discussion Canon lore & you?

[Maril]

I have been wondering about how people's relations to the canon lore is, and specifically how far outside of it you go with your characters. Are you fine with bending it a little, do you just do as you please no matter what, and how do you go about it? What drives you or could drive you to go outside of the canon?

 

Feel free to mention examples if you want to, I am genuinely curious on what people have done/are doing that might be considered dubious/sketchy/grey-zone like.

[GhostlyMaiden]

I bend the lore, because it allows more creative freedom. However, i'm not a fan of complete lore breaking. What's the point of having lore if you're just going to ignore it?

 

Nanagi can sense the Aether around her and use it to find taints, or figure out how much Aether someone has flowing through them.

 

Kanako came to Eorzea really early. Instead of coming around with all the refugees, she was in Eorzea couple years after the trade routes between Othard and Eorzea were opened. She was with a traveling caravan and never stayed in one place for too long.

 

That's the only major things I can think of.

[Askier]

With Askier and Hojo, I try to keep it within lore. Neither character deals with magic at all, and I've found that character whom don't deal with aether are easier to make lore friendly.

 

Jin'li on the other hand...AHAHAHAHAH.

 

Oh yeah, I stretched with that guy. 

 

I think a little stretch is okay, especially when it involves things that we have very little or almost no detail on. Its going to happen during these situations.  But so long as its fun for the people involved and doesn't break the lore or setting(cause if you break the setting, why bother rping in this game), I think bending is okay.

[Verad]

Feel free to mention examples if you want to, I am genuinely curious on what people have done/are doing that might be considered dubious/sketchy/grey-zone like.

 

Quite a lot, but most of it has little to do with the character and more to do with plots I've run. Some of that has been more severe than others, but has included:

 

• Ala Mhigan guerilla fighters trying to level Quarrymill
  
• Dravanian relics getting distributed in Ul'dah.
  
• Dragons resulting from aformentioned relics getting distributed in Ul'dah
  
• A materia-like object that can be found in dragons and has an effect similar to what happened with Estinien and Nidhogg's eyes (this was pre-HW so I was largely pulling ideas out of my ass here).
  
• Padjal going rogue and actively resisting the authority of the Elementals.
  
• Expanding the scope of Toto-Rak such that there are abandoned wings people haven't explored yet.
  
• Rewriting the Pact of Gelmorra in a way that will matter to absolutely no other player ever.
  
• Taking a cynical interpretation of the political influence the Senna family has on the Seedseer Council and Gridanian governance in general.
  
• Giving voidsent the ability to grow and spread as a memetic virus.
  

I'm sure I'm missing some stuff in that list. Suffice it to say that I have broken it and will probably continue to break it, but in ways that people have found, if not plausible, at least entertaining.

[Valence]

I usually don't even bend it (or at least not consciously). I am a player that puts the emphasis on the lore a lot (in most settings I roleplay, I love lore stuff, I love discussing it, making theories, etc). I have a good respect for it and find that building upon the existing lore to be way more interesting that making up my own stuff, even if it's more or less lore compliant or inspired by it. I find that unless you get a spark of genius, most player created stuff is usually a lot less appealing to me overall or just doesn't mesh that well within the existing universe.

[U'roh Tia]

I'm in a bit of a middle ground, I like writing along with the lore and then bending it just a smidgen sometimes when it's needed to make something work. But like most I am against breaking, what's the point of Rping in a world if you ignore it's lore?

[Teadrinker]

I have been wondering about how people's relations to the canon lore is, and specifically how far outside of it you go with your characters. Are you fine with bending it a little, do you just do as you please no matter what, and how do you go about it? What drives you or could drive you to go outside of the canon?

 

Feel free to mention examples if you want to, I am genuinely curious on what people have done/are doing that might be considered dubious/sketchy/grey-zone like.

 

The only time I will bend established lore is when creating NPC's or villains to be tackled by a large group of people. The bending, if even necessary, is done in such a way as to provide the necessary tension to make the person actually threatening to a large group.

 

I will not do this with my PC's ever. The lore regarding my PC's is about as airtight as my knowledge of it will allow and I correct it if I find something is off.

