Tanaris humans?

[Rigley]

"Because they are hostile" was a very minor point in my post. Probably the -last- point I would ever reference in regards to this argument, but if we want to go this route...

Name a Wastewander that is not hostile.

What I was stating was how the rule itself was meant to be read; to say 'because its hostile EVER' is an extreme of that, and its an extreme that doesn't exist. Orcs are both hostile and friendly. Humans are, paladins are, etc.

Scarlets are not. Defias are not. Ice trolls and many other troll tribes are not; That's the difference there, and to act like the two are comparable is just a bit... silly. There's a clear difference between a group such as the trolls friendly to the Horde and the Drakkari, or so forth.

[Thoradin]

I do believe the Wastewanders in Uldum, the ones that are members of the Caravan anyways, are friendly. And I am fairly positive they are Wastewanders, simply because of the way the characters act, their names, and so on so forth.

As for the Scarlets, there just so happens to be a Scarlet Rebellion come Cata, and since were just before Cata, perhaps it is safe to start? Not to mention a good portion of the Argent Crusade are former Scarlets.

My whole argument was really more of "don't assume all are hostile", which was what I was trying to get across if it seemed like something else. I mean, what would be the harm of allowing a character to be a Tanari exile? They can never go back to their clansmen as it is, and they do say that spice is the variety of life.

I mean look at the Venture Company, lore-wise they don't attack everyone on sight otherwise Ratchet would be a very dangerous place to live (considering at least half the entire city belongs to them). Yet for in-game purposes every one of them you meet while leveling is an enemy because of the quests pitted against them. Personally I'd like to help the Venture Co. just because, why not? However there are no quests to help them, because there is an assumption that every character plays a Loyalist, so to speak.

I dunno, again I just think it is a bit odd to limit means of RP, on an RP server.

[Rigley]

The reason I'm against it (beyond hostile factions, which as I said, is a minor point) is because there's so little there beyond 'they may be themed off the middle-east'. Any idea of traditions, history, cultural perceptions and so forth is all complete fanon-- looking at the NPCs in game nothing is overly tilted towards a different culture other than one of necessity as a bandit group (the most being those wearing hoods, but then again, it's the desert), and in the past the only thing people have ran off of when playing them was fanon-- there isn't real proof of a Tanari language, nor any social structure of a traditional clan. The only real indicator is that their leader is named as a Caliph and they live in a desert.

We could roll with a reformed Scarlet, because they have solid lore behind them. Venture Co? Sure, that's just a different goblin group-- they're largely similar to Steamwheedle by most accounts. But what people have RP'd from the Tanaris humans is mostly derived from their own speculations, which we really have no way of confirming or denying. So it's stepping into a realm of fanon that's just a bit too awkward, in my own opinion-- it's conjuring up a new culture entirely without much basis for it, save again two thematic objects for the group.

EDIT:

I can see limiting it if only to avoid the creation of unsubstantiated lore.

Basically this. While hostile factions is the weakest argument, I believe this is the strongest I could provide for this point.

[Piroska]

I can see limiting it if only to avoid the creation of unsubstantiated lore.

[Thoradin]

But then again, most Roleplay is based off of speculation. For instance, the whole Solidarity thing you are doing Rigley. Not to sound forceful, or anything, but that is speculation that the people of Stormwind are unhappy with the King and are protesting because of it.

It's speculation as to whether Alterac could be based off the french, or the english, or whomever, it's mainly up to the player to decide.

So if there isn't a Tanari language, oh well I suppose that is tough s**t for them, but honestly I believe they should be allowed to speculate that as they will. Again, not to sound forceful, but even if there is not a whole lot of lore behind them, that shouldn't mean much on a non-canon private RP server. Sure, we should try to stick as close to the game as possible, but if we were to do that then every character would be running around in the most recent tiered armor screaming tales of how they killed the Lich King.

And as for substantiated lore... well, I am certain there are a good couple of groups that people play apart of that have little to no lore behind them. The Steamwheedle Cartel being one. Blizzard doesn't even know who leads it other than some guy with the last name of Steamwheedle, and that they own most of the Goblin towns in the game. So I guess this means we can't play Steamwheedle's now?

But then again we're speculating all of that, who knows?

[Rigley]

I don't see a goblin trade cartel being the equivalent of a whole human culture with its unique history and beliefs.

Neither do I see that on par with running events, because to, again, take things to extremes like this is to suggest that we couldn't run events -ever-, because that would be doing something that doesn't happen in lore. It isn't equivalent; you don't compare a business cartel and an entire history and culture, nor do you compare a group within an established faction such as Stormwind.

In relation to Solidarity it was founded upon things we see in Cata-- transients, the Defias reemerging, so forth. It is certainly more well-founded than the idea of a new group of humans in the desert.

If there was no speculation then there would be no RP. But there's a difference between what you do with that speculation, and there are length at which the line has to be drawn. You can make a new troll tribe or a new orcish clan, but you can't give them their own unique history wholly seperate from their race-- I -can't- go out and form a tribe of Dwarves who hail from Northrend and have never interacted with the other three main clans. I -can't- make a tribe of Draenei off in some corner of Outland who were never affected by any of the events following the crash of Oshu'gun. These are divergences from established lore that run rampantly off into a direction we just are unable to follow.

