Suggestion Expanding Opportunities for Antagonism

[MrBlwe]

Expanding Opportunities for Antagonism
(Voidal Magic)

Hello everyone! For those who do not know me my name is MrBlwe. I am writing this suggestion thread on behalf of myself but also my friends who have come with me to Fables and Fantasy, as many of them are interested in character growth as antagonists.

As it stands, from the recent post about server numbers, the server is growing in population. According to the graphs made by the hard working staff of the server, a majority of respondents to polling said they had joined in January of this year, and it seems like the positive trends will continue.

We are some of those players. This suggestion focuses on one main piece of antagonist roleplay, but also applies to antagonism broadly.

As it stands, magic like necromancy and hemomancy are hard to acquire in roleplay. We do not object to this reality. Voidal magics that are broadly illegal ICly (and for good reason) should be hard to acquire. That being said, we want to propose that the current situation is not ideal either.

Having to seek out teachers in the same way as regular magic seems antithetical to the nature of voidal magic as an antagonist force. Not only are they hard to find for obvious reasons, but the risk for character death is very high simply for even asking around about it. This creates a roadblock, albeit one we are generally okay with. The problem is that there seems to be a serious lack of opportunities for the growth of independent antagonists, meaning antagonists that wish not to join up with already existing necromancers/hemomancers.

One of the primary appeals of playing an antagonist character is the independence of it. The idea that through your own study and experimentation, you have become a powerful necromancer, that is a powerful motivator. This aspect is stifled by the current atmosphere of learning voidal magic, as one would have to either learn from the only necromancer character, or join up with an eventline that constrains the potential for the character to grow in their own unique way.

The suggestion we propose is opening up either other teachers for voidal magic, or opening applications for either discipline. We think that any negatives would be outweighed by the potential to bring in new and unique antagonist characters into the scene.

Obviously, we acknowledge the conflict of interest that permeates this suggestion. Myself and my friends are interested in exploring these magical disciplines in order to create antagonist characters, but the point broadly is something we think the community should consider for its benefits.

 

[Aleph]

Although I am personally interested in attaining necromancy on one of my characters, I think this suggestion is good for the overall goal of creating more opportunities for player-driven antagonism that don't rely on getting involved with events or going through the painstaking process of finding the one teacher that exists for a particular magic.

 

[Fredolator]

We could also explore other avenues of antagonism that don't involve voidal magic, since that seems limiting.

 

[dialectic]

Necromancy piqued my interest when I was first playing Calospex, but I abandoned the effort after running into similar roadblocks. At the very least, one other necromancer teacher could be warranted, since I think there's a great demand for it.

 

[darwj1]

Trouble is, we tend to associate some "forces" of power as "good" - as protagonistic in nature, if you will, while others become "bad" - antagonistic. It is often the case through our culture and general beliefs that what is "good" becomes part of the protagonist's story, and what is "bad" becomes part of the villain's story.

A great example of this is the definition of a villain (taken from Google, directly):

(in a film, novel, or play) a character whose evil actions or motives are important to the plot.

Even in the definition, we already notice the phrase "evil actions or motives".
Unfortunately, growing older we all realize that villains tend to show a more complex set of motives.

One of the most common examples is a friend turning to a fiend. You see, whatever anyone may tell you, in general we can accept that most people do not want to just be evil. So really, deciding to go down a path of Necromancy or Hemomancy that turns you evil by definition is wrong to begin with.

For example, somebody may have gone down that path with good intentions - perhaps as a study to help protect everyone from the dangers of it. It is a simple premise - finding out about the problems something causes in order to stop it. But then later, this could actually affect you and flip your motives upside down. The converse is true, also. It is possible to learn Elemental Magic with good will in the beginning, only to then become more maleficent as a result of your newfound powers.

Either way, presuming that "antagonistic" actions are linked towards the source of magic is, in my opinion, a bad way to go about this. People's motives are almost always not to cause pure chaos (though they could be). I like to split my "evils" into two kinds:

1. Relative evil: you are evil in the eyes of others, but your motives might actually be noble in your view. Your motives could be evil because of past trauma too, for example. Either way, it's "relative", because it's a question of "relative to who". This can be most notably witnessed with Bone Lord servants and some of the current Voidal Magicians. They are evil with a reason - a reason that one can understand.
   
   
2. Absolute evil: unlike before, an absolutely evil character pursues their actions for the mere sake of it. This dynamic was applied a lot in the recent Bone Lord event line - where his motives are beyond our understanding, and as far as we are concerned he is doing it just for the sake of it. There is no "relationship" to grasp at.

So, actually, a better solution to this problem, as I see it, would be to ditch the norm of whether certain kinds of magic are "good" and "bad". If you look at the High Elves, for example, in their view their actions are good, but a big chunk of characters are also right to assume their actions are bad. It is a matter of perspective. In that sense, you can say that High Elven actions are relatively evil, but likewise, you can say they are relatively good just as well. The question depends on who you ask.

