Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lunars Preview!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by aluminiumtrioxid View Post


    You're repeating a point I already made though?
    So IWA should say it only works on people who have intent to cause you physical harm, to prevent it from being an orphan-murdering charm?

    If your intent was 'taking potshots at people not here' and not 'actually professing offense at the charm' maybe you should wait until the people are here rather than try to essentially argue in their stead.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Meianno Yuurei View Post
      If your intent was 'taking potshots at people not here' and not 'actually professing offense at the charm' maybe you should wait until the people are here rather than try to essentially argue in their stead.

      I think there's a subtle difference between "arguing for the same people I'd rather take potshots at" and saying that "to me, there seems to be little functional difference between Heart-Drinking Allure and other Charms that are seen as controversial by some people in the community, even though I disagree with the assertion that the existence of said Charms is, in itself, problematic".

      There seems to be an assumption of bad faith here - that I either expressed surprise because I wanted to start shit with the people who like the preview, or because I wanted to start shit with the people who disliked Celestial Bliss Trick and/or Shadow-Immolating Talon. It's like the idea that I may have expressed surprise because I was legitimately surprised that the same people who complained about those Charms saw no issue with Heart-Drinking Allure (and the reason for that being that this position seemed incongruous to me) isn't up for consideration?

      To be even more specific: I like to think that the devs are listening to feedback. (They probably are!) Heart-Drinking Allure is a very carefully worded effect - it allows you to do things that range from the not at all unsavory (taking the shape of your lover so you can impersonate them when you hear about an impending assassination attempt, hopefully thwarting it) to the not very nice (seducing someone at a social function, taking a kiss and stealing their shape with it, the latter of which they probably did not consent to) to the outright bastardry (taking the shape of someone you know your real target has feelings for with the specific goal of tricking them into some display of physical intimacy, believing you to be the person whose shape you are wearing) and beyond. However, it does not specifically reward you for being more unsavory, unlike, say, Shadow-Immolating Talon, which refunds its cost if you used on someone who could not have provided you with information, effectively rewarding you with information for hurting randos with no additional risk involved. Intuitively, it seems like the two are therefore very different.

      However, I think that this is a difference in degree, and not kind. Assuming you're not roleplaying a monster, you do not buy Celestial Bliss Trick or Shadow-Immolating Talon with the specific purpose of reaping the mechanical benefits for raping and/or torturing others. The Charms provide a benefit for using them in the not-horrible way, and you buy them because you find the not-horrible uses to be appealing. At this point, your calculus of the Charm's utility should probably stop, shouldn't it? If the effect is good and has a niche beyond the horrible things you can also do with them, having the opportunity to do the horrible thing for even greater benefits shouldn't influence your evaluation of the Charm, should it?

      Heart-Drinking Allure has been worded very carefully, but all that careful wording does is make this dynamic explicit: you can use the Charm to do some above-board stuff, or you can use it to do some real fucking disgusting things, but it does not matter which one do you choose, because the benefit you get is the same. But at the same time, the criticism leveled against CBT/SIT is not that these effects are subpar if you're not using them in the most horrible way imaginable - it's that they allow you to benefit from doing the horrible thing in the first place. But this is also true of Heart-Drinking Allure!

      The devs addressed the complaints of some Charms providing benefits for characters who do horrible things by making sure that the new Charm with some serious potential for abuse does not disproportionately reward characters who do the horrible thing. To me, this does not seem like it addresses the real issue of the people who complain about Charms that reward horrible behavior. Yet it seems to have been working!

      This phenomenon is what I was expressing confusion (or rather, surprise) about.
      Last edited by aluminiumtrioxid; 08-01-2018, 09:43 PM.


      Evocations for the demonic tattoos gained from the Pact with Mara sorcerous initiation || Pyre-Kindler (Soulsteel and Red Jade Grimscythe, Artifact 3) || Tenebrous Descent (Stormcaller's Black Jade Reaver Daiklave cousin, Artifact 5)
      Advice for running the corebook shikari antagonists

      Comment


      • #48
        ^ Pro tip: open with this next time. Because yes, your first post did in fact give off every impression of trying to start shit with someone.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by aluminiumtrioxid View Post
          Heart-Drinking Allure has been worded very carefully, but all that careful wording does is make this dynamic explicit: you can use the Charm to do some above-board stuff, or you can use it to do some real fucking disgusting things, but it does not matter which one do you choose, because the benefit you get is the same. But at the same time, the criticism leveled against CBT/SIT is not that these effects are subpar if you're not using them in the most horrible way imaginable - it's that they allow you to benefit from doing the horrible thing in the first place. But this is also true of Heart-Drinking Allure!
          I cannot follow your logic in this paragraph.

          You might be making reckless use of the word “but”, without taking more care to establish parallels for your comparisons and contrasts.


          Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

          My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

          Comment


          • #50
            You know what else lets you benefit from doing bad things?

            Literally every combat charm.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
              I cannot follow your logic in this paragraph.

              You might be making reckless use of the word “but”, without taking more care to establish parallels for your comparisons and contrasts.

              The flippant answer would be "maybe try reading the paragraph directly preceding it", but I'll bite.

              The criticism leveled against Celestial Bliss Trick and Shadow-Immolating Talon is that they reward you for doing something extra heinous (rape and torture, respectively).

              I believe that the careful wording on Heart-Drinking Allure is, at least in part, a reaction to the backlash against effects such as these: it allows you to benefit from doing the extra heinous thing, but only to the same extent as somebody else who chooses to merely do the highly questionable thing instead would benefit. It does not offer an additional incentive. (Let's put aside the issue that I, personally, do not find the argument that CBT or SIT offer a particularly strong incentive to use them for rape and torture to be terribly compelling either.)

              However, the argument against CBT and SIT did not spring up about the extent of the benefit a character derives from choosing to behave terribly, compared to a character who limited herself to using the controversial Charms in the ways the developer originally intended; it sprang up because the benefit existed in the first place. Therefore, while I see the practical design difference between those Charms and Heart-Drinking Allure, I am not seeing how someone who earnestly holds the position that CBT/SIT are defective from a design standpoint for allowing a character to benefit from doing something terrible could also believe that Heart-Drinking Allure is fine as written without some degree of cognitive dissonance.

              Which leads us back to my original reaction - surprise at the lack of complaints.


              Evocations for the demonic tattoos gained from the Pact with Mara sorcerous initiation || Pyre-Kindler (Soulsteel and Red Jade Grimscythe, Artifact 3) || Tenebrous Descent (Stormcaller's Black Jade Reaver Daiklave cousin, Artifact 5)
              Advice for running the corebook shikari antagonists

              Comment


              • #52
                Celestial Bliss Trick doesn’t reward rape. It rewards bringing someone to orgasm, which you can do with the subject’s enthusiastic consent. Your framing is erroneous from the beginning.

                Shadow Immolating Talon can be used in battle against a superior opponent who is curb-stomping you. It rewards you for landing a blow on someone. Again, you are guilty of misleading framing.

                Heart-Drinking Allure doesn’t reward forceful rape not because of any moral concerns, but because such an action is an insufficient challenge. Notice how the Strength Charm for stealing shapes and the Charisma Charm for binding oaths both require the hunter to be clever enough to trick the target into giving consent, and then strong enough to beat them at the contest, clever enough to trap them in an impossible oath, and seductive enough to receive a willing kiss.

                The Charm is horribly open to abusive through acts of rape-by-deception, and actually encourages Lunars to commit such actions.

                There is no moral superiority here, nor do I feel that CBT or SIT were poorly designed or worded in such a way to make them seem worse than they are.


                Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

                My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

                Comment


                • #53
                  Moving on to actual concerns instead of... whatever this is: Anyone else think Magpie’s Nest Resourcefulness could do with its own Orichalcum Rule disclaimer (e.g.- “The ST may veto anything that there’s no plausible way the Lunar could have gotten her hands on”) like some other charms have? So no one gets any ideas about pulling a silver talent out of their sleeves every scene or something.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                    Celestial Bliss Trick doesn’t reward rape. It rewards bringing someone to orgasm, which you can do with the subject’s enthusiastic consent. Your framing is erroneous from the beginning.

                    Shadow Immolating Talon can be used in battle against a superior opponent who is curb-stomping you. It rewards you for landing a blow on someone. Again, you are guilty of misleading framing.

                    Heart-Drinking Allure doesn’t reward forceful rape not because of any moral concerns, but because such an action is an insufficient challenge. Notice how the Strength Charm for stealing shapes and the Charisma Charm for binding oaths both require the hunter to be clever enough to trick the target into giving consent, and then strong enough to beat them at the contest, clever enough to trap them in an impossible oath, and seductive enough to receive a willing kiss.

                    The Charm is horribly open to abusive through acts of rape-by-deception, and actually encourages Lunars to commit such actions.

                    There is no moral superiority here, nor do I feel that CBT or SIT were poorly designed or worded in such a way to make them seem worse than they are.

                    Literally nothing of what you said addresses anything I said in any way though?


                    I mean, let's break it down paragraph by paragraph:

                    - You make an argument that my framing of CBT and SIT is "misleading". Me saying that these Charms have been criticized on the basis that they reward rape/torture could only be misleading if the criticism I was referring to somehow didn't happen. I only repeated that I personally did not agree with this criticism three times over the course of the last few posts I made. I literally have no idea how I could possibly make my stance on this any clearer.

