Verad

But would you say they're great? Indeed. When will we stop overreaching and settle for the goodsword?

How about we discard the business of historicity entirely and look at this from another angle than one that has been and will be looked at by embittered roleplay autodidacts throughout RP history: thematically, rather than historically, why the greatsword? Presuming people do know the history of the greatsword and that it was a specific weapon for a specific role, and then they choose to have their character wield it in complete defiance of that knowledge, why would they do that? Is it possible that the greatsword has acquired a a kind of thematic and symbolic weight that has nothing at all to do with its historical use? Why is that thematic weight insignificant compared to historically accurate portrayals of its use, or why should it be that? Mod Edit: Pruned some posts, one of which was quoted here. Edit was in order to preserve discussion. ~ Melkire

You did. You asked everyone. Rhetorical questions are doomed online. More to the point, it is possible to care about weapons, to be interested in the historical use of weapons, and still not give a damn about the realistic portrayal of weapons according to their historical uses in works of fiction. The inevitable appearance of the well-actuallys and discussion around what would happen all things being equal between two historical weapons (things are never equal where they have not been made numerically equal by a dice system) in any thread mentioning weapons to any significant degree makes the arguments tiresome and the arguers pedantic. I find these arguments especially interesting because the fiction in the times and places where the usage of these weapons was actually relevant didn't give as much of a damn as we do. When Sir Gowther in the romance bearing his name made a giant falchion for himself and went rampaging around the countryside burning down nunneries and engaging in general un-Christian naughtiness, the narrative didn't pause to consider anything but the thematic implications of a nasty low-class weapon like a falchion, and not, say, its efficacy against a person bearing a shield. And Gowther is unusual in its emphasis on that weapon - half the time the people engaging in mass slaughter against characters who are eight-feet tall for no good reason are just using a sword, never mind what kind. We fuss about this more than the writers who lived in these periods and were writing fantastical narratives. So why wouldn't we use lightsabers if we don't care about realism? Because they're not aesthetically interesting to some players. Efficacy has nothing to with it, the same way that really we should all be converting to Machinist as quickly as possible. The people who are converting to it like the style and how it fits their character concept rather than efficacy. So too with DRK. So here's what will actually happen, in connection with the OP: A number of people are going to convert to DRK all at once because it's the new tank class and they just have to try it. Some of them will make it an RP thing, but not everybody. Then some people will decide they don't like the playstyle of the class and they'll switch back. It won't have much to do with the reality of the weapons and the portrayal thereof.

I guess it's a good thing I mentioned that I know this is Final Fantasy at least three times isn't it? Besides, if we're not basing weapons and combat on the basis of reality, which we are and so does SE for that matter, then let's just all wield lightsabers and lock s-foils in attack positions? Or can we keep talking about weapons and realism and how that pertains to fantasy? No.

There does seem to be a bit of the sovereign citizen logic involved there, whereby the legalistic is treated as being synonymous with authority.

If I may neatly sidestep the business of American history, check the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslavkia for a useful example of a peaceful transition. Also note the rarity of the peacefulness of the transition, and that its peaceful nature was spurred by the standing government seeing the writing on the wall with regards to the collapse of the Soviet bloc. Plzno.

The expression and interpretation thereof varies, and varies greatly. How they vary tell us a great deal more than the essentialist bits.

Hasn't Ul'dah always been cloak and dagger? :-X I mean in a more general sense than FFXIV. Otto's right that many of the big, talked-about pieces of media of late tend to involve politics and double-dealing and treachery therein.

I'd read it!

Yes. These things tend to be popular lately. Limsa could work, but Otto's style of economic warfare won't be as solid in a place where people are inclined to just kill you and take your stuff and make it look like the vessel carrying your goods was a Garlean ship.

I think this is something of an unspoken double-standard that's applied to ERP, this notion that it's all right when done for character growth. It's not one we apply with any great frequency to clean roleplay, and there are a number of times where players engage in what are frankly mundanities - chatting at the Quicksand, for example - in ways that don't foster character growth. I can tell you that there is a marked absence of character development when I have Verad selling dubious goods at the QS, and in that case the point isn't to foster his own development but just to provide something fun to which other characters can react, nor do I put much stock in whether they experience any significant growth from interacting with him. Further, there are a number of players who attend the Grindstone regularly, but aren't necessarily going through character development because of it. The RP fight in and of itself is the point. So, then, for some the ERP is the point of the ERP. There is pleasure to be gained from it. Some of it is definitely sexual satisfaction. I don't think people should be shamed for that, although perhaps they should be more upfront about that purpose to find other likeminded people and help those who are uncomfortable with it choose to fade-to-black or avoid entirely. But I certainly don't think it's a problem because it doesn't foster character development or anything. RP doesn't in general. Setting that aside, it's possible for an ERP-heavy storyline to address issues of sex and sexuality quite frankly, but I don't think many people are playing for that sake. If somebody's writing Story of O or adapting Nymphomaniac in Eorzea, I don't know of it.