[Flynn Bladebreaker]

I usually don't even bend it (or at least not consciously). I am a player that puts the emphasis on the lore a lot (in most settings I roleplay, I love lore stuff, I love discussing it, making theories, etc). I have a good respect for it and find that building upon the existing lore to be way more interesting that making up my own stuff, even if it's more or less lore compliant or inspired by it. I find that unless you get a spark of genius, most player created stuff is usually a lot less appealing to me overall or just doesn't mesh that well within the existing universe.

 

Pretty much this. I accept the lore and universe as it is and try to fit my character in where it makes sense. I'm open to everything the game has to offer, with a few exceptions like game mechanics (I don't think queueing for expert roulette and disappearing, "Be right back, I have to do my daily", counts as canon ). If something is said in RP that completely goes against lore, I just retcon my character's memory of that day. With that said I'm not a complete lore nerd, there are some things I try to bend around like how characters talk compared to NPCs. I know what *not* to say at least, the dos and donts, but I'm no excellent Shakespeare writer.

 

When it comes down to items and objects, like the orchestrion and fantasia, I'm open to an extent. With the orchestrion, I acknowledge it in lore and in RP. As for the music playing, somewhere in this goes into a bit more detail. If I hear Titan's theme on it, my character will hear a piano/music box version of that theme, because that's what it is, a music box, not a jukebox. Fantasia? Pff, I'm not gonna bother with that.

[ExAtomos]

I'll bend it if the situation calls for it. Game lore doesn't cover every eventuality and sometimes you just get put on the spot with a question or something and have to pull an idea out your ass. >.>; I really try to go with 'plausible' and steer clear of anything too OP.

[Dravus]

FFXIV is FFXIV. I detest the idea of completely breaking the game's lore even if I dislike certain elements of it. Bending, however? That's a different story - but even then I only do it if it's plausible and a means to add some depth to an element of the lore that may not yet have been expanded on. I feel like there's more than enough interesting material to work with in this setting without having to defile what exists. Especially when there's countless interesting niches that go without any love or attention.

 

Ultimately I hold the firm belief that if someone is just going to ignore the established lore in a setting and do whatever they like instead then that's probably a solid sign that they'd be better off elsewhere...or just limiting their role-play to something like Skype or a setting they create themselves.

 

I can only assume they'd be happier doing that if they show no actual love or passion for FFXIV itself. When I fell out with Blizzard's storytelling I took my leave of WoW because the game's lore no longer interested me. I could probably go off and pretend the stuff I disliked didn't happen but...that's only a way to exclude a great many people. Even if people buy into it then it's just replacing canon with fanon. Which, to me, comes across as rather obnoxious.

 

That's my personal stance on it anyway.

[Caspar]

FFXIV is FFXIV. I detest the idea of completely breaking the game's lore even if I dislike certain elements of it. Bending, however? That's a different story - but even then I only do it if it's plausible and a means to add some depth to an element of the lore that may not yet have been expanded on. I feel like there's more than enough interesting material to work with in this setting without having to defile what exists. Especially when there's countless interesting niches that go without any love or attention.

 

Ultimately I hold the firm belief that if someone is just going to ignore the established lore in a setting and do whatever they like instead then that's probably a solid sign that they'd be better off elsewhere...or just limiting their role-play to something like Skype or a setting they create themselves.

 

I can only assume they'd be happier doing that if they show no actual love or passion for FFXIV itself. When I fell out with Blizzard's storytelling I took my leave of WoW because the game's lore no longer interested me. I could probably go off and pretend the stuff I disliked didn't happen but...that's only a way to exclude a great many people. Even if people buy into it then it's just replacing canon with fanon. Which, to me, comes across as rather obnoxious.

 

That's my personal stance on it anyway.

Defile? That's strong language. But although a great deal of lore is very much set in stone, other elements are vague. We don't know much about the climate in Othard, for example, or the type of food Garleans eat. In those cases, how do you address things the lore *doesn't* cover, or not in enough detail? I guess how much bending is "permissible," is my question.

[Dravus]

FFXIV is FFXIV. I detest the idea of completely breaking the game's lore even if I dislike certain elements of it. Bending, however? That's a different story - but even then I only do it if it's plausible and a means to add some depth to an element of the lore that may not yet have been expanded on. I feel like there's more than enough interesting material to work with in this setting without having to defile what exists. Especially when there's countless interesting niches that go without any love or attention.