                    - You argue that Heart-Drinking Allure doesn't reward forceful rape, attacking a point I did not make. (Alternative, more charitable interpretation: this paragraph is actually part of the same thought as the next one, and you're just explaining that morality has no impact on how Lunar Charms work. Which, while compellingly argued, has nothing to do with anything I said.)

                    - You then go on to point out that the Charm is open to abuse through acts of rape by deception, framing this as a counterpoint, as if I wasn't saying the exact same thing twice already. Then you make the questionable assertion that it "encourages Lunars to commit such actions", the counterargument to which has actually been touched on a page ago. You do not address this counterargument directly, nor do you bring up any compelling evidence that might do so indirectly.

                    - Then you conclude that there is no moral superiority here (compared to CBT and SIT, I assume). A point I find arguable, but since I assume it rests on the assertion addressed above, I have no way to meaningfully address your argument for it, because you haven't made one. Then you add that you do not feel CBT or SIT were poorly designed or worded, which, while technically orthogonal to the original observation I made ("while it seems like great care has been taken to word Heart-Drinking Allure in a way that averts the kind of criticism that befell CBT and SIT, I do not think the actual problem people had with those Charms was addressed, which makes me surprised that complaints of similar nature have not yet emerged"), actually seems to expand the scope of what I was referring to, by providing an example of someone who found CBT/SIT unobjectionable while thinking that Heart-Drinking Allure is open to abusive acts and encourages Lunars to commit them.


                    All in all, reading your post is a very strange experience, because while it is framed like you're in opposition of the things I say, it seems like half the time you don't actually engage with any of it, and the other half you seem to be sorta-kinda agreeing with them in a roundabout way.
                    Last edited by aluminiumtrioxid; 08-02-2018, 08:49 PM.


                    Evocations for the demonic tattoos gained from the Pact with Mara sorcerous initiation || Pyre-Kindler (Soulsteel and Red Jade Grimscythe, Artifact 3) || Tenebrous Descent (Stormcaller's Black Jade Reaver Daiklave cousin, Artifact 5)
                    Advice for running the corebook shikari antagonists

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sith_Happens View Post
                      Moving on to actual concerns instead of... whatever this is: Anyone else think Magpie’s Nest Resourcefulness could do with its own Orichalcum Rule disclaimer (e.g.- “The ST may veto anything that there’s no plausible way the Lunar could have gotten her hands on”) like some other charms have? So no one gets any ideas about pulling a silver talent out of their sleeves every scene or something.
                      I'm not going to check the page again, so could somebody remind me what the use limit of the Charm is?

                      I don't think that it's wholly unreasonable, but I think that application needs to have very exacting standards, since I think that half the fun is being able to pull out whatever one wants or is useful.

                      Although... I think it could be as simple as money just being a bit too mundane for the Charm. I mean, it's not unreasonable to assume that somebody would be carrying money on their person in any case, it's not really worth spending motes on. I think that this is better suited to things that are more novel or circumstantial.

                      … Wait, a talent? I think that's too large a quantity for the Charm to apply to it. That's about 26 kilos of silver, I don't think that can be hidden so readily. That's not pulling it out of your sleeves so much as holding your sleeve open and a cascade pours out for several seconds.


                      I have approximate knowledge of many things.
                      Watch me play Dark Souls III (completed)
                      https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDtbr08HW8RW4jOHN881YA3yRZBV4lpYw Watch me play Breath of the Wild (updated 12/03)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sith_Happens View Post
                        Moving on to actual concerns instead of... whatever this is: Anyone else think Magpie’s Nest Resourcefulness could do with its own Orichalcum Rule disclaimer (e.g.- “The ST may veto anything that there’s no plausible way the Lunar could have gotten her hands on”) like some other charms have? So no one gets any ideas about pulling a silver talent out of their sleeves every scene or something.
                        Having stolen some money prior with a Larceny roll seems like an intended use-case, though?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sith_Happens View Post
                          Moving on to actual concerns instead of... whatever this is: Anyone else think Magpie’s Nest Resourcefulness could do with its own Orichalcum Rule disclaimer (e.g.- “The ST may veto anything that there’s no plausible way the Lunar could have gotten her hands on”) like some other charms have? So no one gets any ideas about pulling a silver talent out of their sleeves every scene or something.

                          It has the note 'mundane' so, a talent of metal would be much, but like a bank note? Sounds fair.


                          I did a lot of homebrew over here. PEACH.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Epee102 View Post
                            It has the note 'mundane' so, a talent of metal would be much, but like a bank note? Sounds fair.
                            Sure, but a regular counterfeiter can do that, too.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TheCountAlucard View Post
                              Sure, but a regular counterfeiter can do that, too.
                              Only your note is real for value of resources that you decided to roll for?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by prototype00 View Post

                                Only your note is real for value of resources that you decided to roll for?
                                Sure, if the Lunar stole it, had it written up for them, or has the authority to issue banknotes. Otherwise, it's a forgery.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X