Another example of this dynamic comes in Avalheim's recent decisions of absolute neutrality. While some characters decide this is a good and noble choice, others view it as allowing villains (ahem) to continue their existence. Again, you can note that they are relatively good, but also relatively evil. In this sense, you notice the definition reaching its limits and breaking down.

I propose that instead of associating magic, or really, anything with good or evil, we should instead establish relationships between each group of people and declare that as good or evil in the eyes of the beholder. This was actually attempted before - the relationship between High Elves and Dark Elves for example. Nobody here is right to assume that the other is good or evil, they are both in their own unique ways, but the truth is that you cannot declare that either one is absolutely evil.

Every character right now is a main character, because it would be unfair if only some of them were. This in turn makes us all protagonists in our own ways. To claim that some of us must be good or evil sets up an immediate prejudice that good should triumph over evil, which only hurts and limits the possibilities that one would normally be able to achieve. I call it "anti-creative". So ditch it.

To wrap things up...
Disassociate exact aspects of the server from absolute concepts of good and evil. Instead, establish strong correlations depending on the viewer, and let everybody choose their own view. It keeps conflict alive, gives characters room to evolve, and sets up breeding grounds for creative conflicts that are not possible within the current philosophy.

 

[snakegotcake]

Trouble is, we tend to associate some "forces" of power as "good" - as protagonistic in nature, if you will, while others become "bad" - antagonistic. It is often the case through our culture and general beliefs that what is "good" becomes part of the protagonist's story, and what is "bad" becomes part of the villain's story.

A great example of this is the definition of a villain (taken from Google, directly):

Even in the definition, we already notice the phrase "evil actions or motives".
Unfortunately, growing older we all realize that villains tend to show a more complex set of motives.

One of the most common examples is a friend turning to a fiend. You see, whatever anyone may tell you, in general we can accept that most people do not want to just be evil. So really, deciding to go down a path of Necromancy or Hemomancy that turns you evil by definition is wrong to begin with.

For example, somebody may have gone down that path with good intentions - perhaps as a study to help protect everyone from the dangers of it. It is a simple premise - finding out about the problems something causes in order to stop it. But then later, this could actually affect you and flip your motives upside down. The converse is true, also. It is possible to learn Elemental Magic with good will in the beginning, only to then become more maleficent as a result of your newfound powers.

Either way, presuming that "antagonistic" actions are linked towards the source of magic is, in my opinion, a bad way to go about this. People's motives are almost always not to cause pure chaos (though they could be). I like to split my "evils" into two kinds:

1. Relative evil: you are evil in the eyes of others, but your motives might actually be noble in your view. Your motives could be evil because of past trauma too, for example. Either way, it's "relative", because it's a question of "relative to who". This can be most notably witnessed with Bone Lord servants and some of the current Voidal Magicians. They are evil with a reason - a reason that one can understand.
   
   
2. Absolute evil: unlike before, an absolutely evil character pursues their actions for the mere sake of it. This dynamic was applied a lot in the recent Bone Lord event line - where his motives are beyond our understanding, and as far as we are concerned he is doing it just for the sake of it. There is no "relationship" to grasp at.

So, actually, a better solution to this problem, as I see it, would be to ditch the norm of whether certain kinds of magic are "good" and "bad". If you look at the High Elves, for example, in their view their actions are good, but a big chunk of characters are also right to assume their actions are bad. It is a matter of perspective. In that sense, you can say that High Elven actions are relatively evil, but likewise, you can say they are relatively good just as well. The question depends on who you ask.

Another example of this dynamic comes in Avalheim's recent decisions of absolute neutrality. While some characters decide this is a good and noble choice, others view it as allowing villains (ahem) to continue their existence. Again, you can note that they are relatively good, but also relatively evil. In this sense, you notice the definition reaching its limits and breaking down.

I propose that instead of associating magic, or really, anything with good or evil, we should instead establish relationships between each group of people and declare that as good or evil in the eyes of the beholder. This was actually attempted before - the relationship between High Elves and Dark Elves for example. Nobody here is right to assume that the other is good or evil, they are both in their own unique ways, but the truth is that you cannot declare that either one is absolutely evil.

Every character right now is a main character, because it would be unfair if only some of them were. This in turn makes us all protagonists in our own ways. To claim that some of us must be good or evil sets up an immediate prejudice that good should triumph over evil, which only hurts and limits the possibilities that one would normally be able to achieve. I call it "anti-creative". So ditch it.

To wrap things up...
Disassociate exact aspects of the server from absolute concepts of good and evil. Instead, establish strong correlations depending on the viewer, and let everybody choose their own view. It keeps conflict alive, gives characters room to evolve, and sets up breeding grounds for creative conflicts that are not possible within the current philosophy.

I think words such as "antagonistic" or "evil" from the player of the antagonistic character are good OOC indicators for other players.

Evil is subjective. Sometimes! Terrorism is arguably subjective because of groups' end-goals, means. But the tools used along the way- which I don't think I need to list out here- typically develop a very negative connotation. When the magic these players seek has the association that it does, it's entirely fair for these same players to view it as enticingly "evil", even if it is not that.