 

Ultimately I hold the firm belief that if someone is just going to ignore the established lore in a setting and do whatever they like instead then that's probably a solid sign that they'd be better off elsewhere...or just limiting their role-play to something like Skype or a setting they create themselves.

 

I can only assume they'd be happier doing that if they show no actual love or passion for FFXIV itself. When I fell out with Blizzard's storytelling I took my leave of WoW because the game's lore no longer interested me. I could probably go off and pretend the stuff I disliked didn't happen but...that's only a way to exclude a great many people. Even if people buy into it then it's just replacing canon with fanon. Which, to me, comes across as rather obnoxious.

 

That's my personal stance on it anyway.

Defile? That's strong language. But although a great deal of lore is very much set in stone, other elements are vague. We don't know much about the climate in Othard, for example, or the type of food Garleans eat. In those cases, how do you address things the lore *doesn't* cover, or not in enough detail? I guess how much bending is "permissible," is my question.

 

If something is left vague - such as what, exactly, Othard is like - then it's fine to make an effort to fill in the gaps, especially if it's done by expanding upon what we do know about a particular vague aspect of the lore.

 

I do feel as though people risk writing themselves into a corner if they embrace too many aspects of the setting that are left without much lore though. 

 

In short? I'm willing to turn a blind eye to 'bending' but not to 'breaking'. The former is something I've done myself whilst the latter, to me, just makes me lose interest altogether.

[Chompie]

The XIV lore is interesting to me because there's a whole lot of really cool possibilities, mysteries we don't understand, and crazy implications to adapt to.

 

Every bit of lore-bending I do is because of the implications and grey areas of the lore, not in spite of them. The lore really does not cover everything we'd like it to. Hell, having any details at all about your miqo'tribe is probably considered lore-bending by the strictest definition. I mean, it's not IN the lore.

But maybe it's plausible.

 

Aether is a giant mess of things that don't quite all fit together right, but goddamnit I'm gonna write as if it's a thing that DOES make sense and pull from several spread out sources and just desperately hope that I'm getting the right idea that could possibly be extrapolated from those few disparate npc quotes somewhere.

 

If I break the lore, it's out of perfectly understandable hubris.

[Yssen]

Very very excellent question/topic. Kudos.

 

The elephant in the room issue is that we all essentially knowing nothing (like so much Jon Snow) unless we are a dev or involved some other way in the game's production. This means that specific lore interpretation must be firmly placed in the category of "things that are subjective," at least until we have a great big tome/document that tells us how all Hydaelyn's bits, bobs, and boops work. The lore currently provides only a loose frame work of things that we sorta understand by interpreting the tid bits we find in game. The exception to this is when devs talk about lore bits in interviews. That stuff is basically "Word of God" and even it is subject to interpretation because most devs are smart enough to leave stuff open ended so as to not have junk written into a corner like so much "Lost." Long and short, not everyone necessarily agrees 100% with one particular interpretation of the game's lore, and that is okay because that is the nature of the beast we live under. It is also worth mentioning that no to characters are necessarily going to believe 100% in the same interpretation of the game's lore. No one is right, they only have the belief that they are right. 

 

With that said, there is a collective understanding of the loose framework/guidelines that the lore provides. Ideally everyone is pulling story ideas from that framework to form the foundation of their concepts for stories and characters. All things in the lore are effectively "bent" the second any of us start creating our own stuff in that framework. So yeah, go nuts and be creative with that framework. No one here has any authority to tell you that you are wrong from a lore stand point (for the most part), and no one here has the right to tell anyone that you have to cleave to their own (completely subjective) interpretation of the lore bits we have access to. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. 

 

With that note, here is some of the stuff that I have come up with and within the happy dancing framework for story bits.

 

- A Thuggee like order of Assassin's that hold a unique belief in their worship of Nald'Thal. They believe that they are given holy mandate to serve the Twins as merchants of death, accepting proper payment to kill anyone, and believing that by doing so they are engaging in a holy sacrament to Nald'Thal.

 

- Use of training similar to Monks to draw forth mass amounts of aether from places of conflict and apply to some later large scale end.

 

- Applying different martial arts styles other than the one Coeurl fist style employed by Monks in hand to hand combat. Example - Yssen fights like zee snake, not so much like punchy macgee.

 

- Adaptation of a "One is all, All is one" philosophy/approach when it comes to magic and aether manipulation.

