Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Karmic

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 146

But it is looking like an Impside version of the call for aid is in order. Me and Dass will brainstorm!


"Impside version of the call for aide" - you might want our help, but you also realize it may not actually BE help the way you want it... or help at all...

 :aww: :evil: :darkside: 4EVER

The only way Malagant would want to shape Shadren's relationship with the Empire is to bring it back into the Empire and have Vedriat's head on a spike. And he's really the only guy invested in the mess,, maybe I'd not be a good fit here.

Hey they said ALL SIDES!  Not sure why it wouldn't be a good fit here.

I know what side Karmic falls on with SOME of the Hegemony stuff but re: my question in other thread before I could identify who/how Karmic wants to help vs. condem... :)

For all I know she may very much agree with you Malagant - given certain facts in this storyline and you wouldn't necessarily be alone in wanting "off with her head" and "bring our people back" LOL

So I wouldn't throw your involvement out yet; even if you are the "stand alone" doesnt' mean it wouldn't be a good fit! :)

Storyboards / Re: Shadow of Shadren - Summary Thread
« on: 10/19/17, 05:21:21 PM »
Plot question - and something I've never been clear on.

I was under the impression that the general Imperials and most Sith would have no idea about the "threat" of the Shadren Hegemony - no idea about raising and using undead, etc.

Is this not the case?  Is this now more common knowledge?  Just want to clarify this before I figure out Karmic's stance and what is, and is not - actual IC information (vs. ooc).

I know Malagant "knows something" but he's certainly never gone into public detail about what he knows; and I know he's never talked to Karmic about his suspicions or whatever.  So it could be viewed more as one Darth just going after another for no "real reason other than power" (vs. undead/sith alchemy stuff...).

So yea wanted to clarify what exactly about the Hegemony "most of us" would already be aware of.

I mean it may still be hush hush as much as possible and that's fine - just want to know for sure.

Fankies!  :aww:

This isn't an RP Event yet - just an interest in who might want to be a part of whatever event(S) are coming.

As this sounds like more of a long-burn plotline with several event possibilities as it plays out - and not a single one-shot event.

But of course I'm sure Noth and Dassa will correct that :).

Oh - and heck yea of course I'm interested in playing in y'alls plot!  So +1 Sith here :).

And if you need Sith for any particular stance or foil or roll to counter other players let me know and Karmic might can do that for you too :)

Media Gallery / Re: Squiggly's non-insignia artsy things
« on: 10/18/17, 02:07:27 PM »
At least they aren't ifrits. Guild Wars djinn also go with that style too, though there are plenty of friendly ones who are just ridiculously condescending rather than outright hostile.

I always liked the idea that air elementals are made of lightning or electricity, it kind of fits since lightning comes from clouds and clouds are in the air. That's a good way to do air magic in general I think since there isn't much small-scale stuff you can do with just gusts of wind.

Or they could be like a storm atronach and have a bunch of rocks picked up by a semi-sentient tornado.

Ohhh yea TSW Djinn are extremely condescending lol.  Its more of a "We hate you meat bags really but at least in this one instance you're useful.." XD

Media Gallery / Re: Squiggly's non-insignia artsy things
« on: 10/18/17, 07:34:01 AM »

Oh yes - they are definitely going with the "No..Djinn aren't nice. In fact they hate us peon humans" version of the mythology.  However, there are "friendly" Djinn in game as well as enemy mobs who have been infected/filthed.  Just like there are a few friendly werewolves in the game - who get your characters help in cleansing the filth-infected bad werewolves.  As well as Friendly Vampires.

Cuz no matter what mythos you come from in TSW - everything in this reality is being jeopardized by the Cthulu-esque "black oil" (Xfiles reference ha) filth from an alternate dimension.  So even werewolves and vampires and Djinn want to save the same existence (mostly...)

And yea I imagine air being a more difficult concept to animate - since its something invisible (unlike earth, fire, water obviously).  I did like the Air Elemental version from Chronicles of Riddick (Dame Judy Dench's character).  But she wasn't inherently "magical" or ephemeral looking, per say - but then she was in shackles/imprisoned :).

Worldbuilding and Community / Re: RP Venues
« on: 10/18/17, 07:29:21 AM »
So yes, Gabriel is correct. If it's publicly listed, it can be visited when you're online. Squiggly is also correct. Keys cannot be given out to anyone outside the guild, and if you're offline and they are not in the guild, they cannot visit the flagship. Seems silly to me that such a crowning achievement can't be shared in the same way as regular SHs.