I believe these players competent enough to discern whether or not a character is "evil" beyond their preferred school of magic. It's almost insulting to assume they can't.

Nothing about this suggestion is anti-creative. It's a request from a group of players that wish to utilize voidal magic in their antagonistic roleplay, signifying a growing demand for something made almost forcibly scarce. They want to make independent pools of villainy sourced in voidal magic separate from existing voidal magic users. What's wrong with that?

I don't think this is really relative to the post. It somewhat misses the point. It's almost excessive and aggressive.

 

[Twisted_Tiefling]

Trouble is, we tend to associate some "forces" of power as "good" - as protagonistic in nature, if you will, while others become "bad" - antagonistic. It is often the case through our culture and general beliefs that what is "good" becomes part of the protagonist's story, and what is "bad" becomes part of the villain's story.

A great example of this is the definition of a villain (taken from Google, directly):

Even in the definition, we already notice the phrase "evil actions or motives".
Unfortunately, growing older we all realize that villains tend to show a more complex set of motives.

One of the most common examples is a friend turning to a fiend. You see, whatever anyone may tell you, in general we can accept that most people do not want to just be evil. So really, deciding to go down a path of Necromancy or Hemomancy that turns you evil by definition is wrong to begin with.

For example, somebody may have gone down that path with good intentions - perhaps as a study to help protect everyone from the dangers of it. It is a simple premise - finding out about the problems something causes in order to stop it. But then later, this could actually affect you and flip your motives upside down. The converse is true, also. It is possible to learn Elemental Magic with good will in the beginning, only to then become more maleficent as a result of your newfound powers.

Either way, presuming that "antagonistic" actions are linked towards the source of magic is, in my opinion, a bad way to go about this. People's motives are almost always not to cause pure chaos (though they could be). I like to split my "evils" into two kinds:

1. Relative evil: you are evil in the eyes of others, but your motives might actually be noble in your view. Your motives could be evil because of past trauma too, for example. Either way, it's "relative", because it's a question of "relative to who". This can be most notably witnessed with Bone Lord servants and some of the current Voidal Magicians. They are evil with a reason - a reason that one can understand.
   
   
2. Absolute evil: unlike before, an absolutely evil character pursues their actions for the mere sake of it. This dynamic was applied a lot in the recent Bone Lord event line - where his motives are beyond our understanding, and as far as we are concerned he is doing it just for the sake of it. There is no "relationship" to grasp at.

So, actually, a better solution to this problem, as I see it, would be to ditch the norm of whether certain kinds of magic are "good" and "bad". If you look at the High Elves, for example, in their view their actions are good, but a big chunk of characters are also right to assume their actions are bad. It is a matter of perspective. In that sense, you can say that High Elven actions are relatively evil, but likewise, you can say they are relatively good just as well. The question depends on who you ask.

Another example of this dynamic comes in Avalheim's recent decisions of absolute neutrality. While some characters decide this is a good and noble choice, others view it as allowing villains (ahem) to continue their existence. Again, you can note that they are relatively good, but also relatively evil. In this sense, you notice the definition reaching its limits and breaking down.

I propose that instead of associating magic, or really, anything with good or evil, we should instead establish relationships between each group of people and declare that as good or evil in the eyes of the beholder. This was actually attempted before - the relationship between High Elves and Dark Elves for example. Nobody here is right to assume that the other is good or evil, they are both in their own unique ways, but the truth is that you cannot declare that either one is absolutely evil.

Every character right now is a main character, because it would be unfair if only some of them were. This in turn makes us all protagonists in our own ways. To claim that some of us must be good or evil sets up an immediate prejudice that good should triumph over evil, which only hurts and limits the possibilities that one would normally be able to achieve. I call it "anti-creative". So ditch it.

To wrap things up...
Disassociate exact aspects of the server from absolute concepts of good and evil. Instead, establish strong correlations depending on the viewer, and let everybody choose their own view. It keeps conflict alive, gives characters room to evolve, and sets up breeding grounds for creative conflicts that are not possible within the current philosophy.

I do not understand how pitching for more diverse array of antagonists is anti-creative.

No one has said anything along the lines of folks needing to be antagonists, but the end of the line is that the general and rightful assumption is that folks who are investing their time in learning how to drain blood from others or raise undead monsters are not of a positive affiliation. Generally speaking if you are aiming towards such a power, you are aiming for a more antagonistic roll. An antagonist does not even necessarily have to be evil, they are just a force in conflict with the main goal of the narrative. Furthermore, if folks are looking or wanting to be antagonists I say let them as it provides a greater array of characters and a richer story experience.

Not every character has to be a protagonist, most folks just want to or see themselves as such and that is their choice. But asking or pitching for a new possibility a different appeal is in no ways anti-creative in my opinion, but creativity itself as it offers more possibilities to the story rather than limiting such. It sounds like you are reading this and assuming somehow folks are saying to limit these magics or such to purely evil people, while to my understanding none have said any such thing.

