that the the existing posters are becoming stupiderrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I lIeK pIe
>>
No. 43030 ID: 0f20c8

>>352769

Well, my only gripe with the whole shindig is that (as far as my, admittedly liberal, counting skills can tell) a majority of us wanted to talk to Studious before trying to delve into that hoary be-tentacled nether-realm that was keeping his soul bound.

But eh, it's all good. We've got enough irons in the fire without adding Studious' woes to them. Speaking to him might have explained some things (assuming we could get him to explain himself), but it's not like we're not in the habit of rushing blindly and blithely into things without thinking about them and their greater implications ANYWAY.
>>
No. 43039 ID: 2eac65

You know, I don't think it was ever mentioned that we could have run away.

Or done anything, really.

In fact, I'd guess that most of those "stay" responses were really saying "oh noes it's grabbing us, fight it off" rather than "don't run, we must stay and kill it, FOR HONOR AND JUSTICE".

Yeah, looking back at the votes, the only people who actually wanted to stay were myself and that tentacle fetishist guy.
>>
No. 43056 ID: 0ef5d9

>>352839
>that tentacle fetishist guy.

That's called irony, jim.
>>
No. 43632 ID: c095e3

So how's your arm, Jukashi? Getting better, I hope?
>>
No. 43887 ID: b1f0e2

>>353432
what happened to jukashi's arm?
>>
No. 43888 ID: 0d095c

>>353687
Tendonitis, I believe.
>>
No. 43889 ID: e3f578

for a second there I read and thought boneitis
>>
No. 43906 ID: 5bf190

>>353689
Not boneitis - boneidleness!

*ba-dum-tish*

To leave humour aside a moment, though, my arm is still not so great. It's sort of settled into a low level of discomfort that doesn't seem to be going away, so it's beginning to seem like I'm stuck with it.

I apologize for slacking on updates, but I can offer the excuse that I've returned to college this year, so I'm still settling all that.
>>
No. 43907 ID: d49627

What are you majoring in?
>>
No. 43914 ID: 2eac65

>>353706
Ah. That's... kind of depressing. I'm glad you're doing mostly alright, at least.

Want me to get some pictures for you? I can't draw, but I can search the Internet.
>>
No. 43954 ID: 4a2efc

>>353707
We don't use the same academic language here, but my main course is anthropology.

>>353714
Thanks, but s'aright.
>>
No. 43971 ID: 2eac65

Okay.

Because I haven't quite said it directly, I still think the necromancy thing was unfair. Even if there were hints as to which option to choose, there weren't any as to what our options were. It wasn't presented as a choice between "staying" and "going"; the only way we could have answered correctly was if someone correctly guessed which new function to use (which we did) and the majority, without knowing it was an option, agreed with it.
>>
No. 43972 ID: 8a552d

>>353771

If I may also speak directly, then, I'll say that it was not so much about knowing what option to choose and more about knowing what option to not choose. I had established previously that the crown was a broken thing, enslaved, and weak; against the Hand, in a situation in which it had an actual advantage by nature, in which it could perceive a path towards success, it still had to struggle to attain some manner of victory, by trickery and guile.

As the push was made to do the same thing against the necromancy, I indicated first that in this case there was not a system in place that could be worked through; it was just a mass of thorntacles, no puzzle or anything involved. There was nothing to talk to or figure out or outwit. I thought maybe that was unclear, however, so I went with another clue showing that whatever it was that was there, it was definitely overpowering you and nothing you were trying was working. Still the majority vote was to try somehow to fight.

The punishment was not for failing to flee, but for insisting on pushing onwards when there was no chance of success.
>>
No. 43973 ID: 35e1a0

it's mostly a difference between "oh god it grabbed us get it off" and "heh it ain't so tough kill it"

simply, no one knew we COULD flee, that once we entered into this realm we had to win to leave.
>>
No. 43974 ID: 8a552d

>>353773

Why would you think you couldn't leave, though?
>>
No. 43976 ID: f729ce

I think what we've got here is a failure to communicate. After crowntentacles.png, there are four (arguably five) votes for AAAAAAAA. If those posts were intended as votes for running away, then fighting wasn't the majority decision. Because there's no way of knowing what those posters meant, however, they were excluded from the tally. Next time, let's at least post things like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA RUN AWAY!"
>>
No. 43979 ID: b79855

>>353774
Matrix rules. If someone's grabbed you in the net, you can't escape until you pry them free.
>>
No. 43980 ID: 1854db

I think everyone would find that if they looked at the reactions to that final chance, it was STILL "heh we can take it". It wasn't "Oh god we can't run so let's fight".
>>
No. 43982 ID: 2563d4
File 131821314239.png - (78.62KB , 640x480 , this-is-why-scellor-have-such-bulked-up-wrists.png )
43982

>>353770
>With all these artists getting hurt
>>353706
>my arm is still not so great

"What, another one? Do we have to send a relief shipment of quoddles down there or something?"
>>
No. 43984 ID: 0c2309

I think Jukashi is the first artist to have gotten his arm hurt actually. You're such a trend setter!

