(12-14-2015, 04:57 PM)Yssen Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 04:33 PM)Vyce Wrote: Breaking lore intentionally is more harmful to YOU than to others.

It makes you WILLFULLY IGNORANT, which is a terrible, terrible thing to be.

RationalWiki Wrote:Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.
It differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ — which just means that one is unaware of something — in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them.

Like everyone who kept saying you cannot RP DRGs over and over, even after the Heavensward trailer came out show many of them, in AF, with Gae Bolgs? Or that people often gloss over the fact that we have been told by the main lore dev/guru, Koji Fox that there is another way to get at White Magic that is nefarious? Or any other bit of Jobby Job in Heavensward that has started becoming openly trained in places? (Leaving that one vague for now because spoilers.)

One can break lore just as easily by denying things that are out there in favor of their accepted/preferred world view. Saying one type of player is doing that, while another type is not is a silly statement. Particularly when we exist in a state where we do not know everything and can made out to be wrong down the line. Yar.

(12-14-2015, 04:33 PM)Vyce Wrote: Breaking lore intentionally is more harmful to YOU than to others.

It makes you WILLFULLY IGNORANT, which is a terrible, terrible thing to be.

(12-14-2015, 04:33 PM)Vyce Wrote: Breaking lore intentionally is more harmful to YOU than to others.

It makes you WILLFULLY IGNORANT, which is a terrible, terrible thing to be.

RationalWiki Wrote:Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.
It differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ — which just means that one is unaware of something — in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them.

(12-14-2015, 12:50 PM)Vyce Wrote: No it isn't. And RPing in a gray area with headcanon is vastly different from RPing against concrete lore.

(12-14-2015, 05:05 PM)Oli! Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 04:57 PM)Yssen Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 04:33 PM)Vyce Wrote: Breaking lore intentionally is more harmful to YOU than to others.

It makes you WILLFULLY IGNORANT, which is a terrible, terrible thing to be.

RationalWiki Wrote:Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias.
It differs from the standard definition of “ignorance“ — which just means that one is unaware of something — in that willfully ignorant people are fully aware of facts, resources and sources, but refuse to acknowledge them.

Like everyone who kept saying you cannot RP DRGs over and over, even after the Heavensward trailer came out show many of them, in AF, with Gae Bolgs? Or that people often gloss over the fact that we have been told by the main lore dev/guru, Koji Fox that there is another way to get at White Magic that is nefarious? Or any other bit of Jobby Job in Heavensward that has started becoming openly trained in places? (Leaving that one vague for now because spoilers.)

One can break lore just as easily by denying things that are out there in favor of their accepted/preferred world view. Saying one type of player is doing that, while another type is not is a silly statement. Particularly when we exist in a state where we do not know everything and can made out to be wrong down the line. Yar.

This tangent is mostly off topic anyway, but it's worth noting that there's a difference between being right in retrospect, and actively ignoring current rules or evidence. The lore changes, and what's wrong today can be right tomorrow, and we all adapt in order to suit that. However, if someone, such as the OP, asks a question within the current framework of the lore, that question must be asked within that framework, regardless of the possibility of future change.

(12-14-2015, 05:32 PM)V Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 12:50 PM)Vyce Wrote: No it isn't. And RPing in a gray area with headcanon is vastly different from RPing against concrete lore.

I'm afraid this statement carries no value in a community that neither knows nor can collectively decide upon what constitutes "concrete lore". Some say that anything present in the game is canon, some say flavor text is never canon, some say 1.0 lore is canon and some say it isnt. This is compounded by the fact that we don't know the totality of the lore (only the devs do). Some take the world as being literally presented, others presume that settlements exist beyond what we are shown in game.

What do you personally define as concrete lore?

(12-14-2015, 05:39 PM)Teadrinker Wrote: I think is more your personal observation or interpretation of the truth rather than the truth and not worth discussing.

(12-14-2015, 05:34 PM)Yssen Wrote: But the current frame work of the lore, even as it applies to this exact question, is all based on speculation. Despite that, we have people cherry picking their answers to support their point of view. Barely anyone has touched on the "nefarious" method (which we admittedly do not have details about) as being possible. How is denying the methods existence, when it came straight from Koji-Fox's mouth at a panel over a year old, not willful ignornace? We cannot have a full conversation on what is possible and what falls with in the boundaries of lore when we are cherry picking arguments based on the same amount of speculation as everyone else. The polite warnings of what is and is not lore acceptable, all come from the same, cherry picked, speculative argument. That is bad on it's face, to say nothing of the judgements against those that have a differing opinion. That is more than half of what I see here, and that is really really sad. We deny what could be possible (and is possible, based on the same amount of speculation), sack story potential, and deny creativity based on the idea that the hats are green or yellow. It will probably turn out that that hats are actually red, in the end.

