Rule Changes

As it is probably known by now, I am a little biased when it comes to the topic, so by all means scrutinise me if necessary. I am talking about the ban on spells which attack from either above or below their targets which I believe was a rule made in May if I remember correctly. I do not honestly see why these spells need to be banned, when all is necessary is to have some form of warning be given before the spell takes effect, in order to allow the targets to move or shield themselves. All spells currently require to have some sort of visible way of seeing them anyway, so why can that not be applied to above and below spells too? I think folks are mature enough on site to know that in a PVP situation, you can't just cause a tentacle to burst out from the floor and squeeze the life out of your opponent without their being a way to dodge or block it. I assume that PVP was the reason for the change in the first place?

If I've missed the point for the ban on them, I apologise for that but it does seem not only be an uneccessary move but also stifling the creativity of folks when it comes to making magic. I maybe wrong but in the vast majority of anime, Fairy Tail included, big attacks from above are standard.

Spoiler:

To share my opinion - first of all, if you feel like this stifles your creativity when making magic, I would recommend you say that it can appear above/below the target with OOC permission. Also, this site is extremely AU and I don't think things from the anime, manga, etc. are necessarily the best gauge for what should be possible on FTRP. Plot PvP is almost always the main focus here when PvPing and even if isn't always, communication between players OOC remains key.

My problem with a spell coming down from above is that it completely deletes the purpose of spell speed. When you have a spell that has a speed of, let's say 100m/s (base S-rank area of effect) or about 220mph to make things easier for Americans, that's already pretty fast. On FTRP, you can buff your own movement speed up (the base movement speed for S rank mages is already 120m/s) and you can also shield yourself, as you mentioned. However, if a giant aoe with a 200m radius were to appear above your head, and even though the appearance has a time warning - how can we measure this time warning? There's currently no gauge for how long the magic circle or visual effect has to appear for before dropping down. Of course, we can be reasonable and say that it's "enough time for the other person's character to react" but react in what way? Is it enough time for them to physically run outside of what could be a giant aoe and materialized just above their head, meaning as soon as the visual is over it will drop down the remaining meter or so at a rate of 100m/s (not even buffed stats?). Additionally, creating spells that have an origin outside your character's body brings up the issue of spell range. If I create an aoe above an opponent's head, is the size of the aoe its normal size? Is the spell range indicative of how far away I can create an origin point, or the actual radius of the aoe itself? etc. If it's both, then I am effectively increasing the spell range for that spell by 100%.

Naturally, I also don't agree that these spells should be 'banned.' I think they should be possible given enough specificity (i.e. perhaps meaning we would need to be more concrete/careful about the time given for a 'warning period' since right now there's no rules on that because it's not allowed) and especially, I think anything should be possible magic-wise as long as other players who are being affected by your magic agree to it.

---

I'd also like to offer a suggestion of my own and see what you guys have to think about it. I understand downsides are extremely subject to balancing and the magic in question as well as the grader's opinion on its capabilities. However, there are some reoccurring patterns with downsides - they offer a great deal of creative flexibility, yes, but there are still limits. I think adding some of these limits to the visible rules, such as only being able to increase a spell's stat using downsides by 50%, would be nice.

(Also, I'm aware that there is some relevant information in the spell templates -

An optional field that may be left blank if not used. A downside applies to the spell specifically in order to attempt to increase one of its aspects in exchange for an impactful trade-off that affects the spell or the character using the spell. Downsides always apply to a spell's base stats. An example of a downside could be reducing the spell's base speed by 25%, but increasing the spell's base range by 25% in return. No matter how impactful a downside is, any given aspect of a spell may only ever be increased by 50% max. Note that the exchange for sacrificing some of a spell's statistics to boost others is not always equal, as some statistics are more valuable than others.

However there are other parts not mentioned and could benefit from being included in the magic rules, i.e. spell range cannot solely be sacrificed in order to reach +50% spell damage).