 

- Various mystic ritual hoobjazzery designed to cure spiritual and psychological afflictions.

 

- Introduction of a corrupting tincture/potion that slowly but surely affects an individual spiritually, psychologically, and physically in exchange for power. It is also now been made somewhat infectious and weaponized. <.<

 

- Processes and junk to bind and enslave Elementals for later use as an aether source.

 

- Other blood contracts created by the use of Thaumaturgy with various terms and usages beyond the known Vengeance Order employed by the THM Guild.

 

- The notion that one can train in one of the magical arts (Thaumaturgy, Conjury, Arcanistry) with out joining/serving one of the established guilds.  

 

There are others, but they to list them would be a wee bit spoilery for some of the stuff I have going on. Thus I have declined to list them at this time. I hope this has been helpful. Yar. ^ ^

[Valence]

I don't consider personal headcanon on one's own miqotribe or school of aether control or whatever to be lore bending, but rather world building (with all the pros and cons it implies), which means expanding logical conclusions based purely and solely upon lore. It can be dangerous on the long run of course, like every kind of RP, but I believe that as long as you keep it 'regional' (vs 'universal') and pretty situational/lore friendly itself, the risk is rather low.

 

Of course if you don't base it on lore, or take liberties with it, then it's lore bending or even lore breaking. I define bending the lore as a willingness to introduce something that doesn't quite fit with the lore, but doesn't break it outright either. With the caveat of super vague lore that you somehow want to use neverthless, of course.

 

I don't find lore bending to be very spread, it's rather specific in my opinion. Either you break it most of the time (consciously or unconsciously), or either you don't.

[Kellach Woods]

My problem with the FFXIV lore is that we're privy to so little that if we want to do something that's out of the establishment we run a heavy risk of being so far out of whack with the lore that it ain't even funny.

 

I don't disregard it at all, but I'm about as lenient as they are when it comes to establishing stuff for my characters. I'd rather do the extra work to retcon/fit-in once something is clarified than assume I can't do it because the devs ain't seen fit to explain it in-game or in a Q&A.

[Nebbs]

Hmm, I would say I treat the lore as a backdrop/framework that I reskin. So it all holds up but I take a different view on my characters perspective and understanding. The other thing i probably do is reduce things from there OMG EPIX level to something relate-able.

 

On the surface I may be non-lore but behind all that it does fit. However, I'm not going to IC justify it or even get into an OOC discussion on specifics as that spoils the illusion.

[Virella]

Grey areas? Go for it. Make something up if need be! Anything directly contradicting lore, and you can't sell it to me? Eh, no thanks. (◕ᴗ◕✿)

[Warren Castille]

For the most part I keep Warren pretty mundane. That hasn't stopped him from interacting and accepting some of the following things, though:

 

*beings claiming to be thousands of years old

*shapeshifters

*people who claim to have slain Bahamut and/or Alexander

*dragons in humanoid form

*psychics

*people who have legit died and then come back

*beam-spamming mages

*people who can limit break at will

*players with half a dozen canonical Jobs with a capital J

*a sith lord

*wizards from other dimensions

 

It's been a fun trip playing the "straight man" to some of this stuff.

[Guns Blazing]

In general, I try to stick pretty close to the established lore. I think my biggest diversion from that path is probably how i role play my characters' combat knowledge and potential. It is my own personal belief that the class system should not be held as the bible for what your character is capable of, for example. I don't role play a gladiator or a pugilist, but instead, incorporate small tidbits of classes that make sense for my character to know. One, for example, is a former huntress from a Xaela tribe. She can thus use a bow quite well, as that was her primary means of felling prey. This translated directly to the battlefield once she came of age to begin participating in the wars that her tribe was involved in. She didn't know any "special skills" with a bow, she merely knew how to use it as a weapon. She picked up hand-to-hand combat over time because there were situations when the enemy would get close enough for her to require a means to defend herself. From there, she was taught how to channel aether through her limbs so that she might be able to actually HURT a Xaela male in h2h combat... Because, well, she's little, and they're not. So, she learned what could sort of be compared to the "fists of 'Element'" type monk skills, just a much more crude version. She later used that knowledge of aether control to learn arcanima in Eorzea, but found that she kind of sucked at it. She can only summon carbuncles, and they are pretty unruly and not at all helpful, other than being cute.