This would probably not bother me near as much, if people did not use the same speculation and lore diligence in some of the examples I mentioned above to come to a conclusion. They got shame, shade, venom, and such all heaped on them with out a lick of apology or "whoops i was wrong."

(12-14-2015, 05:50 PM)Oli! Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 05:34 PM)Yssen Wrote: But the current frame work of the lore, even as it applies to this exact question, is all based on speculation. Despite that, we have people cherry picking their answers to support their point of view. Barely anyone has touched on the "nefarious" method (which we admittedly do not have details about) as being possible. How is denying the methods existence, when it came straight from Koji-Fox's mouth at a panel over a year old, not willful ignornace? We cannot have a full conversation on what is possible and what falls with in the boundaries of lore when we are cherry picking arguments based on the same amount of speculation as everyone else. The polite warnings of what is and is not lore acceptable, all come from the same, cherry picked, speculative argument. That is bad on it's face, to say nothing of the judgements against those that have a differing opinion. That is more than half of what I see here, and that is really really sad. We deny what could be possible (and is possible, based on the same amount of speculation), sack story potential, and deny creativity based on the idea that the hats are green or yellow. It will probably turn out that that hats are actually red, in the end.

This would probably not bother me near as much, if people did not use the same speculation and lore diligence in some of the examples I mentioned above to come to a conclusion. They got shame, shade, venom, and such all heaped on them with out a lick of apology or "whoops i was wrong."

To my knowledge, no one was "cherry-picking," and no one failed to acknowledge the presence of said method in their argument; I even did so in one of my posts.

However, our lack of information on it, compounded with its lack of presence within the game at this time, mean that very little can be done with it in this regard.

Personal viewpoints on how people have handled being wrong in the past, additionally, have no bearing on the actual argument of living and operating within present lore. The OP asked their question specifically within what we definitively know, by their own choosing. As a result, we can only give an answer within what we definitively know. Doing otherwise would be a disservice to them and their question.

(12-14-2015, 06:19 PM)Yssen Wrote: That does not mean that they are not free to speculate and draw their own conclusion, but I still see warnings that imply largely being ignored if they do so. When the same thing keeps happening whenever someone asks the same question, it does have bearing on the matter at hand. Just because you personally, I, and some others mentioned the nefarious method does not mean that people did not completely ignore it being a thing. 

Further, it is a disservice to warn someone against a course of action when the reasons basis for coming to that conclusion are just as speculative as the ones for it. You seem to not quite understand exactly what I am talking about here, so I will clarify. I am for the building up of what is possible, and potentially good story/RP. Not the outright denial of the possible in favor of what is simply popularly held speculation and best guess. Just because more people believe a thing, does not make it true, or the dissenting opinion untrue. I argue that since we must accept that we do not know everything. That sense all we can do is give popular speculation and best guesses, our definition on what must is or is not possible must be "does it make good story/RP for one to do so." Denying it on the basis of "that is the lore" cannot be done, simply because none of us know (or agree) on what any of that is 100%. To do otherwise is to simply become a venomous echo chamber, which is something we have all seen happen over and over. Yar.

(12-14-2015, 05:46 PM)V Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 05:39 PM)Teadrinker Wrote: I think is more your personal observation or interpretation of the truth rather than the truth and not worth discussing.

I'll offer you the same question then: what constitutes "concrete lore"?

(12-14-2015, 06:35 PM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: I'll offer an example in support of Ms. V - strictly speaking, as far as I'm aware there's no reason explicitly stated by any NPC in the game for us to believe that our characters require sleep or food on any recurring real-world-similar basis, but people choose to "fill in the gap" with what they decide is right. That is to say, we decide as players that because it's familiar to us, and beds and food do exist in the setting, clearly characters must sleep about 8 hours a day and eat three times a day just like we do in the real world.

A totally strict lore purist might note that nowhere in Eorzea do we encounter a toilet, and therefore from the perspective of total lore, our characters never need to go to the bathroom. Presumably, whatever they eat is simply used in entirety by their bodies. Or, since we have no evidence of our characters even having a two-opening digestive system, perhaps there aren't any toilets in Eorzea because what comes out emerges the same way it went in (and there are plenty of real-world creatures whose digestive systems work this way, so this isn't especially far-fetched). Yet players assume that our characters "do their business" just like we would in real life, because that's a gray area that we fill in on our own.

There are apparently children in the lore, and reproduction, etc. But we have no specific evidence that this occurs in the same way as real world reproduction, because "at most naked" all we can see is underwear. For all we know, humanoids in this setting reproduce by budding. Still, everyone assumes the Eorzean genitals are similar to the real world, and people go about their ERP accordingly.