The only mention of downsides in the magic and spell rules as of right now is that they, along with slayer bonuses, are not subject to the 50% limit on additional base increases that is generally applied to all base increases.

For both my reply to your suggestion, Med, and my own opinion, I definitely might have missed something, so anyone please feel free to correct me or add their own thoughts in any case.

So I've re-read that patch to refresh my memory on the ban on those sorts of spells I completely forgot about that change lol. It was done to combat auto-hitting, which I can understand the logic behind that. However, it does take away even more creativity from the makers of spells, as Med has already stated. It's not even just the Fairy Tail anime that uses these types of spells. Moves like this are in a lot of anime and video games. It's pretty common and expected. So, I can see why this feels limiting since it basically takes a whole class of spells out of the system and even greatly lessens the capabilities of AoE spells since you can't actually select the area you would want to affect without already standing right on top of it. In my opinion, restrictions like this aren't necessarily a good thing, especially for a site that allows for creativity. I suppose Ran's suggestion of applying OOC permission would work to get it through the approval process for plot since even the patch mentioned that, but creativity should exist in pvp too. Yes, it barely happens ever but changes like this are made with that aspect of the site in mind. I am for balancing things. Not straight up making it impossible to use. Given that there are way more powerful things on this site that are allowed and unquestioned, I think this should be taken a look at again.

To combat the problem of auto-hitting and giving enough time for the target to dodge I would suggest just adding a clause that these types of spells just can't take effect until the next post. Their visual aspect is there on the activation post to give a queue, but otherwise does nothing. Or lesson the damage/effects these types of spells are allowed to do when they are activated outside of the caster origin point. For the latter I guess the argument of spell speed would still come into play because it would still feel like an auto hit. I have to point out that Single Target and Burst spells are already going to hit instantly anyway because of their default range and speeds. Is Spell Speed and auto hitting really a factor here with that in mind? Even just buffing spell speed a little can make even the Multi-Target and AoE spells instantaneous. No one can react regardless. At least, not in the pvp view of these rules. For the Range point, at least in the case of AoE, I would just point out what a former mod (I think Kitty/Jiyu) suggested years ago. Subtract however far away this spell is being created from the max spell range. Whatever is left is how much the AoE spell spreads. So say you have a spell that covers a max of 100m. You choose its origin point to be 75m away. That AoE will then spread and affect targets within 25m. It's not buffing the range of a spell if you just work with what the max range is for that spell type.

As for Ran's suggestion of Downsides, yes, please expand on them. Downsides are actually much more complex than what the current rules give. Maybe even list more examples of what can and can't be done with them. Some people don't think to add cooldowns or affect their durations to increase a stat as an example. I've had to make a list just so I can keep up with the numbers since the values are different for each thing. Also maybe explain some things. I've seen friendly fire be approved in the past but for the life of me I can't figure out why this is a downside. If you're doing a team match I can see it, but that's even more rare than 1v1 pvp. It's effectively giving an increase for something that isn't really much of a downside at all. Even for plot purposes aren't most offensive spells going to harm their buddies anyway from a logical standpoint? You may as well just let this be a freebie downside for all.

Same goes for a spell that is doing what a spell is meant to do. Such as a spell that covers the skin you can up its durability because you sacrificed range. However, this spell is fulfilling its purpose of being a defensive spell that covers the body. How is its range altered? How is this a downside when it is doing exactly what it was meant to do? Yes, I'm guilty of using spells and downsides like this but that doesn't mean I didn't think it was weird that it was allowed. Maybe I'm just thinking way too much on it. From a numbers standpoint I can see it due to what the max range of spell types are, but this still bothers my logic.

Okay, I need more time to process my thoughts before I make a list of anything. For starters I will just suggest that the Custom Lineage Guidelines please be updated. I even checked the rules before writing this to see if I missed an updated version but it still links to the very very old version. This form of making a custom lineage hasn't been valid for years. It's actually a nerfed version of what is allowed, and I am very surprised that this information has not been archived and replaced by a new one. Add in that by default a custom lineage can get 10 effects, you can gain more effects by adding drawbacks, clarify the contradiction between rules that say something supposedly can't be done but can when using a custom lineage, etc etc.

