Gaspard

and whu exactly cant you leave it open? Also, you didnt truly answer warrens question. If my character befriends another character based on the relatipnship with character c, yet character c is retconned, then my friendship with that character. or in other words. Roleplaying is like building a house of cards. Each stacks ontop of another and just shifting the lower cards makes it all collapse.

You're taking to specific examples now. But I'll try to elaborate each; In regards to the Relationship example; If you have two players, from which one drops off the radar, and they have a relationship going, you don't have to Retcon anything. The player is gone, therefore you can have your character simply say 'I've not seen him since (insert time here).' Take it Icly. The Character vanished, therefore the love has been abandoned, therefore the other character can continue playing from the relationship having ended up broken because the other character suddenly dissappeared over night. Keeps everyones story going with no Retcon involved. As for the leveling to 50, changing names bit; Those are game mechanics. Askier has done a wonderful example of how you can switch things up, and moreso how your ingame presentation =/= your character. Your overhead name can be 'James Castiel', and you can still be playing 'Victor Harness', by switching up the appearance. Also, it is 'not' obnoxious to want people to play by the same rules. What is obnoxious is assuming everyone has to take heed and care to your personal 'feelings', because you don't 'like your character anymore'. You restarting your character in order to have a better experience affects exactly one person. Yourself. You're dealing with your own problem. Retconning because you don't want to re-level/use the same base model/don't want to use fantasia creates a problem for various people, case in point 'everyone' who's played with you so far. That is the definition of Egoism. Before I have to deal with my problem, I'd rather just ignore it/retcon it and make it a problem for everyone else. This has nothing to do with being inconsiderate towards other players. Infact, being against Retcon means the opposite. You care for the roleplay you do, and others have, and would rather sacrifice your own character then to disrupt the RP environment/flow/story-telling because you right now 'just don't feel your character'. The only instance in which Retcon should be, in any way justified is if the roleplay was based on faulty information to begin with, or any godmodding/metagaming/ other RP breaking things have been done. So to make it short: Making a new character makes it a problem for 'one' person: You. You feel your chars not up to par, you make a new one. Retconning makes it a problem for far more people. Because you don't want to go through the work, everyone elses story has to suffer. Also, I think it's important to define Retcon again. Retcon is about ignoring/changing aspects of your character/the story. It is not having your character move on from a broken storyline that's not going anywhere.

Sure, it isn't their character. But what you write isn't YOUR story. It is the story of those that you involve yourself with and your own. You can freely choose to have your character act the way you want to, play him the way you want to, but from the moment onwards you involve him with others and thus write a story 'WITH' them, it ceases to be only your property. The details of your character and actions become part of other people stories aswell. The moment you retcon at that point you're not just changing your story, you're changing the story of others aswell, perhaps even against their wishes. If I for example choose to villify your character for his actions, have talks and plays based on those actions, and you decide to retcon it, you not only retcon your own actions, but also all the play I've based on 'your' actions. So in essence; You have all the right to play your character as you want to. It is your Character, You've 'created' him. However; You do NOT have the right to alter the SHARED Story you've written with others (In other words Roleplayed), just because it suits you better. This has nothing to do with Character ownership. You're dismantling a SHARED story to your own benefit.

Grumpy mindreading abilities based on a hairlock of roman reigns. or; just tell us?

Well, there could be an argument made that Law enforcers have absolutely no place in Bars during duty, especially Sultansworn, and that the Ingame mapping of Eorzea isn't truly fit to emulate a 'real city', given it's small size. The Flames office might very well be half a district away from the Quicksand, if not for the ingame limitations of depicting a city-fortress. At the same time however I agree with the Open, antagonistic forces bit. In almost 'every' story, your typical antagonist/villain is forced to secrecy in public in regards to his doings, and once this secrecy is blown, they're forced into obscurity and out of the public view. There's a reason Villains in stories take to alter-egos and masks, simply because without them, with their true identity exposed, their villainy in broad-daylight, they would draw the vengeance of the morally sound characters in a heartbeat.