The point here is the same one Ms. V was trying to express - in any MMO setting there are always areas where the setting doesn't specifically say either way, and so the players are left to either BS their way through areas of it, or, maybe, extrapolate in debatable ways from what information does exist and might be arguably - but not definitively - relevant to the topic at hand.

(12-14-2015, 06:56 PM)Oli! Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 06:35 PM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote: I'll offer an example in support of Ms. V - strictly speaking, as far as I'm aware there's no reason explicitly stated by any NPC in the game for us to believe that our characters require sleep or food on any recurring real-world-similar basis, but people choose to "fill in the gap" with what they decide is right. That is to say, we decide as players that because it's familiar to us, and beds and food do exist in the setting, clearly characters must sleep about 8 hours a day and eat three times a day just like we do in the real world.

A totally strict lore purist might note that nowhere in Eorzea do we encounter a toilet, and therefore from the perspective of total lore, our characters never need to go to the bathroom. Presumably, whatever they eat is simply used in entirety by their bodies. Or, since we have no evidence of our characters even having a two-opening digestive system, perhaps there aren't any toilets in Eorzea because what comes out emerges the same way it went in (and there are plenty of real-world creatures whose digestive systems work this way, so this isn't especially far-fetched). Yet players assume that our characters "do their business" just like we would in real life, because that's a gray area that we fill in on our own.

There are apparently children in the lore, and reproduction, etc. But we have no specific evidence that this occurs in the same way as real world reproduction, because "at most naked" all we can see is underwear. For all we know, humanoids in this setting reproduce by budding. Still, everyone assumes the Eorzean genitals are similar to the real world, and people go about their ERP accordingly.

The point here is the same one Ms. V was trying to express - in any MMO setting there are always areas where the setting doesn't specifically say either way, and so the players are left to either BS their way through areas of it, or, maybe, extrapolate in debatable ways from what information does exist and might be arguably - but not definitively - relevant to the topic at hand.

I'm not Teadrinker so I'm not sure how he's trying to go at this, but just from reading, there are two ways that this can be thought of / handled, in my mind.

(12-14-2015, 07:06 PM)Teadrinker Wrote: I'm...not trying to go at this.

I actually said it's not worth discussing and left it.

(12-14-2015, 06:25 PM)Oli! Wrote:

(12-14-2015, 06:19 PM)Yssen Wrote: That does not mean that they are not free to speculate and draw their own conclusion, but I still see warnings that imply largely being ignored if they do so. When the same thing keeps happening whenever someone asks the same question, it does have bearing on the matter at hand. Just because you personally, I, and some others mentioned the nefarious method does not mean that people did not completely ignore it being a thing. 

Further, it is a disservice to warn someone against a course of action when the reasons basis for coming to that conclusion are just as speculative as the ones for it. You seem to not quite understand exactly what I am talking about here, so I will clarify. I am for the building up of what is possible, and potentially good story/RP. Not the outright denial of the possible in favor of what is simply popularly held speculation and best guess. Just because more people believe a thing, does not make it true, or the dissenting opinion untrue. I argue that since we must accept that we do not know everything. That sense all we can do is give popular speculation and best guesses, our definition on what must is or is not possible must be "does it make good story/RP for one to do so." Denying it on the basis of "that is the lore" cannot be done, simply because none of us know (or agree) on what any of that is 100%. To do otherwise is to simply become a venomous echo chamber, which is something we have all seen happen over and over. Yar.

There is no disservice to answering "No" to their stated question, because the fact of the matter is, there is nothing within the game that is not conjecture on our part that points to the answer being a "Yes." It is not a "warning," it is an answer to a yes or no question.

It's great that you're for the building of possibility and such. But, as I have stated, that is not what the OP has asked for. If the OP came in and said something along the lines of, "I don't care what the lore says; give me avenues for creating a White Mage," then that sort of mentality would have a place in an answer offered to them. However, the OP asked, "does the lore we have say this is possible?" Which is an entirely different question, with an entirely different answer.

Regarding the idea of an echo chamber, we have to realize that such a thing goes in both directions. Believe it or not, there are people out there who prefer to stick to the lore rather than go with whatever possibilities they like not because they are "elitists" or bullied into doing it or some such, but because they in fact find that a ruleset makes their roleplay more enjoyable.

If this is the case, then if we truly care about neutrality, and upholding people's decisions to play in whatever ways that they want, then we shouldn't be forcing "freedom" on them if that's not what they care for. It's a two-way street; just as forcing lore onto people can be seen as wrong, forcing lore away from people can be seen as equally unfavorable. We must therefore act within the system that those asking have put forth, which, in this case, is stated lore.