I've briefly looked through the some of the things here and I'm sure I'll have more to say once I've thought more on them. But I did have a couple of thoughts.

One, I do agree that limiting spells to just be beams can encroach on creativity for creating spells. In fact, I'll be entirely honest and say that that rule change set me back from putting my magic back up because it neutralized about 80% of my attack spells for all of my magics across all characters. Ran's idea as an OOC permission is a possibility, arguably probably the only one that'll work without having to add several stipulations.

But second, and arguably most important to me, is that while this site is an AU, it is still based on Fairy Tail at it's core. We have Slayers, we have Dragon/God/Demon Forces, we have the magic types and we have organizations that exist in the manga/anime. I think it's a little unfair to say that things in the anime and manga aren't the best gauge for what's possible here. Can everything from the show or manga be done here exactly as it's shown in these examples? No, because then we deal with auto-hitting, god modding and several other issues. I think, instead, it's about helping people that want to replicate those spells understand how they fit within the magic system. It isn't unreasonable to say that every spell used in these presentations can't be reproduced here in a fair and balanced manner. Honestly, I think saying to ignore the manga/show can be just as limiting in magic creation for some people. We shouldn't expect everyone to come up with some wild magic idea -- some people just want to breath fire like Natsu.

So long as they don't call themselves Natsu and start acting like this is the actual Fairy Tail world. That's usually when things get dicey and cringtacular.

Spoiler:

I agree that adding concrete rules to these types of outside-body-origin spells in the form of post duration (i.e. channel time of one post, warning visual/other indication period of one post, etc. is a great idea.

Some things on downsides. I'm glad you like the idea of expanding them and giving examples. I've also made a similar list in order to reference for myself, so having one in the magic rules themselves would be great. (I do understand that the reason this wasn't originally a thing was largely because they're highly subject to balancing and just because one downside works in a spell the same downside might be deemed unbalanced in another, etc.)

Since you seem to be pointing out a few things that you find troubling or confusing about the current downsides, I wanted to try to explain my opinion of the ones you mentioned in particular. Friendly Fire. I'm not sure why you don't consider this a downside but I'll use my own spells as an example. I have a lot of large AoEs which cover an area of let's say 500m. If I'm threading with a job partner and I use one of these AoEs, they'll be taking damage. Same with if I'm saving a bunch of kids from a burning building and I use a giant waterfall spell- the kids will get hurt. Now what I'm basically saying is that a lot of these friendly fire scenarios are mostly for plot. Your character has to think about their surroundings before using the spell, or they don't think about them and have to suffer the consequences. Same goes for a PvP scenario if you're fighting a dark mage in a town. What are you going to do when your giant AoE hits a crowd of innocents and it's meant to deal H+ rank damage?

Of course, I think I understand what you mean about not understanding how it can be a downside in a singular 1v1 PvP situation that's isolated from everything else. If you're building a magic solely to PvP and you don't actually pull anything plot related or take into account downsides when roleplaying, that's your own choice. I believe I understand why you think it's a free downside if utilizing that perspective. In an isolated 1v1 PvP situation, your focus is only on beating that one individual and nothing else, etc. It wouldn't matter whether your spells would deal damage to other things around it. Also, the part about logically most spells harming others around them. Considering that we're acknowledging creativity as a main goal here, you would probably understand that many characters' magics are an extension of their body and/or their own will, etc. That's how you can target and control magic from far away and differentiate between friend and foe. Sometimes they might (logically) be uncontrollable, but I think utilizing too much logic on an anime roleplay site with extremely illogical feats made possible might not be the best way to decide whether a gameplay element like friendly fire is useless. If someone wants their magic to be wildly uncontrollable and realistically burn everything around them, then they can do so through adding friendly fire. At least, that's how I see it.