This has nothing to do with Conformism or Rebellion. You're applying socio-economic motivations towards Roleplaying. Roleplaying never is an individualistic, 'I make my own char, everything else doesn't matter, and everyone who thinks else can bite me because I see it that way' game. Roleplaying is based on teamwork and playing in a cohesive, synchronized world for all players. This implies, and also demands that all adhere to the same rules/guidelines/settings, which for roleplayers largely is 'the lore', aside from behavioral rules such as 'no godmodding/metagaming'. Most times, roleplayers don't stick to the lore to be no-fun fudgecakes. It is to ensure everyone can play with everyone, and because it avoids 'alot' of issues that may rise ahead. The first example I can agree on. Asfar I recall, the Lore never explicitly hinted at the Sultansworns nature. Some people have pulled the argument of likening it to the 'American Secret Service', Which operates outside of simply body-guarding the president, but the Sultansworn may be just glorified bodyguards, who's duties truly never exceed sitting around the sultanas palace. But I'm too uninormed lore wise on that part. Though, should it be the case that all instances of Sultansworn presented shows them as 'only bodyguards/around the sultanas' palace, then yes, the people playing sultansworn in that fashion have taken liberties they're trying to deny you now, IF it's those people you feel criticized by. The latter example doesn't work. A closed Musketeer Guild (Thus, a faction), Does not in the slightest imply that the weapon (A Musket), was outlawed or banned or removed from Markets, nor that the knowledge of how to operate a musket has been lost. It would be akin to saying that, once the Gladiators Guild would shut down, people would forget how to use a sword over the years. 'Rebrushing' and changing your characters background isn't considered improving. It's called Retconning. So while writers may do that, Roleplayers generally strive away from it for reasons mentioned multiple times in other topics. If you want new and challenging, create a new and challenging character to play. Don't Retcon your established character to fit your current..desire. Unless it happens in a character-development arc that does not involve retconning. If you want a new and challenging edge, make a new character that is new and challenging to play. Don't hack and patch up your current character to fit your current flavor. Now to your EDIT: bit, Steve Jobs was in the business of selling products to customers. His sense of Creativity and innovation reffered to productive and quality of life products, to sell. When roleplaying, you're not selling a product for others to buy. Different concepts of Creativity and productivity at work. Moreso, one can argue that IT-developers aren't artists but engineers. Different values at work. Moreso, wanting to play a Samura/Ninja from an unexplained / undefined Culture in no way is creative, nor are the Sub-tropes Samurai/Ninja. They're perhaps less present and popular amongst the roleplayers at this time (Specifically through the lack of information), and the creative nature of Roleplaying does not rest in breaking Lore and character-forms and logics to create a 'flashing' unique character, but to create unique untold stories through a team-effort with other characters and writers. Again, Roleplaying is not about individualistic fulfillment through being the most unique/unplayed person ever to grace the community, It's about the stories these characters write and tell with other characters. That being said; I've played more of a devils advocate in this post. I personally do not mind characters from Othard/Doma, or other peoples desire to have 'special' characters and/or imbue some of their more favorite tropes into their characters. But I find it important that these people don't dillude themselves in selling it as a higher-form of more interesting, creative characters. You add those details for your own individualistic reasons, in spite of it becoming perhaps a burden on what I would call the 'shared world' all roleplayers partake in. You can do that, but atleast make sure that your character is then balanced/written out well enough so that he doesn't become a burden on that environment, but rather an addition. And in order to do that, you 'must' make your character lore compliant, and any unique additions you wish to instill. Aslong you make sure your characters plausible in the limitations of the lore, what you play and add is plausible in the lore, and it doesn't stand in stark opposition, it is fine. But don't straight-out ignore potential future issues out of personal convenience because you want to do X or Y.

If you refuse to disclose your characters background, not because 'your character wouldn't, but because you simply can't since you lack that knowledge OOCly, you allow your characters actions to be motivated purely on OOC basis. In that sense, you might be breaking your own character without even realizing it. A counter-example; If your character establishes trust and becomes involved with another, wherein secrecy becomes an issue, and you're meant to disclose things like that, but simply can't out of OOC reasons, what will you do then? That's where the logic of secrecy based on OOC ignorance comes to a halt rather swiftly. That being said, no, you should be able to create a Doman/Othard character. But at this point, with the information that we 'do' have, it is smarter to make them Doman/Othard Orphans raised in Eorzea or Garlemald. Atleast there, we have enough lore to substantially explain all the possible hiccups, because your character simply doesn't 'know' Doma / Othard himself, thus cannot render information. Establishing Characters with a lack of details is only possible if you're clever enough to work around the edges in a logical way. You can get away with almost anything, PROVIDED you render the right explenation AND keep the vybe / feeling lore-like. However, to simply go 'My character can't say, not because he wouldn't. but because I can't as an OOC player and thus make my character not say it' Isn't the right way to go about it.

It depends how you personally feel about it. If the echo had any plot value to you and in, any way or shape formed your character because it is 'the echo', as simply opposed to a tool to give him all languages, you can either keep it, seeing as there might not be any harm in it (and potential use for the echo in plot-lines etc). I heavily doubt however anyone would take offense to having the echo in this minor offset only for lingusitic purposes. Ofcourse, if you still harbor doubts or feel itchy about it, you can simply go with Titor being some kind of savant, confusing it with the echo. There are people out there who where able to learn languages within hours thanks to an enormous memorizing capacity. Though I think the Savant syndrome usually just kicks in in math fields and the likes, less in languages.