Other than giving out the keys - it works just like a regular SH.

But then I do agree - I've always thought it was ridiculous that people can only see your "publically listed" SH if you're online somewhere.  As well as SH not being shown across BOTH factions' public listings when you're online.

Just another one of those "huh?" things Bioware has done to this game since the beginning. /heh

Media Gallery / Re: Squiggly's non-insignia artsy things
« on: 10/17/17, 05:59:29 PM »
Since you are doin' Djinn's right now.  Have you ever seen Funcom/Secret World's Fire Djinn?

I'd link the image page but its really long address; so just type in "Secret World Fire Djinn" into google images and you'll get them :).

Media Gallery / Re: Squiggly's non-insignia artsy things
« on: 10/16/17, 10:41:31 AM »
Its cuz default wear of all deadly assassinssss is sexy and has holes in it - so even if you didn't mean to, the rules applied...=D

And I like it! The facemask is also cool and death lookin :).

Outside Realm / Re: the last jedi [grumpy warning]
« on: 10/13/17, 07:32:56 AM »
Ahh ok - yes

Look under the Wikki entry for "Buddhism".  And not just Five Precepts.

From what I understood/understand - the Pali literature while yes, being precepts - are not the Four Noble Truths. There are several schools of Buddhism and it goes with one of them.  Each school appears to have a set of Precepts.

So its like a "Appendix B" I guess under the main chapter - LOL.  And yes, it is first among those Precepts.  They are just not the only Precepts and not the Four Noble Truths.  It is part of the "Eightfold Path."  Which per this particular wikki entry - is apparently part of the Fourth Nobel truth.

There are a lot of lists in Buddhism =D.  Even under the Eightfold Path its divided apparently into three parts - and is only a set of rules under Theravada.  There are also rules/precepts/whatever word under the other schools: Mahayana (ten Paramitas - but sometimes 2 4 or 6 too lol)

I do know that out of all the books I've read by the current Dali Lama - he never goes into any of this - for us non-Eastern-Buddha studiers lol.  He does go into the Four Noble Truths, which is why I'd not seen any other list of precepts while reading his stuff/listening to his lectures (granted I don't yet get into the hard core deep Buddhism stuff cuz its hard... :grin: and it certainly wasn't what I was raised with - Alabama land here.  Just been my own journey.)

(Again sorry for the side track! Just interesting stuff!)

I did find it interesting that in reading through those wikkis (specifically)- 1-it seems the Five Precepts mean "no killing period" (so possibly not even in defense) and 2-It definitely has to do with INTENT in the actions (which is more relevant to our discussion about the Force ha!) as much as the action itself.

Outside Realm / Re: the last jedi [grumpy warning]
« on: 10/12/17, 08:57:15 PM »
Ok I gotta say this ...slightly off topic but entirely relevant :)

The first precept of Buddhism is to abstain from killing, but it's understood that if you are left with no alternative but to use violence to protect another life, you must NOT do so in anger and must attempt to do so in a non-lethal manner.

Um no its not.

The first Truth (of the 4 Noble Truths) of Buddhism is "There is Suffering."    Honestly, it starts out more Sith that way. LOL

In fact the 4 Truths don't address fighting.  None of them do. Its not about fighting.  Has nothing to do with anger.  Nothing about killing.  Buddhism isn't against emotions, not at all.  Buddhism wants you to reach past your attachments and realize there is more, and thereby realize they aren't "that important" so its not a big deal to let go. Buddhism is about self-reflection and letting go of the negative holding you back from Enlightenment.  Its not changing the outside (except through kind compassion), but changing your insides so that the outsides don't bring that out of you.  That's "good karma" (not doing deeds for others).  Bad Karma would yes, be reacting in anger/vengence/etc.

I've read several books by the current Dali llama and not a single one of them ever talks about fighting and what a Buddhist rule would be.  Violence as a whole, yes, is the antithesis to what a Buddhist should be about though, of course. 

I can't speak to Zaoist; I don't follow that branch specifically.

The Four Noble Truths mention nothing at all about violence or how to fight or emotions.  In fact it would more accept violence as a fact of life - even if the buddhist himself isn't directed to "add" to it that way, it is a "fact" of life and to fight against that "fact" would be just as "not buddhist" as physically fighting someone.  That would only bring about more suffering for the individual. 