Also, I'd like to address increasing durability because you sacrificed range. I'm going to admit that I'm a bit confused on why you don't consider this a downside. Essentially, it's limiting your character's usage of the spell. If they were only going to use it to protect themselves and their own body, then yes, it's not a downside at all. It's doing exactly what you were going to use it for no matter what. However, a shield spell that you can cast from 300m away onto someone else is completely different than solely a selfish shield spell. Its range is altered because in order to shield someone else you will have to walk/run/teleport/etc all the way over to the NPC or character, summon, pet, etc. and roleplay out touching them, shielding them, and so on and so forth. Versus just throwing a shield over them from far away. I don't think that it's weird at all to have a bonus to spell durability when a character has to sacrifice their flexibility and creative usage of that spell. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question about spell range in relation to shield spells, but this is my explanation of why range is extremely relevant when it comes to shields.

The Custom Lineage Guidelines definitely need to be updated. I'm fairly certain it's on the to-do-list for the admins but they haven't had a chance to do so yet. I agree that it does need to happen and that the current guidelines can cause confusion.

Edit: I totally missed what Mythal said

Spoiler:

I see what you mean when you say that it's a little unfair to say that what's in the anime/manga aren't the best gauge for what's possible. I meant more of they're not the best standard for what should be able to be done. Maybe that's not the best way for me to put it? Maybe I'm reading too much into the wording here (probably). But from watching the anime (never read the manga) I believe there was a lot of things going on that would totally and completely enroach on players' abilities to control their own character, have ample time to react, etc. (essentially what you said about auto-hitting, god modding, and so on).

You're right that FTRP is still based around Fairy Tail and that most people joining will want to make their magics fit into the world of Fairy Tail as they know it and do things that are within the realm of possibility for their canon. Not everyone wants to be creative with magic. But, as we've established before, preserving the ability to be creative is important to a lot of users. This creativity comes with balancing issues but personally, I don't value my own ability to say "I want a spell to fall on top of your head and I don't care that you're communicating to me that you don't want it to" which is basically why I think OOC permission is way less of a hassle/hampering to creativity than people think it is. What is so alluring about doing something without someone else's permission, when the entire premise of roleplay is that you're writing with someone else together and it's a collaboration so that both of you have fun? I understand that the appeal of creative freedom is sometimes being able to do what you want without others' input. Also, I know that people might not agree to having their character immobilized, or having a rock dropped on their head, etc. but roleplay with a partner requires some flexibility. While people are entitled to not have their character experience anything they don't want their character to experience, if two people simply have no roleplay chemistry and can't accommodate/go off of each other, they shouldn't be roleplaying together. In my opinion they would both be happier that way.

Spoiler:

Just to reply here so you understand a bit more and maybe I wasn't clear enough and you seemed to meet me in the middle. My thoughts on friendly fire was from a pvp aspect. Plot I can understand it and I do this in my threads. All offensive spells pretty much do this automatically logically unless otherwise stated. That's why for stat magic I do not understand why this can increase values. For the durability, I am not confused on the normal defenses and spells and the downsides there. I was referring to spells that protect only the caster, which is not rare or even uncommon. As you said, it isn't a downside at all but is still accepted as one. Hopefully that clears it up a little for you and anyone else that might have been confused with what I meant.

Samira Nassar wrote:Just to reply here so you understand a bit more and maybe I wasn't clear enough and you seemed to meet me in the middle. My thoughts on friendly fire was from a pvp aspect. Plot I can understand it and I do this in my threads. All offensive spells pretty much do this automatically logically unless otherwise stated. That's why for stat magic I do not understand why this can increase values. For the durability, I am not confused on the normal defenses and spells and the downsides there. I was referring to spells that protect only the caster, which is not rare or even uncommon. As you said, it isn't a downside at all but is still accepted as one. Hopefully that clears it up a little for you and anyone else that might have been confused with what I meant.