I'm not sure about AAAAAA votes or anything, but the people saying stay definitely seemed to mostly be of the "Heh, we can take it" type to me.

I'm curious though, since you said that punishment was met out for not knowing what the wrong thing to choose was rather then not knowing the right thing, if there were things we could have done at that point other then RUN AWAY that could've worked. Like trying to turn to Studious for help or other unnamed things?
>>
No. 43985 ID: 5bf190

>>353784

The crown probably wouldn't have gotten broken if you'd asked Studious for help, yes.
>>
No. 44014 ID: 6fa1ef

I've noticed a number of suggesters seem bad at knowing when they're in over their head, or overall fond of charging headon into situations.
>>
No. 44017 ID: 2eac65

>>353772
>If I may also speak directly, then, I'll say that it was not so much about knowing what option to choose and more about knowing what option to not choose.
That's the same thing. Again, the it's not that the correct choice wasn't hinted at being correct, it's that the correct choice wasn't hinted at being possible.

>The punishment was not for failing to flee, but for insisting on pushing onwards when there was no chance of success.
We weren't insisting on continuing to fight instead of fleeing. The votes were mostly split between "get us away from it" and "get it away from us"; most of the people who said to fight were panicked and would most likely have fled if they had thought it was possible. If it had been presented as "Continue or flee?" instead of "AAAAAAAAAAAAAA" before the votes were categorized, the outcome would have been different.

I can't be sure of that, of course, but nearly everyone seemed of the mind to escape.

>>353774
Why would we think we could leave? We were dealing with previously-unknown magical effects with almost no explanation. And some of us did manage to guess it was possible, but it wasn't confirmed until it was too late.

>>353780
Let's see how it went.

>>/quest/346371
>Oh god ABORT INVESTIGATION!
No ambiguity here.

>>/quest/346374
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa
Seems like a clear "get away" reaction to me.

>>/quest/346383
>HOW IS IT RAPE WE HAVE NO HOLES AAAAAAA
Same here.

>>/quest/346399
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Same here.

>>/quest/346412
>AAAAAH! KILL IT WITH FIRE!
This one suggested to fight it off, but still seemed panicked. It appears to be a "get it away" reaction more than anything.

>>/quest/346437
>AAAAAAAAAA!
>KILL IT WITH MIND LASERS!
As above.

>>/quest/346440
>NO, USE MIND SCREAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Slightly more ambiguous, but still looks like he wants to get away.

>>/quest/346446
>I would like to add another vote for AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Again, screaming panic.

>>/quest/346447
>I vote instead for FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Again, screaming panic, again.

>>346451
>BURN THEM
>BURN THEM ALL
Aggressive and confident. That's one semi-clear "stay and fight".

>>/quest/346503
>Hi there! How are you doing? I'm guessing you're the primordial force of death, or something along those lines. How's that working out for you?
Okay, my vote could be counted as "stay". I'll admit that.

>>/quest/346710
>IT'S RAPING OUR SOUL!
This does not sound like someone who wants to stay.

>>/quest/347075
>runrunrunrurn
That was pretty clear.

>>/quest/347212
>oh murr, bring it on.
>can't rape the willing.jpg
That's another obvious "stay".

>>/quest/347275
>Wake up.
I don't know about this one. It's sort of like fleeing, so he'd probably have chosen that if he thought it was an option.

>>/quest/347398
>HACK AND SLASH!
Well, that's pretty clear.

>>/quest/347587
>...aborting sounds sensible and reasonable (reduced for length)
That's another "flee".

>>/quest/347754
>[give it a couple seconds, then if nothing interesting happens, wriggle our way out]
This one confuses me. It depends on how long "a couple seconds" is in rape-time.

So out of all those, we have:

3 direct "flee" votes
1 "wake up"
1 "wait a bit, then leave"
6 people who just panicked
3 people who panicked and wanted to fight it off
2 people who just wanted to fight
1 person wanted to talk
1 person wanted tentacle sex

It depends on how you categorize them, but there were over a dozen people who expressed discomfort with the situation, and about five who didn't. If the option to flee had been apparent, I believe it would almost certainly have been chosen.
>>
No. 44027 ID: b1f0e2

>>353782
what is a quoddles?
>>
No. 44044 ID: e1ddd6

>>353827

First description of quoddles, in ITQ 5:
>>340227

(I wonder if the Scellor made them.)
>>
No. 44063 ID: b1f0e2

>>353844
Thanks.
And, dawww!
>>
No. 44372 ID: b1f0e2

can we try eating the fragments that keep the chains of each individual we meet? I think we could gain in power by doing so.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason