discussion Welp Dragoons, it was a good run, but we are all now either retired or dead

[Valence]

 

Welcome to a train of thought that leads to never roleplaying anything interesting, ever, because it's "too risky" or makes you a "special snowflake" (didn't we get over the term "special snowflake" and the concepts behind it in, like, 2013?).

 

By this logic, I wouldn't be roleplaying an Au Ra.

 

I'd reiterate what everyone else said to you on the previous page.

 

I for one, find the lore complying stuff to be way more interesting than special snowflakism. Just a matter of tastes and all..

 

Also no, Au'ra is not special snowflakism. Some things are risky considering the low amount of lore we know for Raen especially, but again, it's not like some other races haven't a clear lack of info either...

[Aaron]

Do people IC even /know/ how many DRG there are left? Tbh all this talk can be bypassed with IC ignorance unlike the more obvious stuff like being a WHM.

 

Unless your character is a fellow DRG or someone who actually took time out their day to explicitly find out how many DRG were left for... reasons? Or anything specific of that sort (You can be from Ishgard and not know how many DRG there are, if it's anything reminiscent of an actual military some things are kept secret from the public regardless of political stature). Like just think, if for SOME REASON no matter how stupid, a Dragon goes "Hey bro, I ate a adventurer that was talking about how Ishgard? Yeah they don't have many DRG anymore. Let's go burn everything to the ground 8D" I'd be questioning how the hell a random adventurer (which our PCs are really in the RP world, least the majority) knew the exact number of an elites division of a military.

 

If some random approaches you and goes "Yeah I'm a DRG", it's perfectly plausible for a character in return to go "Oh? Cool, I heard the numbers were shrunk and some retirement stuff but nice to see some are still kicking."

 

Anyone that approaches you because you're still a DRG for whatever lore bent reason you can come up with (And said reason isn't you know... completely left field) probably has nothing better to do than harass you for your occupation simply because of a two digit number (which you never even brought up) stamped in a book.

[cuideag]

Going to add on to Aaron's point because it's exactly what my thoughts are.

 

Anyone who dumps on your character or your RP especially IC is probably doing so just for the sake of being able to UM ACUIALLY... you, and, let's be real, that's worse form than anyone who is rping a job. Unless they happen to have the roster of the 30 or 10 or whatever of the Official Ishgard Order of Dragoons and know EXACTLY who they are then uhhh... yeah I wouldn't worry about it. Keep on, yall, you're fine.

 

Edit: not saying anyone who rps a job (any job frankly I don't care) is doing anything wrong, just so yall know. Tell your stories, and don't feel obligated to retcon yourself when word of God doesn't tell us anything.

[ExAtomos]

 

 

to me 30 is a large enough number to fudge. You'll never run into something with 30 + Dragoons in RP all at once. Only rub I can see here is that thirty is TOO small for any Dragoon to /NOT/ know another dragoon. Its a high school class and you'll at least be able to know their name and appearance ESPECIALLY because there are your teammates, your brothers in arms, your peers, your equals. 

 

Honesty...? Part of this I think is the fact that the world Square Enix has created is far to small to handle the number of players on a server. Like, if this were a single player game, 30 would seem like a big number. However no one at Square Enix treats the lore as if there are actually thousands of adventurers running around.So they pick a small number like 30 to make the player feel cool for being one of a small group.

 

Like, I scale everything up quiet heavily. Would the grand tournament between all the Eorzean city states really just be like a dozen soldiers? No, not in my idea of it. 

 

For another example, I think must of us can agree that the Ul'dah in our minds is much larger than the space we see. Our RP's constantly invent little warehouses and alleys and such. Otherwise the Goblet would be larger than the actual town. 

 

Don't worry about the number, it will never come up and it's variable. Scale things up to fit the world we RP in, a giant bustling place, not the small maps with a few dozen NPCs.

 

I actually wrote about this in a post I made to tumblr about why I don't rp as a/the WoL.

 

Basically, it doesn’t make sense. All of the cutscenes show our one character dealing with Big Stuff Going On in Very Powerful Ways. While some npcs will say something along the lines of “bring 7 of your adventuring friends to fight” before certain battles; it is me (whichever character) against X Enemy in the cut scenes… not all X thousands of us. (Can you imagine all of us trying to escape in the tunnels in 2.55? I mean… we’d be an army at that point and wouldn’t NEED to hide.) I can’t rp out that we are all Scions and fighting primals cause it makes no sense to me given the storyline we’ve had. Am I being too literal? Perhaps. But to do otherwise is not fun to me.

 

I think McBeef hit the nail on the head; it really seems as though the story and lore in XIV is set more for a single player experience than an mmo. Perhaps it can be said that the game is not written as though intended for the scores of roleplayers on Balmung, but instead for that guy on X server who just enjoys the story and who can just handwave off the incidental encounters his character has with other players. I think in a way that the story itself downplays the fact that this is an mmo. So here we are with a chunk of lore that is not conducive to group rp. If you were by yourself in this game, a limit of 10 DRGs is perfectly fine.

 

Perhaps I'm stepping across the line here, but I am really saddened by some folk's rush to prove they are not unique and special (it feels damn similar to a kid's rush to prove that they ARE the special chosen one above all others; almost as though this is the jaded adult version of it. "I had my hopes and dreams squashed out of me by the time I was 25, so you gotta suffer too!") that they tear down other people on their crusade of self-righteousness. Please, be kind to each other.

[Oli!]

 

 

 

Perhaps I'm stepping across the line here, but I am really saddened by some folk's rush to prove they are not unique and special (it feels damn similar to a kid's rush to prove that they ARE the special chosen one above all others; almost as though this is the jaded adult version of it. "I had my hopes and dreams squashed out of me by the time I was 25, so you gotta suffer too!") that they tear down other people on their crusade of self-righteousness. Please, be kind to each other.

 

I think there is an ongoing confusing of the idea of enjoying lore-based consistency, and the idea of tearing other people down for the sake of it, which is in fact inconsistent with the idea of being kind to each other.

[Aaron]

Lore based consistency is really only as good as the knowledge that your character knows ICly when you think about it.

[Kilieit]

 

Welcome to a train of thought that leads to never roleplaying anything interesting, ever, because it's "too risky" or makes you a "special snowflake" (didn't we get over the term "special snowflake" and the concepts behind it in, like, 2013?).

 

By this logic, I wouldn't be roleplaying an Au Ra.

 

I'd reiterate what everyone else said to you on the previous page.

 

I for one, find the lore complying stuff to be way more interesting than special snowflakism. Just a matter of tastes and all..

 

Also no, Au'ra is not special snowflakism. Some things are risky considering the low amount of lore we know for Raen especially, but again, it's not like some other races haven't a clear lack of info either...

 

I... uh... wasn't seriously suggesting that roleplaying an au ra makes one a special snowflake, hahaha.

 

I was using au ra as an example to point out that roleplaying something we know nothing about shouldn't be a one-way ticket to "well you deserved it for being a special snowflake" when you're forced to retcon something later. It's a regular part of roleplay, and deserves a regular amount of sympathy (and leeway) when something new comes out that screws up a lot of what people were doing.

 

Like I said before, I thought we collectively got over berating people for being "special snowflakes" in 2013. I'm genuinely shocked to see the term being used unironically in this thread.

[Oli!]

Lore based consistency is really only as good as the knowledge that your character knows ICly when you think about it.

 

Disagree.

 

Roleplay is an activity designed for the enjoyment of a player. If something happens that the player doesn't like, regardless of whether it is known IC or OOC, the activity stops doing what it was designed to do. That would be like saying OOC discomfort should only happen for OOC things, which anyone who has had an unwelcome IC advance would disagree with.

 

People's ideas of enjoyment do not always mesh, which leads to threads like this one.

[Koen]

Like I said before, I thought we collectively got over berating people for being "special snowflakes" in 2013. I'm genuinely shocked to see the term being used unironically in this thread.

 

A special snowflake, as far as I understand the meaning of the phrase, is someone who makes their character part of some special order or otherwise relatively exclusive group that they see as 'special' to make their character interesting and attract people towards interacting with that character. A special snowflake does this in place of things like making their character have a well-written backstory, deep personality and room to develop as a character, often abandoning the lore or common sense for the sake of "Oh, but that'd be super cool".

 

It's a lazy way to make your character 'cool' that shows a lack of creativity or effort in making a character, and it's perfectly okay for people to not want to interact with a character if they think it's some lazily made special snowflake. I know when I came across a pregnant Azure Dragoon in full armour with a pet dragon in her purse in the Coffer & Coffin, I wasn't keen on RPing with her in the future and wrote off the character ICly as a crazy person.

[Kilieit]

I've been roleplaying since I was four, and online for over 10 years now.

 

I know what a ""special snowflake"" is supposed to be.

 

I just think the term is completely useless. It doesn't describe a useful problem with an actual solution. It describes something that's easy to stigmatise so other people can feel better about themselves by putting others down.

 

Have my rant on Mary Sues and Darlings. I understand the problem you're trying to describe. I just don't think ""special snowflake"" is a clever, kind, useful, or in any way good way to talk about it - it's diluted so much so that it's meaningless, over-applied and under-defined to the extent that it's essentially become a bullying tool.

[Aaron]

Lore based consistency is really only as good as the knowledge that your character knows ICly when you think about it.

 

Disagree.

 

Roleplay is an activity designed for the enjoyment of a player. If something happens that the player doesn't like, regardless of whether it is known IC or OOC, the activity stops doing what it was designed to do. That would be like saying OOC discomfort should only happen for OOC things, which anyone who has had an unwelcome IC advance would disagree with.

 

People's ideas of enjoyment do not always mesh, which leads to threads like this one.

Then you do the sensible OOC thing and back out the rp? If you clearly don't like what another character is doing don't rp with them? They pay a sub just like you do. I agree OOC can be discussed to a mutual understanding but in the end some people just don't want to understand the other person.

 

A whole lot better than going out your way to influence what they do if they didn't even ask for a second opinion. But I'm getting sidetracked, because this thread is basically asking for a second opinion.

 

The entire premise of this thread is basically "Since this says this that means should we all do this now?"

 

^ the answer is quite simply, no. You don't have to change your entire character.

 

In RP your character doesn't know they're being controlled by somebody behind the screen. The world they know is only as vast as what knowledge they possess IC. So yes, if someone's gonna talk about how such and such us a DRG IC when only 10 or whatever are left, that person questioning it better be toting a roster with names in it or be a DRG themself with a good reason on why the other person can't be a DRG.

[Koen]

I've been roleplaying since I was four, and online for over 10 years now.

 

I know what a ""special snowflake"" is.

 

I just think the term is completely useless. It doesn't describe a useful problem with an actual solution. It describes something that's easy to stigmatise so other people can feel better about themselves by putting others down.

 

Have my rant on Mary Sues and Darlings. I understand the problem you're trying to describe. I just don't think ""special snowflake"" is a clever, kind, useful, or in any way good way to talk about it - it's diluted so much so that it's meaningless, over-applied and under-defined to the extent that it's essentially become a bullying tool.

 

Call it bullying if you want, but I don't think most people see it as that or have anywhere near that intent when using the phrase. I know I don't. I just see it as the same as describing someone's character as Chaotic Neutral or any other alignment. It's a term that, while having a broad range of wiggle room for the type of character it can describe, gives you a general feel for what the character will be like.

 

It's simply a way of describing a character's archetype without having to go in to too much detail. The only difference between a special snowflake and someone RPing a "typical merc" is that special snowflakes don't advertise themselves as such. If you've interacted with someone whose character is as flat and interesting as an A4 piece of paper, Spongebob shenanigans not accounted for, I think it's perfectly okay to say to a friend, "So and so's character is a special snowflake" in the same way that someone who interacted with my character could say "Koen is a typical 'old soldier' type".

[AlionLucada]

I've been roleplaying since I was four, and online for over 10 years now.

 

I know what a ""special snowflake"" is supposed to be.

 

I just think the term is completely useless. It doesn't describe a useful problem with an actual solution. It describes something that's easy to stigmatise so other people can feel better about themselves by putting others down.

 

Have my rant on Mary Sues and Darlings. I understand the problem you're trying to describe. I just don't think ""special snowflake"" is a clever, kind, useful, or in any way good way to talk about it - it's diluted so much so that it's meaningless, over-applied and under-defined to the extent that it's essentially become a bullying tool.

 

There is no solution, and it doesn't matter how long you've been RPing. There will always be people who are lazy when it comes to their characters are are willing step outside lore boundaries to be unique.

[Oli!]

 

 

Then you do the sensible OOC thing and back out the rp? If you clearly don't like what another character is doing don't rp with them? They pay a sub just like you do. I agree OOC can be discussed to a mutual understanding but in the end some people just don't want to understand the other person.

 

A whole lot better than going out your way to influence what they do if they didn't even ask for a second opinion.

 

The entire premise of this thread is basically "Since this says this that means should we all do this now?"

 

^ the answer is quite simply, no. You don't have to change your entire character.

 

In RP your character doesn't know they're being controlled by somebody behind the screen. The world they know is only as vast as what knowledge they possess IC. So yes, if someone's gonna talk about how such and such us a DRG IC when only 10 or whatever are left, that person questioning it better be toting a roster with names in it or be a DRG themself with a good reason on why the other person can't be a DRG.

 

 

You're missing the idea of enjoyment in a shared space. People like having everyone under a shared umbrella; that's why we pay attention to any amount of lore (and argue over it) in the first place. Some people want everyone to follow the lore, and some people want everyone to be accepting  (which, yes, is a collective umbrella on its own).

 

Neither argumentative camp is "better" because they are advocating for the same thing: bringing other people into their line of thinking. Neither is provably more "correct" or less "damaging."

[Teadrinker]

[Mod Hat]

 

Let's keep it on track folks. We're skirting off into unnecessary and off track territory.

 

[/Mod Hat]

[Kilieit]

I've been roleplaying since I was four, and online for over 10 years now.

 

I know what a ""special snowflake"" is supposed to be.

 

I just think the term is completely useless. It doesn't describe a useful problem with an actual solution. It describes something that's easy to stigmatise so other people can feel better about themselves by putting others down.

 

Have my rant on Mary Sues and Darlings. I understand the problem you're trying to describe. I just don't think ""special snowflake"" is a clever, kind, useful, or in any way good way to talk about it - it's diluted so much so that it's meaningless, over-applied and under-defined to the extent that it's essentially become a bullying tool.

 

There is no solution, and it doesn't matter how long you've been RPing. There will always be people who are lazy when it comes to their characters are are willing step outside lore boundaries to be unique.

 

I stated how long I've been roleplaying because I don't appreciate being talked down to by people who assume I don't know what I'm talking about just because I don't agree with them.

 

If there's no solution, then there's absolutely no reason to point it out. Ergo: term is useless, stigmatised, mean.

 

Personally, I'm a little more faithful in people's ability to understand a problem when it's explained to them adequately and kindly. If a particular character trait is killing the tension in the story, preventing other people's character development, introducing an excessive amount of OOC discomfort in other players, et cetera, and the person asks why they aren't getting much/any roleplay, then I think there are ways of holding the conversation that result in a positive change.

 

I don't think calling anyone a "special snowflake" or a "Mary Sue" or anything along those lines has any place in that discussion. It's unsolicited, it's the very definition of name-calling (applying labels that the person didn't ask for and doesn't like), it comes with a long history of those terms being used for ganging up on people and excluding them - sometimes (I'd go as far as to say often) unfairly.

 

I hate both terms. For, I think, good reasons.

 

ETA: In accordance with modhat, this will be my last post on this subtopic. I've stated my case. I stand by it.

[Caspar]

I've been roleplaying since I was four, and online for over 10 years now.

 

I know what a ""special snowflake"" is supposed to be.

 

I just think the term is completely useless. It doesn't describe a useful problem with an actual solution. It describes something that's easy to stigmatise so other people can feel better about themselves by putting others down.

 

Have my rant on Mary Sues and Darlings. I understand the problem you're trying to describe. I just don't think ""special snowflake"" is a clever, kind, useful, or in any way good way to talk about it - it's diluted so much so that it's meaningless, over-applied and under-defined to the extent that it's essentially become a bullying tool.

 

There is no solution, and it doesn't matter how long you've been RPing. There will always be people who are lazy when it comes to their characters are are willing step outside lore boundaries to be unique.

 

If that's the case then trying to police it would be a meaningless waste of time.

 

Much like "edgy," and to a lesser degree "forced," the term did describe a specific phenomena in writing habits, but due to careless abuse has found itself almost totally deprecated of inherent meaning. It is a useful bludgeon, to be kept close at hand to smash down the nails that protrude too much. Which really is pretty funny given that RP is largely about creating a character distinctive enough to be noticed, and interesting enough to have staying power. A character that is too generic and unambitious lacks the pull necessary to attract other players; why play with *this* particular Garlean spy rather than the hundreds of others? It's simply that their way of finding a hook contradicts subjective sensibilities, not necessarily that they are somehow taking liberties with a vague corner of the lore that was undefined up until now.

 

In the end Dragoon players really can't be faulted for finding a useful hook in the Dragoon Job. It is a classic Job. It has both martial and political storytelling dimensions. It seemed, perhaps wrongly, to be less powerful than taboo Jobs like WHM and BLM. It even is linked directly to Heavensward's plot and a lot of attention in the story effectively is "free publicity" for them. Only the prescient could have guessed 30. I don't disagree you take progressively higher risk when you play important roles in a growing setting, but I see why people felt DRG was "safe." I think this incident should be a useful tool in understanding why a lore-fundamentalist approach is restrictive and ought to be reevaluated, rather than applying it unevenly between jobs and motifs in setting according to arbitrary personal writing values.

[AlionLucada]

As I've said before, you can RP whatever you want. Nobody can stop you, not even us and our "mean" terms like special snowflake.

 

That being said, don't be surprised or upset if you encounter people who follow the lore we're given whose characters either think yours are crazy or lying when they claim to be something like a Dragoon or anything else on shaky canonical ground. Just as much as it's your right to RP what you want it's our right to question it IC and OOCly, as long as it's kept civil.

[V'aleera]

That being said, don't be surprised or upset if you encounter people who follow the lore

 

Or at least allege to.

[111]

That being said, don't be surprised or upset if you encounter people who follow the lore

 

Or at least allege to.

 

Lol I agree, no one follows the lore. 

 

Every RP character is a form of lore breaking. Or show me in the lorebook where it has your character in there.

[PrinceKlari]

I honestly don't see the issue here. Dragoons can salute and acknowledge other Dragoons. It's doubtful that you would EVER be in RP with ALL 30 or so IC Dragoons at the same time. So why why get all bent out of shape. People RP as Paladins (very few), Scholars (lost art), SMNs (lost art), WHMs (lost art), etc. All the time.

 

 

If anything this should IMO INCREASE people doing open RP or walk-ups to the IC Dragoons because they would be basically famous to Ishgardians. To even RP and make your own story is lore breaking in-and-of itsself because we are all WOL, technically. 

 

If you enjoy RP as a DRG, continue to RP as a DRG. Just know the rules have changed abit, but this is supposed to be FUN.

 

 

And being the lore police over something like this imo is silly. Unlike say, being a Samurai or Red Mage when the jobs or lore hasn't been even introduced in the canon yet.

[Aoi Fukiku]

I honestly don't see the issue here. Dragoons can salute and acknowledge other Dragoons. It's doubtful that you would EVER be in RP with ALL 30 or so IC Dragoons at the same time. So why why get all bent out of shape. People RP as Paladins (very few), Scholars (lost art), SMNs (lost art), WHMs (lost art), etc. All the time.

 

 

If anything this should IMO INCREASE people doing open RP or walk-ups to the IC Dragoons because they would be basically famous to Ishgardians. To even RP and make your own story is lore breaking in-and-of itsself because we are all WOL, technically. 

 

If you enjoy RP as a DRG, continue to RP as a DRG. Just know the rules have changed abit, but this is supposed to be FUN.

 

 

And being the lore police over something like this imo is silly. Unlike say, being a Samurai or Red Mage when the jobs or lore hasn't been even introduced in the canon yet.

 

I thought WHM was a forbidden art, not lost?...if so there is a difference there. Either way, I have noted many dragoons calling themselves knight dragoons or retired dragoons. I saw someone call themselves a dragoon reservist, meant to go active should war start once more.

[Arrelaine]

It's forbidden. Basically, if I remember right, the Elementals choose people to be WHMs, because of Succor. That's why only Padjals are WHMs.

[PrinceKlari]

I honestly don't see the issue here. Dragoons can salute and acknowledge other Dragoons. It's doubtful that you would EVER be in RP with ALL 30 or so IC Dragoons at the same time. So why why get all bent out of shape. People RP as Paladins (very few), Scholars (lost art), SMNs (lost art), WHMs (lost art), etc. All the time.

 

 

If anything this should IMO INCREASE people doing open RP or walk-ups to the IC Dragoons because they would be basically famous to Ishgardians. To even RP and make your own story is lore breaking in-and-of itsself because we are all WOL, technically. 

 

If you enjoy RP as a DRG, continue to RP as a DRG. Just know the rules have changed abit, but this is supposed to be FUN.

 

 

And being the lore police over something like this imo is silly. Unlike say, being a Samurai or Red Mage when the jobs or lore hasn't been even introduced in the canon yet.

 

I thought WHM was a forbidden art, not lost?...if so there is a difference there. Either way, I have noted many dragoons calling themselves knight dragoons or retired dragoons. I saw someone call themselves a dragoon reservist, meant to go active should war start once more.

 

Forbidden, lost whatever. My point is that really only the Padjal are supposed to know white magic and the WOL is the ONLY non Padjal to even have a smattering of training in it. And yet...we have WHM RPers. So I mean...I don't see the alarm here.

[Aedan Marceaux]

My oh my, so many topics touched. It's difficult to know where even to start.

 

Firstly, I don't think anyone is trying to police anything. Granted, I may well have missed something among the many posts that veered this way and that, but all I've seen, to paraphrase the thread in its entirety with regard to "dragoons: yay or nay?" was the OP posting a capture of a snippet from the lore book, and people either refuting it or saying "well, this is the lore, now." I don't recall reading anyone saying, "Dragoons, you MUST follow this or the RP Police are coming for you!"

 

Now, personal opinion... I do think it a bit silly that so many people are attempting to refute or work around what is stated while still claiming to be "lore adherent" (I'll touch on this a bit below). This book is written by the people that created the game you're now playing within. It's their world and their story, not yours. If you wish to call yourself "lore adherent/abiding/following/whatever", then it stands to reason that you should find a way to work within this newfound information, rather than around. 

 

That being said, if you choose to ignore it, as has been said countless times in this thread... not everyone has to agree with your decision. No, there won't be a witch hunt, but there will likely be people that deny you a chance to RP with them or write off the encounter with your character as an encounter with someone who is mad.

 

Onto the point of lore adherence: McBeef made a good point, one with which I completely agree... the very existence of your character within this world (again, SE's world, not yours) is lore bending/breaking/grey area (for the purposes of the rest of this post, I will refer to it as lore breaking). You are inserting your fanfiction character into a narrative that is not your own. 

 

That being said, where you go from there is entirely up to you. You can either a) acknowledge the fact that your character's existence is as stated above and try to keep that as the only time you lore break, keeping yourself as best you can within the known lore, or b) acknowledge the same and continue to lore break whenever you find it convenient for your personal fanficiton within another person's (people's) narrative.

 

Here's the secret: Neither option is wrong... and honestly, no one is policing it outside of their own personal circles/companies/linkshells. At least, I've yet to see any policing happen here or in game outside of those particular areas.

 

As to "special snowflake" being considered mean... well... that's a game of context and semantics that all bases itself around opinion... so... yeah.

 

Now, to the topic at hand:

Those who have roleplayed dragoons that wish to follow the lore stated within the book... there are several options (certainly not all of them) that come to mind as possible solutions.

 

SE uses the word "normally" when describing the amount of dragoons in active service. Since they don't go into detail as to when a "normal time" may be, that 30 likely could have been +/- any number during the time your dragoon was alive.

 

Claim to have been one of the 30 +/- that the book states. With the end of the war, it's now down to 10, most (if not all) of which have been named/seen in game. 

 

a) This means your character could have retired for any number of reasons: age, injury, no longer needed, turned to adventuring, etc.

b) Your character may have run off for any number of reasons: flat out fear, political upheaval within Ishgard, etc.

c) Your character is dead.

d) Flat out retcon.

 

Does it suck that SE slapped this down? Yes. Of course it does. But that is the danger of roleplaying within those grey areas of the lore... once light is shined upon it, you need to react.

 

You can either react by adhering to the lore and doing one of the options listed above (or one of your own creative devising). Or, you can choose to ignore it and continue to push your own fanfiction into another person's narrative.

 

Either way, I have serious doubts anyone is going to go around on a witch hunt, policing what you do or don't do. I have strong faith that large majority of the community will do as stated above: choose not to RP with you, or write off the encounter as an encounter with someone who's mad.