Villainy is a story-telling concept. The 'bad guy' in every story is but the person people must feel animosity towards, as he's who the hero must overcome. It's a simple concept that has been used also in politics to a great deal. 'We the heroes, must liberate this villainy infested nation'. In roleplay-terms, there's usually two ways to go about villainy. Subscribe your character to one of the, as 'evil' established agendas in the game/story (In Star wars, that'd be becoming a 'Sith',) In Final fantasy it may be serving the Garleans, or any other antagonistic faction/group you can find. Or, take the second route, and establish your character as a 'villain' towards a group of 'heroes'. Find a group of goodie-two-shoes looking for a villain. Overall however, I don't..suggest creating a character just because you want that 'Villain' vybe. I've been playing, throughout the majority of my roleplay career only non-hero characters. Antagonists, side characters, neutral characters, straighout villains and anti-heroes. Usually, Heroes are the noble, strong figures that subscribe to 'taking the high road' of love, compassion, and whatever pop-culture values currently are upheld. The moment you subscribe yourself to a 'good' cause, while still adhering to a moral code in your actions (do not kill, do not torture is an example), you have a fledged hero at your hand. Playing a villain simply means substracting one of those points. A Hero without a good cause is a side character. He can't 'take the spotlight' of heroism, because he has nothing to fight for. He has morals, so he will 'protect', but he wont be in a spotlight, as he's not yet subscribed to a greater cause. Take from him Morals, but keep the cause, and you've got yourself your anti-hero. Willing to ignore moral standards to get the job done. Ends justify means etc. Take both, and you've got someone focused solely on his own, individualistic gain. No morals to tell him 'you must be good to others', no cause to make him do good things for others, in the end means he'll be an egoistical civilian at best, or full blown megalomaniac at worst. Anyway.. this is a very roughl set of examples, not really good either. If you really want to, perhaps jumpstart a few ideas, I suggest tvtropes.org. While it's written at most in a comedical light, alot of the tropes simply exist and can help you steer your character in the direction you want to. As a footnote, I'd like to add that, outside of fiction, true Villainy and Heroism seldom exist. A good example is Genghis Khan. The whole world all-around considers him one of the most brutal, vile warlords of his age, with women having plunged themselves off the cliffs of their village rather then suffer what his men would do to them when they'd reach their village. One of his most famous lines was 'I am gods wrath. If you would not have sinned, god would have not sent a punishment like me upon you'. Though I might be paraphrasing it. At the same time, he's seen as a folklore hero in Mongolia, as his conquering established the silk road connections, and he was also known as perhaps one of the first 'religiously open' historical figures. He allowed anyone to follow whatever religion they chose to, aslong they didn't dare tread upon mongolian faith. Same person, same acts, two entirely different ways to view him.

The official lore says pure-blooded Garleans generally can't use magic and any mages you see are conscripts or from conquered territories. However, magic using pure-blooded or half-blooded Garleans aren't impossible, just very VERY rare. So even if it's possible, don't try to be a special snowflake and do it anyway. The lore panel stated that it's genetically impossible for them to. Nako, it was established that they were unable, yes! The question on the lore panel was more of 'why'. To that, they answered that it was a genetic thing! Seconded. It was quite clear in many refferences that pureblooded garlean had 'no talent whatsoever' in regards to Aether. Some, perhaps in hope, clinged to this little concept 'but there surely got be an exception?', which was a risky play that has now officially backfired. Either way. Retconning for Convenience is a big no-no for me. Some people like to take liberties, and I'm not going to judge that outright, however my character 'will' form his opinion on you based on all the things we've gone through, all the things he might know of you, and so on. If you, through whatever means, switch that up head-first, it destroys the continuity. I understand if there are outlying OOC reasons beyond convenience, such as a certain player dissappearing without a word while alot of the plot hinges on him, or other such details. However, Retconning for convenience (I don't wanna be the bad guy) or (I don't like the consequences I'm getting) Is on par with god-modding, as it's then used as a method to avoid your character being harmed/negatively impacted. Do that when you write an own story, but not when you have players to work with that rely on a certain continuity in order to make things work.

hmm lets see. lucan shies away from displaying "true" emotions, because he dreads the lack of control they create. He hates being at the mercy of his own emotions. lucan used to ve quite the dandy, enjoying the good things in life and with a penchant for meticously organizing pleasant days. lucaniels name is a pseudonym and homage to his mother, an eorzean migrant by the name of clarke. His original name is lucan iel sidiatoris. while he fashions himself a "bad person" he makes it a point to leave the truly innocent alone. A sort of mentality where he only harms those willing to raise the proverbial gun themselves.

hmm.. This ones hard, but id probably go with viggo mortensen in the movie eastern promises, just with a less thick russian accent