 

I like to think of the classes as an analog to real world skills, crafts and disciplines. An MMA fighter, for example, isn't usually just a student of Karate, Kickboxing, Taekwondo, Muay Thai, etc. They learn bits and pieces of all of these different fighting styles in order to be competitive in a fight. You do have boxers who only box, so these would be your people who are dedicated only to one class, but then you have the veterans of war and sport that realize that they need a more diverse platform to ensure they remain victorious in their feats. Personally, my taste in combat tends to lean more towards realism. I don't like it when Lalafells beat up Roegadyns in fist fights. Sure, that Lalafell could probably roast the Roegadyn's ass if he used magic, but fisticuffs? Gorillas can physically snap a human's neck with a single blow. Roegadyns are bigger masses of muscle than they are. I don't think you'll survive! For someone to beat a physically superior foe, I tend to feel they need some sort of explanation. If a Hyur squares off with a Roegadyn and the hyur wins, I'd expect that the Roegadyn is either extremely drunk, not a trained combatant (whereas the hyur is), or the Hyur manipulated aether in some way that gave him an edge the Roegadyn did not possess. However, the story has a couple instances of lalafells easily besting other trained fighters like it was nothing. Especially in 1.0.

[ArmachiA]

Anything that's a hard "No" or "Yes" I follow pretty much 100%. No exceptions. UNFORTUNATELY, there isn't a whole hell of a lot of those, so most roleplayers have to play in the grey area anyway. There's something called "Deductive Logic" that I pretty much use to fill those gaps. It's basically just means "If this is true AND this is true, then there's a good chance this is also true." Of course, even if there's a 90% chance of being true, that 10% can easily rear it's ugly head, so there's always a risk. Also, RPers may not come to the exact same conclusions, and will have a different end result - which with gray areas I generally accept. We just can't agree on what the lore means 100% until the devs come it and stop making it grey.

 

I have a lore compliant guild that runs really smooth in that department, but we still have a lot of grey area characters. Thaumaturges who use blood magic to strengthen their elemental magic, Conjurers who still use the complete elemental wheel, Void touched, Hearers, Summoners with an actual Egi, Scholars with a fairy, Garlean experiments, Garleans, etc etc. As long as it can be explained using deductive logic and with some evidence in lore, grey area characters are generally fine.

 

For me? Even as lore compliant as I am, I hit the grey area quite a few times - especially as a Storyteller. I think the worst the guild has done was someone accessed the Succor and used Holy in the middle on the ocean (So nothing of note would be destroyed you see) in order to kill a supposedly immortal voidsent. Was it grey? Hell yes, but we added a lot of consequences to make it at least somewhat viable. The person who accessed it had his ability to use Conjury completely revoked by the Elementals (A grey area in itself, since we don't know how much power they actually have) and Gridania came down hard on the guild itself once they caught wind - which was actually a fun story in and of itself. As I do stories for the entire guild with a small team, the stories have to be somewhat big and dramatic, which means grey areas. However I generally stick to a few rules so keep it within limits (I.E - bad guys may threaten to destroy Ul'dah and even have a bomb set up, but they aren't actually allowed to destroy it, the status quo created by the devs must remain in tact).

 

Personal Grey area? As I have my character as someone who grew up in a priesthood and studied Aether, she's basically a monk - but not a Monk. She knows about Chakras and everything but can't fight as a Monk - she can barely throw a punch. I think that's the worst thing I got.

[Caspar]

FFXIV is FFXIV. I detest the idea of completely breaking the game's lore even if I dislike certain elements of it. Bending, however? That's a different story - but even then I only do it if it's plausible and a means to add some depth to an element of the lore that may not yet have been expanded on. I feel like there's more than enough interesting material to work with in this setting without having to defile what exists. Especially when there's countless interesting niches that go without any love or attention.

 

Ultimately I hold the firm belief that if someone is just going to ignore the established lore in a setting and do whatever they like instead then that's probably a solid sign that they'd be better off elsewhere...or just limiting their role-play to something like Skype or a setting they create themselves.

 

I can only assume they'd be happier doing that if they show no actual love or passion for FFXIV itself. When I fell out with Blizzard's storytelling I took my leave of WoW because the game's lore no longer interested me. I could probably go off and pretend the stuff I disliked didn't happen but...that's only a way to exclude a great many people. Even if people buy into it then it's just replacing canon with fanon. Which, to me, comes across as rather obnoxious.

 

That's my personal stance on it anyway.

Defile? That's strong language. But although a great deal of lore is very much set in stone, other elements are vague. We don't know much about the climate in Othard, for example, or the type of food Garleans eat. In those cases, how do you address things the lore *doesn't* cover, or not in enough detail? I guess how much bending is "permissible," is my question.

 

If something is left vague - such as what, exactly, Othard is like - then it's fine to make an effort to fill in the gaps, especially if it's done by expanding upon what we do know about a particular vague aspect of the lore.

 

I do feel as though people risk writing themselves into a corner if they embrace too many aspects of the setting that are left without much lore though. 

 

In short? I'm willing to turn a blind eye to 'bending' but not to 'breaking'. The former is something I've done myself whilst the latter, to me, just makes me lose interest altogether.

I think this makes quite a bit of sense. In general, that is how I feel.

 

I like to try and give people what they want if they come up with a concept, so I will instinctively seek holes in the lore to grant them the freedom they want as creator. However when it comes to me, I do that only if the concept I want to execute demands it. There is so little lore in the corners of the setting I'm most curious about that I have to scavenge here and there to make something resembling a background that would satisfy me. 

 

These elements are usually written such that I can downplay or minimize them to adjust organically to the tastes of the RPer opposite me. Some people refuse to acknowledge anything they don't see in the game. While that defeats the purpose of creative writing for me, and I think it's inherently self contradictory as a viewpoint given every original character is non-canon, I appreciate the challenge inherent with writing according to self-imposed restrictions a great deal, and I've gotten used to being vague enough in dialogue that this usually never causes a clash in writing styles between me and others.

 

Why this is necessary, and creates so much extra work for me, is that I've got tastes as well. Sometimes my story demands a rote character and other times it demands an unorthodox one that pushes the limit of what is available to us in the setting material. Whether I do the former or the later when entering a setting really depends on what I feel like at the time. I generally see the grey area RP as harmless so long as it doesn't subtract from what already exists in game. My phrase for this is, and always has been, being in favor of things that expand the setting and do not shrink it. Most of the original material I write is usually with the express intent that others, if they find it interesting, can participate or use it as well if they want to. The other factor I consider is whether it diminishes the value of existing setting details or contradicts them. I feel like overall, through putting time and effort into building my mortar to fill in the gaps, I've avoided this. The idea was to be vague in small strategic details about Doma that I can adjust it when more concrete lore arrives, or to localize the background such that it can coexist with new lore as it comes. Yet there's always room for improvement, and I have to be willing to retcon doing this, and that carries some inherent difficulties.

 

So in the end, I'd say that I'm fine with anything, even made up stuff, unless it directly contradicts the lore, and even in the latter case, I would be *privately* okay with it if it was sold to me well. If the work is invested, and the writer takes the time to construct detailed content to explain what they do, I'd be a liar if I heaped scorn upon that. If I broke the lore aggressively and criticized the lore bending of others, I would be a hypocrite, and if I was a strict lore adherent privately but outwardly approved of lore twisting, I would also be a hypocrite. In the end I think my view is not that different from most people so far. My only real intense sticking point is wishing for others to have flexibility and to not deliberately misrepresent the lore, whether they want to snap free of it or glue themselves to it.

[Valence]

I guess the thing I like with my tastes is that my tastes like lore facts and stuff above everything else, so I usually don't have to worry breaking it.. That's kinda fortunate.

[John Spiegel]

A cornerstone of my FC and all around RP circle: It's all about the details.

 

Give an engineer unlimited resources and a blank slate and they'll struggle to create but give them constrictions and they'll perform outstandingly.

 

That being said, having NO rules means it will inevitably escalate to godhood/godmodding RP and all around un-uniqueness of RP. Not everyone is an adventurer, great at fighting or knowledgeable as most of us are OOC. Having a spectrum of folks keeps things interesting!

 

While my group is small and not booming with plots, we enjoy digging into lore and working with it! The lore of this game is plentiful but there's so much missing or fragmented (pls Lore Book now pls pls).

[Shofie]

I keep within the lore within reason. For what I do with my character though, I don't really need to adhere to strict lore to keep her "in-lore" anyway.