Fwd: [Mkguild] MK - The curse!

[Kit]

(Accidentally sent this only to Pontos <.<;)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kit <stormkit10 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Mkguild] MK - The curse!
To: Pontos <daemonpontos at gmail.com>


While I agree with the idea, Pontos has a good point, that we've already
been doing this for a while now in some way or another. There is hardly a
need to make an official rule about it. It might be a declaration, and a
situation that can be exploited, but it hardly needs to be written into the
curse rules itself. The rules are more things that MUST or must NOT happen,
not what CAN happen. That said, there are several instances in which the
curse hit people after a lesser amount of time in the archives. I myself
thought the time limit was one week and wrote my first story accordingly. I
know that there are several other instances in which the time varied oddly
(I forget who, but I think someone got hit after only three days.) Ryx got
hit more than a hundred miles from the keep because he got hit with the
curse before age 14 and had a delayed reaction, and Oren lasted about two
months before getting the double whammie. All of these are examples of where
things didn't go exactly according to plan, but new rules hardly need to be
made for them. I feel that this case is not so much different. Intervention
of a deity is certainly a good reason to cause the curse to act differently
from normal, but a rule is NOT needed to point it out. I'd rather leave it
where the writers do not have an easy explanation for why they bend the
rules and have to make one themselves. It helps with the creative process.
*shrug* That said, there's no express reason why it shouldn't be a rule
either and in the end it's really not that important because it's still
going to be true.

Kit

2008/9/25 Pontos <daemonpontos at gmail.com>

>  If the solution were adding a new rule, then i think it's fine, save for
> the last sentence. It is somewhat redundant, and explaining the effect on
> just one religion/use. Such effect can be stated on any chat, question or
> discussion. It is not necessary to state it on the rule itself.
>
> Aside from that, I don't like the idea of adding a new rule. We can simply
> leave it as the possibility of an intervention by Eli or any other god on
> the effects of the curse in a small scale (like avoiding one of the three
> curses), and not something established on the foundations of the curse. S=
uch
> change seems drastic for something that in the end is not a big deal.
> Just how many religious leaders (be it followers or lightbringers) will e=
nd
> up in the valley throughout history anyway?.
>
> Pontos
>
> Chris wrote:
>
>  After some considerable discussion on the subject I am adding another
> rule to the curse:
>
> 5: Priests and the like (nuns, priestesses etc) have a sort of 'divine
> privilege' that can effect what part of the curse they get. It's just that
> the Followers invoke it because they don't like female priests.
>
>
>
>    How does that sound?
>
>
>
>
>
>    Chris
>
>    The Lurking Fox
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MKGuild mailing list
> MKGuild at lists.integral.org
> http://lists.integral.org/listinfo/mkguild
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.integral.org/archives/mkguild/attachments/20080925/5d49e2=
e2/attachment.htm