 

[darwj1]

I think words such as "antagonistic" or "evil" from the player of the antagonistic character are good OOC indicators for other players.

Evil is subjective. Sometimes! Terrorism is arguably subjective because of groups' end-goals, means. But the tools used along the way- which I don't think I need to list out here- typically develop a very negative connotation. When the magic these players seek has the association that it does, it's entirely fair for these same players to view it as enticingly "evil", even if it is not that.

I believe these players competent enough to discern whether or not a character is "evil" beyond their preferred school of magic. It's almost insulting to assume they can't.

Nothing about this suggestion is anti-creative. It's a request from a group of players that wish to utilize voidal magic in their antagonistic roleplay, signifying a growing demand for something made almost forcibly scarce. They want to make independent pools of villainy sourced in voidal magic separate from existing voidal magic users. What's wrong with that?

I don't think this is really relative to the post. It somewhat misses the point. It's almost excessive and aggressive.

I do not understand how pitching for more diverse array of antagonists is anti-creative.

No one has said anything along the lines of folks needing to be antagonists, but the end of the line is that the general and rightful assumption is that folks who are investing their time in learning how to drain blood from others or raise undead monsters are not of a positive affiliation. Generally speaking if you are aiming towards such a power, you are aiming for a more antagonistic roll. An antagonist does not even necessarily have to be evil, they are just a force in conflict with the main goal of the narrative. Furthermore, if folks are looking or wanting to be antagonists I say let them as it provides a greater array of characters and a richer story experience.

Not every character has to be a protagonist, most folks just want to or see themselves as such and that is their choice. But asking or pitching for a new possibility a different appeal is in no ways anti-creative in my opinion, but creativity itself as it offers more possibilities to the story rather than limiting such. It sounds like you are reading this and assuming somehow folks are saying to limit these magics or such to purely evil people, while to my understanding none have said any such thing.

Seems like my point was not understood. Actually, I equally vouch for the suggestion presented as much as you do - I would love to see more options for people to obtain forbidden powers. But at the same time, I posed a problem challenging the suggestion.

First, your replies confirm exactly what I was discussing about - you are associating "evil" actions to "antagonistic" actions. Notice that what I said wasn't about how Voidal Magic is not evil inherently (in fact I never really talked about that). I talked about characters and their motives. You cannot link "evil" to "antagonistic" (which you seem to do).

People do link antagonism to evilness. See OP's message (3rd paragraph):

This suggestion focuses on one main piece of antagonist roleplay, but also applies to antagonism broadly.

Even in the original suggestion, the OP opens by stating the suggestion focuses on antagonistic roleplay.

I agree with the statement:

I believe these players competent enough to discern whether or not a character is "evil" beyond their preferred school of magic.

in the same way I agree with:

Evil is subjective. Sometimes! Terrorism is arguably subjective because of groups' end-goals, means.

but make no mistake. While we can pin-point some means of achieving a goal are strictly forbidden (just like Voidal Magic is, and this fact is not possible to change! ), we cannot justify whether a character is evil or not based on this purely.

Characters are more complicated than just a "parameter" that dictates how good or evil you are. I cannot dump every character into "good" or "evil" because I want to - in fact, this is all in the view of the beholder (which was my main point! ). This was my main disagreement with the OP, it immediately asserts that Voidal Magic is antagonistic in nature.

No matter how you look at it: an antagonist is a character in a story opposing the protagonist, where the protagonist is defined as simply the main character of a story. You cannot decide who is a protagonist or not on Fables & Fantasy RP, because players are free to choose their own path. In the context of every player, they are their own protagonist, because, by definition, they are their main characters.

To try to say some players are not the protagonists of their own view is to assert others must be - I see this as incredibly unfair and a very unpleasant experience if that is the case. Everyone should be given equal chances to create their own story. You cannot leave some of them out from being protagonists.

Because everyone is a protagonist, they themselves choose who are their antagonists. It seems obvious, it's just like real life. You have friends and you have enemies. That doesn't mean that someone you dislike is evil because they are antagonists. Actually, I thought I made that clear in the post, but if I haven't, then hopefully now I have.

This here I simply cannot agree with:

Not every character has to be a protagonist, most folks just want to or see themselves as such and that is their choice.

because it just isn't the case. As I stated before - that has to be case. Any other logical reasoning leads to that conclusion.

Yet if a Loremaster (who in my opinion should understand characters better than me) agrees with this idea, then I suppose what I stated before must be invalidated, which then makes me wonder: If not all characters are protagonists, then what are they? Side characters? If that is the case, then could you write down a list of all the "protagonists"? I am curious to see what the Lore Team sees as protagonists.

In this statement:

But asking or pitching for a new possibility a different appeal is in no ways anti-creative in my opinion

you are completely correct. In fact, I never said that the suggestion was "anti-creative". I was talking about setting the prejudice of good and evil (which at the time of writing goes hand-in-hand with "protagonists" and "antagonists" as you seem to suggest).

