[Mkguild] MK - The curse!

[Mark Lowell]

Hey, guys. The subject has been handled and now we can all *GET OVER* it.

On 9/25/08, Kit <stormkit10 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (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 t=
he
> curse rules itself. The rules are more things that MUST or must NOT happe=
n,
> 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 wh=
ere
> 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. Interventi=
on
> of a deity is certainly a good reason to cause the curse to act different=
ly
> 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 effe=
ct
>> on just one religion/use. Such effect can be stated on any chat, questio=
n 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 simp=
ly
>> 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. =
Such
>> 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
>> end 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 th=
at
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MKGuild mailing list
> MKGuild at lists.integral.org
> http://lists.integral.org/listinfo/mkguild
>
>


-- =

TTFN!!!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.integral.org/archives/mkguild/attachments/20080925/f78790=
6d/attachment.htm