Server Fanon

[Knock]

As someone who's had to approve profiles, I can tell you that input from players is in fact helpful. If there's a glaring flaw, it's better that someone points it out before the post has time to reach the bottom of the list. Otherwise, a GM will tell them the exact same thing and the profile will go right back up to the top anyway. I encourage players to help others with profiles, and I assume the majority of the GM team would say the same. They're not, as you put it, "people who troll people's profiles and try to "help" by constantly telling a person what they've done wrong."

In the 'Vouch for Brutal Honesty' thread you mentioned, one of the suggestions that came up time and time again was to be less lenient on character profiles.

I'd normally ask to bring the thread back on-topic, but your argument against the idea seems to be based on the notion that this is all about creating pages and pages of lore for people to stick to. It's not, I've stated this again and again. It's to clarify contradictions in Blizzard lore and areas left too vague to have anything to go on.

[DiesUltime]

Right. But that's a lot of stuff, again. This includes Warlocks, Deathknights, Non-Horde/Alliance factions like the Cartel, Scryers, Aldor, characters like the Naaru, events like the sundering. Old Gods. Things that happen in instances.

There are so many lore holes that to fix one doesn't solve any problems except the minor questions of a few. Sure, you could patch up the things you've mentioned, but as soon as other stuff gets mentioned, you'd patch that up too, aye?

That's my point.

And I understand that it may be helpful to you. But it also tends to wear on other players. That's why you are a GM, and they are players.

I'm intent on locking every single one of my profiles, because quite frankly I don't -need- people to scrutinize me that aren't going to approve/disaprove the profile, mostly because the GMs are just as capable of telling me where my fault lies.

And for every person I've seen talk about "Strictness", I've also seen just as many talk about leniency. Hell, in that post the people calling for strictness went to far as to call out people and berate them, which shows a problem, aye?


Also, I believe I am on topic. I'm disagreeing with this idea, and I'm stating why. I'm falling within the bounds of the topic, which is to make your own lore in regards to inconsistancies.

[Beltharean]

It seems to me that you're only thinking of this from the standpoint of how it will affect profiles, while honestly, that's one of the least important reasons for this to be implemented. Honestly, how many characters do you know who have ever talked about the specifics of a marriage ceremony in their profile? How about the minute details of a Witch Doctor's rituals, or the texture of phlogiston? When was the last time anyone spoke about whether or not Centaur are actually descendants of Cenarius, or if a Draenei should or shouldnt understand Ereduin?

What this fanon would, in the end, mostly be used for is in character interaction, and not players trolling profiles.

[DiesUltime]

Well, then in that case, you'll have people doing what I've mentioned during IC interactions, hmm? This is an assumption, but from what I've seen in the forums here, it wouldn't be a far cry to assume that people correct others in game as well frequently, hmm? And, in this case, it'd be even -less- of the GMs enforcing this and -more- players pushing this on players, which in my opinion is counter-productive.

I have a feeling I could state my opinion over and over again, however it seems as much as I'm "missing your points", that you guys are also "missing my points."

Honestly, -why- does it matter that you have this detail? Why is it so pivitol? My point is that it's becoming nit-picky, and if my shaman does a potion wrong and I'm dogged for it because CoTH says I'm doing it wrong, that sort of thing is BEYOND offputting.

[Psychyn]

And, in this case, it'd be even -less- of the GMs enforcing this and -more- players pushing this on players, which in my opinion is counter-productive.

I'm sure everything would be thoroughly discussed beforehand about people their opinions, and reached the middle ground somewhere. Either way, it will solve a lot of OOC discussion points and give people some clarity regarding things that are currently too vague to be even properly used. Would it matter? Yes, I think so as it would lead to a further understanding to your character, and it's capabilities and how it would all work out.

People on CotH enjoy details, while naturally not everyone agrees to it, it is something that separates CotH from every other RP server. (If I may state my opinion, which it is.) I like the details, I like how small things are clarified and have reasoning behind them.

I have a feeling I could state my opinion over and over again, however it seems as much as I'm "missing your points", that you guys are also "missing my points."

Well, if your entire opinion has been stated and backed up by, it should be left by that, no? ^.~ I'm not saying you should leave the discussion at all, but if a opinion has been given, it has been given. It shouldn't be forced, and I'm sure Knock is considering it.

I'm not sure what to add, so I'll leave it there.

[DiesUltime]

Right. Well, I'll just leave things at that then. Heh.

[Kaelvan]

I think it's an amazing idea. It would allow us to clarify some conflicts in lore that are quite evident and it would also give us some room to wiggle in a bit of our own custom lore like a rite of passage. As a community we could decide what exactly that rite of passage entails. It would certainly help distinguish us from the other servers out there.

I love the idea!

[mangaboy111]

Knock, you are a genius. But it has its downfalls, one thing is, what if someone used the lore which we say is... not coth for their character ages before they whole fannying about of this fanon? I love the idea, to be honest. I'm just trying to point out a weak spot, so we can cover it and the plan therefore becomes full proof. ^^

As I always say, "Just because it's not written in the lore, it doesn't mean it can't bloody well happen!"

"Oh no, your a paladin, who isn't so baised that it's just silly. /hate" is what i've had to deal with sometimes. "You can't be in Silithus without being eaten alive by swarms." o.O Even though you clearly can be because, Horde, Alliance and Cenrion Circle all have camps there. Anyway.. Fanoning will be useful for night elf, blood elf, and troll lore.

I'm all for it, just as long as it doesn't become silly, and people don't forget that WoW is fantasy based so "let's make everything super ultra realistic." is a no no in my books.

Peace.

[mangaboy111]

It seems to me that you're only thinking of this from the standpoint of how it will affect profiles, while honestly, that's one of the least important reasons for this to be implemented. Honestly, how many characters do you know who have ever talked about the specifics of a marriage ceremony in their profile? How about the minute details of a Witch Doctor's rituals, or the texture of phlogiston? When was the last time anyone spoke about whether or not Centaur are actually descendants of Cenarius, or if a Draenei should or shouldnt understand Ereduin?

What this fanon would, in the end, mostly be used for is in character interaction, and not players trolling profiles.

What of people playing night elves from a place with contradictory lore, which there are several. Dolria, who I am working on at the moment would be pretty much screwed and I'd have to write a whole new section if we said Felwood became what it is in Warcraft 3, because I have a very long battle scene where lots of important stuff that affects her present state happens there. And if we say all Warlocks must be evil, like I am often told while playing Lucius, which I have lore to provide against those statements, then thats another character out of the window. So if it's a possibility of affecting me, I think it will affect others.

Peace.

[Beltharean]

Not all warlocks are evil. Just wanted to get that outta the way; see my character Tres for proof of an accepted 'good' warlock.

But, in any case, since it is indeed fanon, it will be created by the -fans- of course. That meaning you, me, and most of all the GM team. I'm hoping in cases like your Night Elf's, since it's already considered server lore now in a sense, the GM team will take that into consideration when making decisions about these sorts of things.

If your history conflicts with another's however, I'm of the opinion that there should be two deciding factors over who's profile remains the same; the importance of the information in the history, and how likely or unlikely it is for the lore to be implemented is. That being, if a character visited Felwood once, and thought it was terrible how corrupt it was, then your character's lore would take precedent over theirs, AND, in the end (and most importantly), which of the two seems most likely. In this case, both scenarios are both about as evenly likely to be realistic.

[Azheron]

I believe that we are good enough to indeed, "Create lore" to clear things up.