Actually, the suggestion is perfectly fine. I would love to see more ways to obtain magic be implemented. But even so:

I don't think this is really relative to the post. It somewhat misses the point. It's almost excessive and aggressive.

I cannot see how sparking up a discussion to get all the details out of the way is off topic, how it misses the point (it doesn't...), or how it is excessive and aggressive. Clearing up fundamental details such as this early on is important to ensure these don't return at a later point. It is you who sees it as excessive, but endlessly avoiding a clear discussion on this will come bite us all in the butt one day.

As for being aggressive? Well... Yeah. My tone is abrasive sometimes. Actually, most of the time. I don't see how that is a problem in any way. That's the way I speak, and I'm sorry if this upsets you.

To bring this up again:

I believe these players competent enough to discern whether or not a character is "evil" beyond their preferred school of magic. It's almost insulting to assume they can't.

I agree. In fact, this is part of the rationale for my original reply. Indeed! People can discern themselves if something is good or evil... So then, why declare some things as good and evil out of principle? How about we don't - people are smart enough to figure this out on their own!

Hopefully that clears things out somewhat.

 

[HellArrow17]

Trouble is, we tend to associate some "forces" of power as "good" - as protagonistic in nature, if you will, while others become "bad" - antagonistic. It is often the case through our culture and general beliefs that what is "good" becomes part of the protagonist's story, and what is "bad" becomes part of the villain's story.

A great example of this is the definition of a villain (taken from Google, directly):

Even in the definition, we already notice the phrase "evil actions or motives".
Unfortunately, growing older we all realize that villains tend to show a more complex set of motives.

One of the most common examples is a friend turning to a fiend. You see, whatever anyone may tell you, in general we can accept that most people do not want to just be evil. So really, deciding to go down a path of Necromancy or Hemomancy that turns you evil by definition is wrong to begin with.

For example, somebody may have gone down that path with good intentions - perhaps as a study to help protect everyone from the dangers of it. It is a simple premise - finding out about the problems something causes in order to stop it. But then later, this could actually affect you and flip your motives upside down. The converse is true, also. It is possible to learn Elemental Magic with good will in the beginning, only to then become more maleficent as a result of your newfound powers.

Either way, presuming that "antagonistic" actions are linked towards the source of magic is, in my opinion, a bad way to go about this. People's motives are almost always not to cause pure chaos (though they could be). I like to split my "evils" into two kinds:

1. Relative evil: you are evil in the eyes of others, but your motives might actually be noble in your view. Your motives could be evil because of past trauma too, for example. Either way, it's "relative", because it's a question of "relative to who". This can be most notably witnessed with Bone Lord servants and some of the current Voidal Magicians. They are evil with a reason - a reason that one can understand.
   
   
2. Absolute evil: unlike before, an absolutely evil character pursues their actions for the mere sake of it. This dynamic was applied a lot in the recent Bone Lord event line - where his motives are beyond our understanding, and as far as we are concerned he is doing it just for the sake of it. There is no "relationship" to grasp at.

So, actually, a better solution to this problem, as I see it, would be to ditch the norm of whether certain kinds of magic are "good" and "bad". If you look at the High Elves, for example, in their view their actions are good, but a big chunk of characters are also right to assume their actions are bad. It is a matter of perspective. In that sense, you can say that High Elven actions are relatively evil, but likewise, you can say they are relatively good just as well. The question depends on who you ask.

Another example of this dynamic comes in Avalheim's recent decisions of absolute neutrality. While some characters decide this is a good and noble choice, others view it as allowing villains (ahem) to continue their existence. Again, you can note that they are relatively good, but also relatively evil. In this sense, you notice the definition reaching its limits and breaking down.

I propose that instead of associating magic, or really, anything with good or evil, we should instead establish relationships between each group of people and declare that as good or evil in the eyes of the beholder. This was actually attempted before - the relationship between High Elves and Dark Elves for example. Nobody here is right to assume that the other is good or evil, they are both in their own unique ways, but the truth is that you cannot declare that either one is absolutely evil.

Every character right now is a main character, because it would be unfair if only some of them were. This in turn makes us all protagonists in our own ways. To claim that some of us must be good or evil sets up an immediate prejudice that good should triumph over evil, which only hurts and limits the possibilities that one would normally be able to achieve. I call it "anti-creative". So ditch it.

To wrap things up...
Disassociate exact aspects of the server from absolute concepts of good and evil. Instead, establish strong correlations depending on the viewer, and let everybody choose their own view. It keeps conflict alive, gives characters room to evolve, and sets up breeding grounds for creative conflicts that are not possible within the current philosophy.

I think you should be antagonist in your own right , many ppl on this server wont have the mindset do become pure evil cause it is a pain in the ass, i think promoting antagonism is good but you need to learn to accept the consequences. some of the "pledglings" just cant.

 

[HellArrow17]

To some ppl its all fun and games but when they get captured they refuse to get pked eventho they accepted to become a villain.

 

[snakegotcake]

Seems like my point was not understood. Actually, I equally vouch for the suggestion presented as much as you do - I would love to see more options for people to obtain forbidden powers. But at the same time, I posed a problem challenging the suggestion.