I mean yes, its more implied/built into the whole ideas Buddhism endorses - but its not a "first rule."  I just wanted to clarify because yea, its important in understanding what we're talking about and that everyone's coming from the same terms/ideas etc.

I don't believe that such a thing as altruism can exist in something as fallible as the human condition.

That I think would possibly be why only one individual, the Buddha himself, has reached enlightenment. =D  Not a direct comparison necessarily but as compassion is a big thing in Buddhism - altruism is a biggy - so pure altruism is something very difficult to obtain.

Sorry, this is a "thing" of mine (Buddhism) - and its also one of the few Star Wars philosophy bits that interest me  enough to study it - how he used the Eastern Philosophies and the Jungian Archetypes to create the "classics".  And I'm also into Buddhism - though would not attempt to call myself a Buddhist; i'm not that committed yet.

Don't get me started on the use of other Jungian theories like The Shadow-Self and collective unconscious themes; I just nerdgirl out then...  :aww:  :grin:

(No - Nevermind how Lucas forgot (or consciously chose to just throw it all out  :facepalm:) how to be deep or meaningful with the other six, I just mean the classics LOL). 

Outside Realm / Re: the last jedi [grumpy warning]
« on: 10/11/17, 09:51:06 PM »
Yes, very awesome reading Niarra!  Well written and I came away understanding all this lore and the sides better!

As well as being glad I'm not the only person who writes long posts and now not even the longest post in this thread anymore! XD

And all I can say that's actually related to what you wrote...:

There is no countering example of physical transformation occurring when a character "strays too far" into the Light Side, if one is attempting to argue that too much in either direction is a bad thing. Character shown as firmly on the "good side" such as Yoda or Obi-Wan are just... themselves.

I had the immediate idea/image of Yoda paralleling Smegal.  And then wondered, "Have we ever seen Yoda as a young child?  How do we KNOW it doesn't actually do something Smegal/The Ring like." XD  For all we know, Yoda's just so so very old and full of Light that he does physically manifest the effects of it all =D.  No one else got that far, so... can't say what they'd look like?

Just amusing ideas, if we one day found that out...  :grin: (Even though I realize it doesn't really work that way its a funny thought..)

Outside Realm / Re: the last jedi [grumpy warning]
« on: 10/11/17, 07:22:55 PM »
Also wanted to briefly make the point:

They redeemed Vadar.  They took the most evil, baddest, horrible Villian in the movies - and entirely turned him around to be saved by the Light at the end.

One of the major themes of Star Wars is Redemption.

Luke (or Rey, or Fin, or whomever)may very well "fall" or embrace some type of weird "new age balance" (ha  :grin:) with the 2nd movie.

But that's only cuz they gotta have someone to be redeemed in the 3rd.

Outside Realm / Re: the last jedi [grumpy warning]
« on: 10/11/17, 07:15:56 PM »
But Luke is also "human" and flawed.  Just because Luke may (or may not) make decisions/opinions about the Force and the Universe he's in -doesn't mean he's right, or that you have to agree with him.

For myself, now that I'm "grown up" (ha), I actually get far more out of characters who aren't black/white - all good/all bad.  Because they are so UNrealistic.  It does become cartoony.  Ridiculous.  It becomes a rewrite of the first trilogy's because if "The heroes are always right and good" and "the bad guys are always wrong and bad" then there's no (to me) tension in the plot.  There's no growth.  Its just a wash, rinse, repeat - as so much in media is these days.  I get bored with predictable plots in tv, and certainly in movies.

Not that I think any of the Star Wars movies have ever been NOT predictable - but there's at least some tension when there might be a chance that the White Knight might *actually* fall (even if he doesn't) this time because it actually becomes more believable when the hero actually questions what good means, then just blindly fulfills justice and everything turns out fine because "good wins because plot armor."

The fact that Luke may actually have a moment of doubt in his faith - makes him to me a richer, more identifiable, more personable, realistic, character. 

Whether I would like it if he *actually* fell - I don't really know.  I'd have to see how they carry it off to know whether I'd like it or felt it was purposeful for the plot.  I can't say for sure I'd hate it - for me it would have to make "sense."

To note - I've not even seen the trailer.  Not once.  I've not read a lick more about what this movie is suppose to be about than what you guys have talked about here.  I don't prewatch anything - I never have.  When I catch it on movie theater previews or when I catch it as a regular tv commercial - I'll see it then. 