How do you judge a profile on a concept like the Tanari? Or any ideas that I listed previously? There's nothing to ground them, and nothing to tie them to any concept that we can say yes or no to other than 'They're based off this group of NPCs, of whom there is little lore to either prove or disprove us'. And what if someone were to interpret these NPCs and their backstory differently? Do we say no to them, or just accept that there are two 'Wastewander' human tribes which have radically different backstories? Both of them can be technically right if we were to allow it-- because either one is similarly grounded in lore.

[Brutalskars]

How about we just quickly draft a balls to the walls Tanari human cultural thingamajig. It won't kill anyone to have a basic outline like how they survive, how they determine leaders, how they do this, how they do that.
It doesn't take too much for a player or players to work on a project and submit it to the team to get an established "CotH Tanari Guidelines" - basically a race guide?

It isn't like they are trying to cut the guts out of CotH, it isn't a malignant cancer.
It is some people that are interested in a concept and they are very interested in seeing it carried out.

And the GMs can sit back and hope it dies like all trends do or things that are made. Because things die out, Mimiron's, Argent Tourny, Booty Bay, Azshara Crater.
RP shifts and grows, why not just guide the players on a productive way to handle the situation rather than stonewalling them?
If they are truly interested in it, they can do the work to help set it up for any future players interested in the concept.

[Cressy]

Brutal. :/ Was that really necessary?

---

And I will clarify, adding a full on culture to something that is nothing but speculation will not be supported by the staff. :C

[Rigley]

The thing is, as I noted in the last bit of my former post, that that excludes others. It's applying a single fanon to an undefined bit of lore-- and even if we were to allow this, what stops that from being the case when other concepts crop up?

I don't believe this is something CotH as a server tends to accommodate-- by that I mean the rules lain out by the administration, and the rules they wish us to act upon. As I stated previously the admins have already said no the Tanari concept before, and I'm not certain I see them going through with another offering in replacement for that-- because again, it just seems to open up a new venue for fanon and undefined lore that will just end up being confusing for those of us who do not keep up or those who have different perceptions and ideas which are not accepted and are instead done away with for another perception of the blank slate that is a group like the Tanari.

That, and it just feels rather... weird. I can't explain it fully but something just feels wrong about looking at a concept and saying "Yeah, we could totally make something up for that". It's getting into territory that I remember seeing on retail, and I don't want that kind of overlap when it comes to RP concepts. I think that Warcraft as a setting is -extremely- vast in thematic ideas and the like for people to follow-- The Tanari as a concept -could- likely be applied to a guild, so I just don't understand why it has to be applied as an iron law to an actual established group.

If there are better alternatives (which I believe there could be for this sort of concept), then why not just follow those instead of trying to create something wholly new, and contend with what is allowed on the server?

[Thoradin]

My entire argument was just for the sake of allowing them as characters, maybe having the pre-approved Tanari as a bit of a "HEY SEE WHAT THEY DID? MAYBE GET SOME IDEAS THERE, BUB." Generally in terms of unsubstantiated lore, yes they have nothing other than a couple of npc's with names and a few snazzy outfits. I understand that, however people do what they will when it comes to the pre-determined cultures that the game has, for the humans anyways.

Gilneans are obviously Victorian-esque english people, but that wont stop me from making, oh say, a very German Gilnean. Why? Because I could do it. I could make a French Azerothian, or an Armenian Alteraccan. There's nothing to stop me from going against those 'cultures'. So why hinder Tanari? So somebody wants to make a guy that was born in the desert and has a funny accent and a curved sword. There were multiple human clans, why not speculate that there could have been a few stranded in modern Kalimdor, just as there were some that were stranded in the modern Eastern Kingdoms.

Eitherway, it seems kind of... I don't, dickish to block something new and different.


-----

I am also playing Devil's Advocate here, it's a nice past time. Hopefully my signature is helping to convince all you naysayers!

[Cressy]

It isn't new, Chalker. This was played out pre-restart.

[Thoradin]

Not new? Didn't know that, other than the already approved Tanari. I come and go every so often. But my argument stands, it just seems strange that a different style of a character is... blocked, I guess, from being played.

[Rigley]

Because making a german Gilnean isn't giving them an entirely unique history and culture. They are still Gilnean-- they come from the nation of Gilneas, have a king named Greymane, and they have a general cultural identity which we know of and is established in lore. They have been mentioned and interacted in previous lore, and history-wise tend to have a fair amount of stuff for them when it comes to making a character who has a fleshed out history. You're not making a character who pledges allegiance to King Goldmane or someone who lives in eastern Arathi if you make a Gilnean with a different -accent- or mannerism-- just a variation.

Alternatively the Tanari have very little-- And if you think that it is 'dickish' to block the creation of a new historical culture... Well, sorry then. It's how things run on CotH, and it's enforced by those who run the server. I think it's a bit rude to impose something like this on the staff when we have said before (and have been reinforced by the admin pair) that this isn't something we wish to see on CotH. I think it's a bit rude to say that we're being 'dickish' for enforcing rules that people agreed to upon joining the server, and rules which the administration team of the server have asked us to uphold.

[Brutalskars]

Off to Tanaris!

[Thoradin]

I didn't mean to offend, I never do. I was just arguing for those that would like to play one, but I will back off of the topic simply because.





Next time, Gadget, Next time.