First, your replies confirm exactly what I was discussing about - you are associating "evil" actions to "antagonistic" actions. Notice that what I said wasn't about how Voidal Magic is not evil inherently (in fact I never really talked about that). I talked about characters and their motives. You cannot link "evil" to "antagonistic" (which you seem to do).

People do link antagonism to evilness. See OP's message (3rd paragraph):

Even in the original suggestion, the OP opens by stating the suggestion focuses on antagonistic roleplay.

I agree with the statement:

in the same way I agree with:

but make no mistake. While we can pin-point some means of achieving a goal are strictly forbidden (just like Voidal Magic is, and this fact is not possible to change! ), we cannot justify whether a character is evil or not based on this purely.

Characters are more complicated than just a "parameter" that dictates how good or evil you are. I cannot dump every character into "good" or "evil" because I want to - in fact, this is all in the view of the beholder (which was my main point! ). This was my main disagreement with the OP, it immediately asserts that Voidal Magic is antagonistic in nature.

No matter how you look at it: an antagonist is a character in a story opposing the protagonist, where the protagonist is defined as simply the main character of a story. You cannot decide who is a protagonist or not on Fables & Fantasy RP, because players are free to choose their own path. In the context of every player, they are their own protagonist, because, by definition, they are their main characters.

To try to say some players are not the protagonists of their own view is to assert others must be - I see this as incredibly unfair and a very unpleasant experience if that is the case. Everyone should be given equal chances to create their own story. You cannot leave some of them out from being protagonists.

Because everyone is a protagonist, they themselves choose who are their antagonists. It seems obvious, it's just like real life. You have friends and you have enemies. That doesn't mean that someone you dislike is evil because they are antagonists. Actually, I thought I made that clear in the post, but if I haven't, then hopefully now I have.

This here I simply cannot agree with:

because it just isn't the case. As I stated before - that has to be case. Any other logical reasoning leads to that conclusion.

Yet if a Loremaster (who in my opinion should understand characters better than me) agrees with this idea, then I suppose what I stated before must be invalidated, which then makes me wonder: If not all characters are protagonists, then what are they? Side characters? If that is the case, then could you write down a list of all the "protagonists"? I am curious to see what the Lore Team sees as protagonists.

In this statement:

you are completely correct. In fact, I never said that the suggestion was "anti-creative". I was talking about setting the prejudice of good and evil (which at the time of writing goes hand-in-hand with "protagonists" and "antagonists" as you seem to suggest).

Actually, the suggestion is perfectly fine. I would love to see more ways to obtain magic be implemented. But even so:

I cannot see how sparking up a discussion to get all the details out of the way is off topic, how it misses the point (it doesn't...), or how it is excessive and aggressive. Clearing up fundamental details such as this early on is important to ensure these don't return at a later point. It is you who sees it as excessive, but endlessly avoiding a clear discussion on this will come bite us all in the butt one day.

As for being aggressive? Well... Yeah. My tone is abrasive sometimes. Actually, most of the time. I don't see how that is a problem in any way. That's the way I speak, and I'm sorry if this upsets you.

To bring this up again:

I agree. In fact, this is part of the rationale for my original reply. Indeed! People can discern themselves if something is good or evil... So then, why declare some things as good and evil out of principle? How about we don't - people are smart enough to figure this out on their own!

Hopefully that clears things out somewhat.

I think we can determine a character to be evil when their player outright describes them as such without an at-length discussion of semantics. This player wants to be antagonistic with the means of voidal magic and is requesting there be a marginally broader opportunity to acquire it and use it- in this case for evil or antagonistic purposes. This can be seen as a general suggestion for a higher availability of magic due to the exponential growth in server popularity in the past month. They do not need to be given a rundown on character design in MLA format. It is tangential to the suggestion's goal at best.

You cannot in good faith say "It is you who sees it as excessive, but endlessly avoiding a clear discussion on this will come bite us all in the butt one day." and then say "As for being aggressive? Well... Yeah. My tone is abrasive sometimes. Actually, most of the time. I don't see how that is a problem in any way. That's the way I speak, and I'm sorry if this upsets you." This can quickly be perceived as pushy and again unnecessary. This has accomplished a net nothing for either party- the intricacies of what makes a character evil, a protagonist, or an antagonist is something both parties already know. This comes off as mocking and dictating, particularly with instances such as "I call it "anti-creative". So ditch it." You are not the end-all or be-all of this discussion. This is exceedingly limiting and rude.

This language suggests that these players lack the capacity to create a character that is anything but a shallow and contrived failure of subtlety and nuance. It does not come across as constructive. I will be brazen enough to tell you that it comes off as self-important. Reconsider this language when you yourself acknowledge it to be abrasive while simultaneously disregarding others' reactions to it.

Edit: I am not making any further comment on the situation. I don't want to take up any more room for proper discussion.