I was thinking about it largely from a PvP perspective as well (aside from the mentions of being on jobs/etc but you can PvP in those too), but I think I understand the difference between our outlooks. To me, if you're PvPing you still have a background to the PvP (such as being in a town, and fighting a dark mage in order to protect the town, or whatever it is). That's why friendly fire would be relevant except for in those isolated situations. Also, we continue to disagree on all offensive spells pretty much always having friendly fire on. Depending on the spell, it might make sense for it to do damage to the environment, but as I said here -

Also, the part about logically most spells harming others around them. Considering that we're acknowledging creativity as a main goal here, you would probably understand that many characters' magics are an extension of their body and/or their own will, etc. That's how you can target and control magic from far away and differentiate between friend and foe. Sometimes they might (logically) be uncontrollable, but I think utilizing too much logic on an anime roleplay site with extremely illogical feats made possible might not be the best way to decide whether a gameplay element like friendly fire is useless. If someone wants their magic to be wildly uncontrollable and realistically burn everything around them, then they can do so through adding friendly fire. At least, that's how I see it.

Some characters might have fire magic, or poison magic, but the poison is harmless to their allies and the fire doesn't burn anyone except for someone their magic recognizes as a target/enemy. This might not be logical in your opinion and might not be the default but I want to reiterate that we have different defaults. When I designed a giant bubble spell that rained down fiery rain upon my character's enemies, I assumed it wouldn't harm allies and only deal damage to enemies only. Something that might be nice to have as an addition to the rules would be whether damaging spells can affect allies or not (same with negative effects, etc.) and have friendly fire and its change to how spells affect allies in (maybe) a new downsides section. That way, people who want damaging everything to be the default for their magic can simply add friendly fire to all of their magic. (The desire to have the extra bonus from this downside might also end up with more people explicitly including friendly fire, which could lead to it being even more common and a norm, therefore fitting what you consider to be most logical, if that makes sense?)

Spells that protect only the caster are not rare at all, like you said! Those spells are inflexible and they are only able to be used for protecting the caster, which, in my mind justifies their increased durability. This is where I would say this is 'rational.' If I were to cast a spell over my skin, I would consider it rational/logical that I could cast it with greater efficiency/power than casting a spell far away to protect someone else. But this is magic and magical logic. I think it is a downside that your spell which only protects you, only protects you. If I can't cast it on my summon or my pet, then I would consider it a downside. The purpose of the spell might have only ever been to protect you, but that was your choice. Someone else might create the same shield spell and mostly use it to protect themselves but also want to have the option to throw it on an ally if they'd like.

Lol your post notifications keep making me log in, Ran. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and views with me. One of my flaws is I think very logically with this stuff at times. It's been fun having a small discussion and reading someone else's take.

Now to add something else here so I am not constantly just wasting space making a reply that adds no further discussion. I was thinking about the issues I have had over the years with some of the rules and I came to understand that a lot of it is likely going to be unpopular. I'm not even sure if it's worth mentioning some of them. I'll start small and with something relevant to the current ongoings of the site. We recently lost a few guilds and are in the process of filling in those slots. Watching the competition and ideas just on the site makes it clear that there are a lot of creative people that want the chance to be a guild master/mistress and/or make their own guilds. I can only imagine the hype that was probably on the site discords and private DMs. There was a hype right? It's hard to tell when I'm not there to see so there better have been hype or I imagined it all for nothing and this just makes it awkward.

So, that being said I want to discuss IC activity of guild masters. In the rules the only thing that is mentioned is that a guild master can be removed from their position if they are not active for a prolonged period of time. This is very vague and I feel this needs a concrete amount of time. Even slayers, keys, and status positions have this. I don't think it's heavily enforced sometimes since the slots aren't exactly full, but this isn't the case with guild masters. There are very few slots that end up being full very quickly and can take years to be open again. Due to the impact guilds have on the site I consider being a guild master to be a position of responsibility both ICly and OOCly. Even more so than the other status positions. However, in my time here I have often seen the leaders of some guilds not be very active. I've even seen guilds be fully disbanded well before an inactive GM is removed and replaced. Keep in mind this is without posted hiatuses and usually involves a very prolonged time without IC posting. All I ask here is that an actual time frame be listed like the 2 weeks for the other site IC positions. It might not solve activity problems as a whole, but it should enforce it a little, which I think is needed.