I tend to take a far more IC-view on it. Bars draw the most diverse people. Some just want a drink, others want shelter, others want to party hard through the night with their friends. Whatever the case may be, I find nothing more..bothersome when you have people in there just..existing, not really knowing why their character is there or why they are there beyond 'I wanna rp'. The moment you add specific reason to your visit to a bar, you already create the circumstance for you to be able to create rp in that scenario. For example; If my characters goes to the bar depressed, trying to drink some pain away, he'll obviously be the sulking dude in the corner, sipping solemnly and in need for someone to listen perhaps. Just make a few emotes out of that, and you might have your first approach. A different example; My character just came from a long journey throughout Thanalan and is positively exhausted, looking for some drink, food and shelter. He might stick around for an entire eve, coming into the place with bags and all other things he carried throughout his travel. Again, emote those details, and you might get people pay attention to it. I guess the main part is to never just 'RP'. Your character is supposed to be a living,breathing rendition of an actual being, with goals, ambitions, and reasons for his actions. Even if it is as simple as Thirsty > Drink, if you always keep a tab on that, you have enough to work with, and never run into the corner of 'what do I do now?'

I love it when i get commendations as non-blm dps, because i manage to out-aggro the tank. (mind you on low to midlevel dungeons)

To be honest, I'd say anime 'might' be the reason for 50-60 percent of the people, but Feudal Japan had also alot of cultural things going on that fascinate people, aswell as philosophical. Personally, I enjoy Feudal Japanese history for the cultural aswell as philosophical aspects stemming from that time. While my view on it may be a bit westernized, I did go as far as to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War, Bushido, and read alot into Zen philosophy aswell. Besides that, I used to be a martial arts fan (what boy didn't, really), which also made me look more into things beyond the typical 'Domo arigato durr durr roboto' veneer. I wouldn't go as far as to call Feudal Japan boring either. It's heavily over-saturated in media however, which is why it's very understandable why people have grown..tired of it. There's just so many Samurai / Ninja / Martial art flicks all based on Japanese/Chinese history and culture that it became very..overbearing by now. That being said, I think alot of this draw towards the eastern also comes from this misconception that when it comes to martial arts and the likes, the Asians where the best (Case in point Samurai for Swordsman and Ninja for Assassins), along with the various martial arts from there (like Buddhist Kung Fu). While I don't support that view it is a predominant view for many, even though the likes of the Ḥashshāshīn where apparently far more apt at their craft. But yeah, long story short; Japan feudal culture isn't boring, it's simply over-exposed and thus overbearing by now.

it makes sense aesthetically. A lack of eyebrows can add to a frightening gaze alot, because it adds an "unnatural" feeling to it. Same goes for War paint. No Indian clan ever ran backwards seeing a Sioux with his war paint, doesn't mean it didn't help unsettle him

Can you hear it? The sound of a dozen garlean mage characters suddenly..vanishing into a space-time paradox

lore wise I remember it is possible to become a dragoon, just not the azure dragoon. As for the armor: I don't believe vfx artists would take massive liberties with lore here. It is more likely that what you see in that trailer is a battle of days gone by, where dragoons where more numerous

aaand another

STATUS UPDATE So!, after getting my hands on a Tablet and practicing with it like crazy, I got some new..stuff. So yeah A: I love my new tablet B: I'm getting the hang of sketching C: Next step - Proper lineart that doesn't look like the Hunchback of notre dame D: Step afterwards - Proper shading'

Hot. over then that, I rarely saw any vulgarities ingame, but then again I don't pay much attention to those things. No time. should be was to come up with original insults however, just use the lore to toyr advantage. I recently retorted icly with a: You intimidate me as much as a dwarf rat would intimidate a behemoth. just use the lore appropriately and you can insult people in the finest of ff ways

I don't know, I understand that people shouldn't be 'forced' to do things against their personal prefference in regards to their character, but at the same time, if my character makes use of lethal force (I.e a Gun), he can't expect the world to love him or to be painted in the light of a hero. That just sounds like..shying away from negatives in your rp.

Let's take a quick recap. As mentioned here, Nat trespassed on some grounds, character B shot 'at' her, the shot landed. Yeah, if you fire a gun at a living thing there's no retconning. The person made the conscious choice to have his character attack another character with lethal force. This is also part of roleplaying, and part of consequence, and honestly, I love it that Nat did this. Also, just as a reminder towards the whole 'trespassing' Idea. The use of deadly force to protect your property is 'mostly' an american thing (mind you, mostly). In most European countries if you kill somebody it doesn't matter if it was your home, the street, or under the kitchen table; If he did not assault you with the intend to kill you you have no right to use lethal force. But I guess that'd have to be filed under 'What is Eorzean Law' trivia

I can only tell you how I learned to do it. Basically, find a few tutorials on signature making, get your hands on a copy of Photoshop, and get to it. It's not as easy as it looks however if you want to create quality signatures, and you need alot of time and patience to learn it just like with anything else.