 

[darwj1]

I still insist you miss my point. It is not possible to describe anyone as antagonistic because you can only describe everyone either as a protagonist, or without any word. What they consider to be "evil" I might see as "good". So, even if they suggest their actions are intended to be "evil", maybe to me they are "good". It's not about the semantics only, it is about perspective. To say it is "tangential" is to ignore the core of my argument; one of the fundamental supporting arguments of this suggestion is about the antagonistic nature of things - i.e. to make them more available without a teacher because they are "an antagonistic force".

In fact, this is my problem with the idea fundamentally. This is why I don't see it as "tangential". It relies on a character wanting to do antagonistic roleplay and only seeing it through the means which the server provides as "forbidden". See OP:

Voidal magics that are broadly illegal ICly (and for good reason) should be hard to acquire.
[...]
The problem is that there seems to be a serious lack of opportunities for the growth of independent antagonists

But, as I mentioned before over and over again, there is no such concept of antagonism unless you define it relatively.
Again, it isn't just about semantics, it is about the philosophy as a whole.

The suggestion at its core is great! Yes, indeed, there are not enough ways for "antagonists" to play.
But my problem is that there are no antagonists to begin with. What about elemental magic, for example? I think "antagonists" (in quotes...) should be able to use elemental magic too (and some people do! think of the tear that was recently dealt with in Aerial - to me that person was not an antagonist - I accepted their decision! ).

So, to reaffirm my point: don't limit "antagonism" to voidal magic only. It's not about general magic, or voidal magic, or general options of magicians. It's about the concept of antagonism making no sense in our context, so using it as an argument for this makes the argument fall apart. That is why I wanted to spark a discussion about it.

And even so, if the OP provides a proof of meaning to do "antagonistic" roleplay, a simple question arises: antagonistic towards who?
And, my discussion again arises - antagonism is relative. You either agree or you don't, and that is up to you.

If the way I phrase myself upsets you, again, then I am sorry. You're free to think whatever you want (or talk back the same way, I really don't mind...) But at its core, it has nothing to do with my point, and considering your reply was 1 paragraph lightly touching on what I said and then 2 discussing my tone, I am willing to believe you still have not understood me. If you think my discussion is that you don't know what good and evil is, or that it is all a matter on semantics, then you simply misunderstood me. So, let's leave it at that then.

 

[Twisted_Tiefling]

Seems like my point was not understood. Actually, I equally vouch for the suggestion presented as much as you do - I would love to see more options for people to obtain forbidden powers. But at the same time, I posed a problem challenging the suggestion.

First, your replies confirm exactly what I was discussing about - you are associating "evil" actions to "antagonistic" actions. Notice that what I said wasn't about how Voidal Magic is not evil inherently (in fact I never really talked about that). I talked about characters and their motives. You cannot link "evil" to "antagonistic" (which you seem to do).

People do link antagonism to evilness. See OP's message (3rd paragraph):

Even in the original suggestion, the OP opens by stating the suggestion focuses on antagonistic roleplay.

I agree with the statement:

in the same way I agree with:

but make no mistake. While we can pin-point some means of achieving a goal are strictly forbidden (just like Voidal Magic is, and this fact is not possible to change! ), we cannot justify whether a character is evil or not based on this purely.

Characters are more complicated than just a "parameter" that dictates how good or evil you are. I cannot dump every character into "good" or "evil" because I want to - in fact, this is all in the view of the beholder (which was my main point! ). This was my main disagreement with the OP, it immediately asserts that Voidal Magic is antagonistic in nature.

No matter how you look at it: an antagonist is a character in a story opposing the protagonist, where the protagonist is defined as simply the main character of a story. You cannot decide who is a protagonist or not on Fables & Fantasy RP, because players are free to choose their own path. In the context of every player, they are their own protagonist, because, by definition, they are their main characters.

To try to say some players are not the protagonists of their own view is to assert others must be - I see this as incredibly unfair and a very unpleasant experience if that is the case. Everyone should be given equal chances to create their own story. You cannot leave some of them out from being protagonists.

Because everyone is a protagonist, they themselves choose who are their antagonists. It seems obvious, it's just like real life. You have friends and you have enemies. That doesn't mean that someone you dislike is evil because they are antagonists. Actually, I thought I made that clear in the post, but if I haven't, then hopefully now I have.

This here I simply cannot agree with:

because it just isn't the case. As I stated before - that has to be case. Any other logical reasoning leads to that conclusion.

Yet if a Loremaster (who in my opinion should understand characters better than me) agrees with this idea, then I suppose what I stated before must be invalidated, which then makes me wonder: If not all characters are protagonists, then what are they? Side characters? If that is the case, then could you write down a list of all the "protagonists"? I am curious to see what the Lore Team sees as protagonists.

In this statement:

you are completely correct. In fact, I never said that the suggestion was "anti-creative". I was talking about setting the prejudice of good and evil (which at the time of writing goes hand-in-hand with "protagonists" and "antagonists" as you seem to suggest).