I'd rather play Atelier Ayesha and pretend Verad is a moe animu girl in a cute dress. Edit: Just looked up Reccetear and... oh. To be fair, he is pretty moe.

Okay, adding as people indicate. Reiner, Artemis, please contact me next time you're online so I can add you to the LS. Also, let me know if you'd like to try using the sheet and roll system we have or if you'd like to simply freeform it. Either is fine!

Things I look for: Be stylistically interesting. This goes beyond word choice; RPers, like a lot of writers in general, have taken the old chestnuts of writing advice from the late-19th/early-20th century to heart. This means a lot of RPers who are writing in a sort of quasi-Modernist fashion, which is fine if one is intentionally going for that. But I like to see people playing with narration, sentence structures, and rhythm in a way that reflects on their character beyond authentic depictions thereof. Fill out the little corners of the world. I'm very happy with RP concepts that examine the implications of lore in ways beyond the obvious; such characters help round out the setting. Dice. I've situated myself pretty nicely in this regard so I don't really require it from people anymore, not that I ever required it in the past. But I like the controlled unpredictability afforded by a good dice system. An existentialist approach to characters and decision-making. You control your character; saying "But my character wouldn't do that!" as if they have agency over you rather than vice-versa feels like roleplaying in bad faith. It's fine if you don't want a character to do thing X because you've laid out clear boundaries for what your character will and won't do, but acknowledge that you've laid them out.

because the roleplay in and of itself would be different. Taking Kale as an example. If he had been from Ishgard, he would most likely have been an Elezen/midlander, Xenophobic, maybe a dragoon (little d). That changes the way that the character would interact with others, beyond just his base personality. And I'm suggesting that his "base" personality is changed far more significantly by what he is than what he claims.

As another example, waaaay back before I introduced Verad in his current state to the RPC and was just dipping my toe into the RP community, he was a young Midlander rather than an elderly Duskwight. The differences in both how he behaved and in player reactions were profound, and I hadn't even really begun fleshing out the character. Changing him to what he is now had a huge impact despite being fundamentally the same concept.

The farther this goes, the less reason you have to play your character. This is not a general you. This is a specific, Kale-centric, you. You do not need to play an officer of the Immortal Flames, or a member of the military in general. These are outward trappings. It is Kale's character that makes them interesting. You do not need to play a gladiator or somebody trained as such for the same reason. It is the personality that counts. Likewise, none of us need to play in a setting that relies on magic, exotic races, or fantasy in general. Why can we not ignore these trappings? It's our character that makes our characters interesting. This is the same argument that disparages fantasy and places value only in realist fiction. Why are we using it for this? For the life of me, I can not find any spot to re-insert myself into that behemoth (or steaming pile of shit depending how you look at it) thread I created. However, this quote has actually been another discussion I've been meaning to start. I'm not going to go on a spiel about it because I think people basically get the general idea of it. To use Verad's example of my character, he is right. I actually play him according to an ESTJ type as a guideline, and this is not contingent on anything existing in the game world. A no-nonsense, upfront, diligent communitarian. If I inserted Kale as an Ishgardian knight, a Lominsan naval captain, a Gridanian ranger, or a Garlean centurion, he would be exactly the same. He would express his views in the same manner, but it was just be tailored according to his nation of origin. It would still be in the same vein of "you are part of a greater whole" either way. I feel this is a core aspect of character building. "My character is an Ul'dahn Sultansworn/Ishgardian Dragoon/etc". No, let's not do that. Let's boil down our characters to the most generic level that they could exist in any fictional setting. "My character is paternalistic and society-oriented worker soldier", or something (even soldier might be too specific!). I feel everyone will come up with greater characters if they look at who their character is first, and what their character does second. The thing is, this is not how a lot of people actually view one's personality as being constructed. Character-as-intrinsic isn't often seen as being as important as character-as-construct in which your character would not be in the same vein based on their origins. See my earlier post in the thread. Edit: Annnnd I just realized this is another thread entirely. All right, let me stretch this a bit. The thing of it is, if the character is going to be the same no matter what, why bother making him any of these things? If they have no impact on the character, what purpose is there in including them? If your character can be condensed down to a single personality type, then playing the essence of that personality type is character enough. However, I gather that would be unsatisfactory in some form. Otherwise, why didn't you do it?