I'm aware that members of guilds can vote to out an inactive GM themselves but this involves the backing of multiple members. This can cause more trouble than its worth due to possible bias and I think activity should be handled by staff anyway. However, if outting an inactive GM stays with the responsibility of the guild memberbase, at least those members will have a set timeframe to work with.

Hello, everyone. Digit here.
So, I might not be able to quote people easily and all, as I find it incredibly difficult to post stuff with my phone (which somehow gets to access the internet much more readily than the laptop... so please, bear with me *inserts cute smile), and if I misquote anyone somehow, I apologize in advance and in earnest.
That said, I thus present some suggestions and concerns:

1. On the issue of spells that appear from below or drop from the sky: I agree that such spells have the risk of presenting an autohitting opportunity, and the range can be something of serious dispute, so I'll agree with what Samira said, and add a thing or two. The spell range issue can be overcome by using maximum spell range. Whatever the spell in question wants to do, its effects cannot exceed the max spell range, even if it was cast at the edge of the maximum spell range. Also, the length of time it takes for the spell to form, or encroach, must be the same time taken for a spell traveling from its source to hit its target (in other words, spell speed). For instance, I want to cast a spell that causes a tendril to come out from the ground and throttle my opponent. The time it takes for a rune to appear beneath my opponent from which the tendril emerges must be at the rate of the spell speed of such a spell's rank. This will give my opponent ample time to run, teleport, create a barrier, or get smacked into next week like an idiot, the same way they would react to me firing a blast of energy, by avoiding, blocking or tanking it with their face.

2. Friendly fire and "self" shields: I originally raised an eyebrow at friendly fire spells, but I suppose Ran is right; it being a downside is sort of legit, one way or the other. Sure, a dark mage wouldn't mind blasting everything into oblivion, but the spell would turn against them when they want to use it, and they are trying to acquire the Tome of Elmo (or some other such evil that Muppets can come up with in their free time), which is in the direct vicinity of the spell. Of course, the same goes with personal shields. More power, but you can only protect yourself, or run around the battlefield, shouting "No! Shoot me instead!" On personal spells, I don't know if it would be necessary to create a new spell category (or is it 'type'? Always mixing them up...) called "Self". Such spells have no range whatsoever, but have a 25% increase to base efficiency (durability, buff, healing, what-have-you), which can be increased to 50% by sacrificing other stats, effects, etc, and perhaps can be transmitted by touch alone (sorry, I know it's not a disease...). This said, I must admit that I don't see how sacrificing "spell speed" is a disadvantage, seeing as the spell activates instantly. I feel spell speed should still apply using burst rank speed, and can be reduced to increase the spell's effect, but not 'canceled' out entirely. But if that's not an issue, well, *shrugs* works for me. Haha.

3. Concern on spell speed: Now, this one has a special place in my heart. Spells, at the height of their power, can exceed speeds of 800 m/s, to even over 2000 m/s (approx. 4474 mph). Yeah... I don't see anybody dodging that. Reacting after the person has launched the spell realistically gives only one option: pray your face is strong enough. Now, seeing as PvPs are based on mutual cooperation, a lot can be overlooked, but trust me, things might get icky if the board decides on a PvP contest, complete with juicy prices. The issue of "my spell moved too fast for you to even react to it!" will come up, and well... even I don't know how this story goes. Just thinking aloud; we may not need to do anything about this... and also wondering if Fusion spells can be used to perform a Unison Raid. Hehehehe. Hmmm, also doesn't really say at what rank Unison Raid spells interact (rank higher or same rank?).