Actually, the suggestion is perfectly fine. I would love to see more ways to obtain magic be implemented. But even so:

I cannot see how sparking up a discussion to get all the details out of the way is off topic, how it misses the point (it doesn't...), or how it is excessive and aggressive. Clearing up fundamental details such as this early on is important to ensure these don't return at a later point. It is you who sees it as excessive, but endlessly avoiding a clear discussion on this will come bite us all in the butt one day.

As for being aggressive? Well... Yeah. My tone is abrasive sometimes. Actually, most of the time. I don't see how that is a problem in any way. That's the way I speak, and I'm sorry if this upsets you.

To bring this up again:

I agree. In fact, this is part of the rationale for my original reply. Indeed! People can discern themselves if something is good or evil... So then, why declare some things as good and evil out of principle? How about we don't - people are smart enough to figure this out on their own!

Hopefully that clears things out somewhat.

I think there is a bit of a mix-up in perspective here.

When you mention that every character has to be a protagonist by the very logic of playing a character, I do understand a bit more of what you are saying. As roleplayers our characters are our sole experience, and so as our characters are the main force for our individual experience they are, based on what you have stated, always going to be the protagonist for their creators in that sense.

However, that is not the only way to view a story nor view a roleplay experience or any hands-on interactive work of media.

Some people are less concerned about using their character as a singular view within the story, often for their own personal enjoyment, and rather find enjoyment in how their character contributes to the richness of the narrative for other characters or the story at large. I myself view my characters in this way, because I find much more enjoyment in how my characters enhance the whole of the story rather than how they live their individual lives and lead their own efforts. This, to my understanding, is also how the OP views such possibilities for those of interest. A contributor to the larger story, and thus, able to take on whatever role they wish as a piece of the whole of the narrative rather than simply their own individual experience. Thus, in that sense, one can be the antagonist as their perspective is not serving only their own investment but finding investment in how it enhances the experience for others.

As for previous mentions to how this discussion can seem off-topic, the OP was mainly speaking of introducing further possibilities for roleplay and used the phrase of antagonism under the perspective of the greater narrative (to my understanding) not the individual experience. Then, whilst voicing your own genuine opinion under the view of the individual experience (to open up such discussions), you specifically highlighted an argument against seeing things through black & white / good & evil (in which even the words good or evil were never used in the OP), and used phrases such as "so ditch it" which can come off as very adversarial. Thus, from a certain point of view, this can seem very off-topic and aggressive as the implications of evil were never brought up previously (in which even you yourself mentioned forms of evil and antagonism not always being the same by definition) and especially the phrase of "so ditch it" can give off the impression that you are telling one & their group to abandon what they are trying to achieve.

 

[PineappleMedic]

I still insist you miss my point. It is not possible to describe anyone as antagonistic because you can only describe everyone either as a protagonist, or without any word. What they consider to be "evil" I might see as "good". So, even if they suggest their actions are intended to be "evil", maybe to me they are "good". It's not about the semantics only, it is about perspective. To say it is "tangential" is to ignore the core of my argument; one of the fundamental supporting arguments of this suggestion is about the antagonistic nature of things - i.e. to make them more available without a teacher because they are "an antagonistic force".

In fact, this is my problem with the idea fundamentally. This is why I don't see it as "tangential". It relies on a character wanting to do antagonistic roleplay and only seeing it through the means which the server provides as "forbidden". See OP:

But, as I mentioned before over and over again, there is no such concept of antagonism unless you define it relatively.
Again, it isn't just about semantics, it is about the philosophy as a whole.

The suggestion at its core is great! Yes, indeed, there are not enough ways for "antagonists" to play.
But my problem is that there are no antagonists to begin with. What about elemental magic, for example? I think "antagonists" (in quotes...) should be able to use elemental magic too (and some people do! think of the tear that was recently dealt with in Aerial - to me that person was not an antagonist - I accepted their decision! ).

So, to reaffirm my point: don't limit "antagonism" to voidal magic only. It's not about general magic, or voidal magic, or general options of magicians. It's about the concept of antagonism making no sense in our context, so using it as an argument for this makes the argument fall apart. That is why I wanted to spark a discussion about it.

And even so, if the OP provides a proof of meaning to do "antagonistic" roleplay, a simple question arises: antagonistic towards who?
And, my discussion again arises - antagonism is relative. You either agree or you don't, and that is up to you.

If the way I phrase myself upsets you, again, then I am sorry. You're free to think whatever you want (or talk back the same way, I really don't mind...) But at its core, it has nothing to do with my point, and considering your reply was 1 paragraph lightly touching on what I said and then 2 discussing my tone, I am willing to believe you still have not understood me. If you think my discussion is that you don't know what good and evil is, or that it is all a matter on semantics, then you simply misunderstood me. So, let's leave it at that then.

Bud, no one here was debating the semantics of villain vs. antagonist.

You brought that up, connected vague relevancy to the original suggestion and when everyone rejected your random point as irrelevant you say they are 'misunderstanding' your argument. You contributed a lot of words and a whole lot of nothing beyond making folks net-wide dislike you, and by extension your point.