Part 7: Topple the Scales (Note: If you haven't, check the IC thread for some recent goings-ons in the city, here. Artwork compliments of the talented Misha Jinhri.) Open Events 1. A Dragon's Shadow - Fufuyu Fuyu, the crazed cartwright of a few moons back, has been slain. Publicly, violently, and with the symbol of the dragon's scales left by his corpse. Attacks on other low-ranking Monetarists, however unsuccessful, have also been reported. Law enforcement may wish to review the evidence of the crime; adventurers may wish to hire themselves out to desperate Monetarists as security in the hopes of catching the perpetrators. (This is a fairly broad event, and the course of it can be dictated by who signs up and what they would like to do.) 1. Haruko Kokojo 2. 3. 4. 2. In the Land of the Blind The No-Eyed Man is Still King - The No-Eyed Man has resumed his public harangues, but they have taken on an increasingly desperate character. The public is being agitated not just to distrust, but to outright violence against the potential Dravanian threat. This is bad news for any unfortunate Ishgardians in the city. See if one of his meetings can be calmed down, and reason restored. 1. Enju Abbagliato 2. Kale Aideron 3. Klinzahr Ihrnachtwyn 4. Proactive Events 1. In Pursuit of the Steward - Kyrael Astares is a bit cross about the whole business of getting severely beaten and sold to Dravanians by Didino Dino's butler of all people. In light of this, and in light of Roderic Gerchon's apparent role in orchestrating the relic problems which have persisted through moons, he must be eliminated. But how to find, isolate, and defeat him without bringing down the wrath of the Dino estate? 1. Kyrael Astares 2. V'aleera Lhuil 3. Leggerless Hanzou (Lynx) 4. 2. Tears Fall - The risk of leaving the remaining Wyrmtears untouched is too great; on the other hand, the risk of shattering them and summoning the wrath of the Horde is equally dangerous. Orrin Halgren has a plan - shatter them outside of the city and meet what comes head on. 1. Orrin Halgren 2. V'aleera Lhuil 3. Coatleque Crofte 4. Anstarra Silverain 5. Evangeline Primrose 3. A Dubious Delegation - Verad Bellveil received an ultimatum from Blades Sergeant Malin Greaves of Highbridge: Turn himself in for his role in unleashing the relics on the city or be evicted by the Goblet Housing Authority. He has weaseled out of this through the power of people wiser than he and the magic of Ul'dahn property law. He has decided to explain this to Malin directly, however. People will probably want to be on hand to keep him from being beaten to death, and in the hopes that she can be persuaded to give up her pursuit. 1. Verad Bellveil 2. Kiht Jakkya 3. Roen Deneith 4. Nihka Mioni

[align=center]Over the last few days, the following image, drawn on cheap parchment, can be seen plastered around the city and streets of Ul'dah:[/align] [align=center] [/align] [align=center]No signs or wordings accompany the image. Some of them are torn down if they are placed in unauthorized locations, but some remain.[/align] [align=center]On occasion, the following words are painted on city-streets, intermingled with other local graffiti:[/align] [align=center]Topple the Scales[/align]

Well, I can't claim all the credit. I was given some excellent models in the thread. Standing on the shoulders of giants and so-forth.

We recognize that some players have limited imaginations, and will roleplay with them regardless of their ability to believe in things.

Top tier. Obviously.

No, no I really don't know for sure why people do this. What is the source of your insight?

This is fine. There is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong with unusual characters, or characters that toe the setting line. The problem is that the Tragedy of the Commons does not inherently harm RP, and sometimes people grapple with that.

This is not quite what I mean. Partly, I think there is a much wider range of "realistic" responses than most players. Realistically, people are often bizarre and irrational, yet such actions are often seen as being unrealistic. When I say "realist fiction" I mean an aesthetic drive to display life "as it is" for whatever metric of "as it is" one might have. In this regard, the trappings of fantasy settings - all the aether, the various races, the politics, the melodramatic plots, so on - are very much not life "as it is" because they are things that don't actually exist. My point here is that to criticize unusual race/nationality/class/whatever combinations for being unrealistic or somehow "inauthentic" in a largely fictional environment full of things that, while inspired, perhaps, by real-world cultures, don't actually exist, is to complain about the speck in one's eye while ignoring the plank in your own. If one takes the argument to its conclusion, then the mere act of RPing in a fantasy culture is itself inauthentic, to continue to use the OP's term. RPers have merely tared out that they are playing in an inauthentic environment for any number of reasons for the sake of whatever character concept they have in mind. It also makes me question why we desire authenticity in our characters when I'm not sure we could come to a consensus about what authenticity in a fantastic setting might be. Or perhaps this is just using "authenticity" when the desired term is verisimilitude. Edit because I can't stop talking: I think my other problem is the notion of "Your character matters first" is that it presumes that a character's, well, character, is somehow separate from the circumstances that produced the character. Take out the race/class combination issue - it's presuming that a character's upbringing and nationality somehow do not affect a character's personality. Somebody growing up poor would have the same character as somebody growing up rich, somebody growing up in a happy home would be the same as if they grew up in a broken home. It's an argument that's pretty heavy on the "nature" side of the good old nature v. nurture debate. But we know that it's not entirely true, and that while there are some intrinsic personality traits, that upbringing influences character. So it is with race and class, especially of an unusual nature. These things influence and affect who a character is and how they behave, changing their character, and thereby making them interesting.