4. Guild master matters: ... or should I call this "Guild continuity"? This is another head-scratching topic. From the little I've seen, which, admittedly, is not much, once a guild leader leaves, the guild dies, 90% of the time. For the sake of continuity and things that alpacas like, I wonder if the board cannot be a little more responsible for the existence, structure and behavior of guilds. Here's what I mean: the site runs polls, especially when the inability of a guild to sustain itself presents itself. The polls are to identify what most people want in a new guild (democracy, hehe), then select the most frequent and plausible ideas, put them up for vote, and use them to craft a new guild. That way, guilds should live or last longer, and if a guild master goes, and its members are powerful and active, there might not be need to dissolve the guild completely; a new guild master can be picked from the aces, and life goes on. As is the norm on this site, guild members will be responsible for funding the guild on its creation. Of course, my insanely brilliant idea does not take into consideration how the guild leaders would be selected, so I suppose it's probably just an idea more insane than brilliant.

I'll be strolling along quietly, now.
Thanks.

I don't think it's very necessary to quote anymore, I was mostly doing it so people could see exactly what I was replying to, but now I'm replying to everything! :D! And you're very adorable Digit. Seriously, who let you be this cute?? *dies from cute smile*

Sorry about the notifs Sam! I got really excited as well about these conversations. I agree that GMs should be held to a higher standard of activity. The position is one of responsibility. Some guilds have managed to survive through multiple GMs and iterations, but eventually, I think it may be better for a guild to be disbanded so a new, fresh idea can make its way to the forefront rather than trying to prolong the life of an inactive guild through activity from just a new GM. However, when the guild is still active and the GM is inactive, then naturally it makes no sense to disband a guild just because the GM is inactive. And in that case, the guild likely wouldn't disband at that moment. But it should be made a priority to ensure the GM is active so that the guild doesn't have a reason to become inactive in the future, if that makes sense?

On the topic of spell speed, I'd like to explain briefly what use I see for it/I have used personally when spell range has been decreased to self/melee etc. The movement effects such as increasing your character's speed by the speed of the spell, etc. all use spell speed (this is the primary purpose for self/melee range spell speed in my experience). (There are other uses for spell speed such as when performing a melee spell attack the speed of the swing could be the the spell speed, but we're talking about shields mostly so these types of things are not as relevant, even if dual category is a thing.)

Also, I think Unison Raids can include Fusion Spells, which is fun! It might be a good idea to include things like the ranks at which they interact in the magic rules, as well as additional tables or such in the appropriate area (since spells of a rank above H+ are able to deal X+/Y rank damage. These damage numbers are explained, but having them visible might be helpful as well.

On the topic of guilds, I also have a suggestion. I propose we add an additional Independent guild slot. I've been thinking about this prospect for a while. Now I know that right now we have an equal number of guilds (three) per type along with the faction Guildless. I understand that Guildless is also similar to the independent/neutral concept except that they are not necessarily approved of as a greater whole. However, they still are under the jurisdiction of Fiore's laws. I believe that instead of having an equal number of guilds in each faction, we should have more guilds in the independent category. One more would probably make the most sense. There's a few different reasons, and I'll try my best to explain some of them.

• In any group of people, there are more of the "neutral" or in between faction than all else. The majority of people might not be perfect bastions of the law, but they don't skirt the line into open evil doing. They might lie, and they might not love being tied down by strict regulations. Or they might have motivations that conflict each other, leading to an inability to strongly commit to one end of the spectrum or another. For example, a mage who wants his family to be able to come in to visit him at work, show them around the guild hall, etc. but participates in grand scale thefts for a living. Or a person who wants to protect their reputation around town and constantly has questions about what they do for work. Of course lying is permissible, as is using a disguise. Often people who do bad things aren't really doing it for an evil purpose nor would they be attracted to an organization that does evil things simply for the sake of power, chaos, etc. (But some would.)
  