But its *only* a trailer.  I'm not going to see or not see a movie based just on the trailer - certainly not Star Wars.  If I see it and its stupid and his "fall" is poorly done (if it is done) then booooo...  if I see it and he doesn't fall and its a good story - yeaaa.  If I see it and he does fall and its done well and is a good story - yeaaa.    Because its also not the end; its the middle of a trilogy - and those are always the "down points" in the story.  Darkest before the Dawn, etc.  I expect this to be a "bummer" ending because its the middle movie - and that's the pattern.

THat's how these trilogies work.  If Luke doesn't appear to fall/question morality/etc. then he can't have his great save/awakening/etc. in the final reel.  (If that is what happens...).  If there is no push/pull or tension in the plotline with the characters (and it won't be created by the overall plot because we all know at the end of all this the good side will win...this isn't GoT or even TWD lol) then the story goes nowhere at all and there's no reason for a third. 

I entirely disagree with that quote Iaera as well.  I don't believe that the reason we like Rick Grimes "nihilistic" storytelling (if you want to call it that) is because we're all cynical and want everyone to be as miserable as we are.  Not at all.

Its because people may look up/aspire to be the Ideal (i.e. Superman let's say), but they identify with the Human With Flaws.  They see who they hope to be in the Ideal, they see who they would really be in the Human With Flaws.  Rick Grimes is more human.  He makes mistakes.  His judgement is affected by emotions.  He loses people.  He saves people.  Just like anyone "would." He isn't protected by plot armor that dictates no matter how the show goes - whatever his decision was will be "right and work out."  Because its more *real* that way.  Whether you see it as a pro or a con - it makes it more realistic.  It makes the characters more directly relatable and identifiable when they aren't perfect.  Makes the plots more engaging.  Makes people side with various characters because they see themselves acting how Rick or Michonne or Carol act.  They see themselves, making mistakes, being hurt, trying again, forgiving themselves, etc.  They see the *journey* these characters have gone through to actually evolve and change.

I often have gotten into this...argumentative discussion ...with other playres here -  about how *bad* I find the "morality" or "charaterization" of Star Wars when it comes to our RP Life and creating characters.  Not in the story itself.  I love Star Wars and always will.  But *because* the characters are SO black/white - the universe is so one dimensional - they become unplayable for our own purposes because we can't play them as "real."

If all Sith characters can only be evil baby slaughtering cannibals who go mad - then we really have no where to go with this as far as "growth of characters in plot."  If all Jedi are only old-lady helping good guys who never think a wrong thought, then again - there's no growth.  There's no development.  There's no where to go because they're already perfect and have figured themselves out perfectly. We can't RP characters that one dimensional - all of our Imperials and Sith can't just go around being the bad guys all the Jedi players have to kill.  We can't all RP going mad after XYZ number of years.  Its very boring RP. And pretty soon there would be no Sith, because people would be bored of being one dimensionally the evil villian coming up with plot after plot that the good guy Jedi foils.  "You Darn kids!!"

But people don't work that way. People question.  People doubt.  Its so intrinsic to our nature that we have Creation stories that explain why we were "cursed" to doubt and question.

As for Jedi vanishing and all that - I just don't think that's where this is going.  That would be a dead end to their storytelling and Disney's not that stupid.  Its great hype to get people to see the movie - and you can call the movie whatever you want (Watched the entire "No Country for Old Men" and not once did they say that - disappointed!) to make people question and wonder - so they get you in the theater.

But I don't think Disney is going to make "All Sith All the Time" galaxy coming out of this - that's not what sells.  That's not what the franchise has lasted 50 years with; so that's not what they are going to do.  They may make it LOOK like it - but no, in the final movie, at the end of it all - The Good Will Win (whatever side we feel we are on is the good one...) and the Balance will be maintained. (Whatever That Means)

I think its going to all look like LUke's questioning "hey maybe balance is 50/50...maybe you need both..blahblahblah..." and then in the end, "Naw...that's not right...its the Light!" *save* :)

*For the Record though, not all Sith went mad.  They didn't all try to overthrow their Masters.*

Media Gallery / Re: Squiggly's non-insignia artsy things
« on: 10/08/17, 07:18:33 PM »
1 - Love the drawings too!!

2- You could draw other's characters you know :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 146