  The same thing could be said about the legal side of the equation. Just because a mage does not want to kill others or become the most powerful person in existence doesn't mean that they want to represent the police force as a Rune Knight or commit to appearing as a staunch good-doer (and possibly become a target for dark mages) as a pinnacle of the light. In addition, occasionally people who are generally good (or bad) individuals break or refuse to break the law for multiple reasons. It might be bribery or threats, it might be because they desperately need to pay rent lest their family be kicked out onto the streets. It might be because they are this close to unlocking the cure for magical dragon pox but attempting to manufacture this cure is illegal because of the dangerous process. (All random examples.) Either way, morality is a grey scale for many people. Making decisions based on a moral compass is difficult for imperfect and emotional characters, meaning most people try to balance different scales and find a way to sit comfortably in the middle.
  
  
• Since there are three independent guilds, there will always be more leaning one way or another. Looking at the current state of our indie guilds, right now essentially all of them fall more towards the legal side of things.
  
  Their intentions are all benign. While subtle darker activity might be permitted for the sake of achieving their goals, our indie guilds right now don't really encourage darker activity in any way. That makes sense, as they are intended to keep themselves from actively being hunted and disapproved of by the Magic Council. Their motivations are supposed to be less than overtly evil. However, we don't have any indie guilds at the moment which do not have pretty much a majority of good intentions. (Originally I wrote up all three of our current indie guilds and their motives and how people in the guild think about evil motivated activity or dark activity, but I decided to delete it so you guys can also think about whether, based on your knowledge of our indie guilds, this is true.)
  
  
• Should there be four independent guilds, ideally two would sway more towards the darker side and two would sway more towards the legal side. However, none would be overtly dark (in order to prevent being labeled dark) just like none are supposed to be completely the same as legal guilds are defined.
  

There might be a better way to ensure independent guilds are not mostly copies of legal guilds with some allowance of moderate dark activity. I would welcome that. I'm looking for a scenario in which there's at least one (possibly two) independent guilds that are dark oriented and don't shun or disapprove of dark/illegal activity that is NOT for good, morally positive aligned reasons. They would just seek to conceal it from the authorities or what have you.

I’d like to chime in while the topic of guilds is still up. I do agree with the prospects of adding another guild slot, be it independent or legal. For me, it’s because there's a lot of interest in running a guild of their own. I do think that since the Rune Knights don’t technically operate as a guild, they shouldn’t count as a legal guild and become a permanent entity in the site as a whole, governed by the highest ranked wizards of the faction. I did observe that there is very high interest in the Rune Knights, having its doors closed numerous times due to the number of members interested in taking part in them, but I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions on this because my opinion might be invalid. Secondly, I disagree with the prospects of having half the independent guilds leaning more on the darker or lighter side of the moral alignment as it might limit creativity. There are guilds that are truly neutral, their principles based solely on their goal which does not necessarily have to be good or evil.

I think we mistook ‘neutral’ and ‘independent’ and used them interchangeably, and if that’s the case, independent guilds would operate without the MC breathing down their necks, thus allowing them to take on questionable missions. That’s how I interpret it.

I’d also like to raise my concern with guild creation. Ever since three slots opened up, there has been a lot of interest in taking up the single legal guild slot, but barely any for the dark guilds. Which begs the question: Are players more interested in playing as the good guys? Are players more interested in fulfilling their power fantasy of being a goodie two shoes? Though taking into account the number of active members on site, opening up another legal guild slot might not be ideal. However, I’m not concerned with the lack of guild slots. My concern lies with the guild submission process, which has been discussed in the main discord server.

I observed that those that posted first would most likely have their guild established, having been exposed to numerous other people before the other guild suggestions would be up due to having these other suggestions being reviewed before they were posted. And on the day one of the guilds had the necessary funds and pledges needed, other legal guild suggestions popped up. This, to be honest, got me peeved, because it was unfair to give them the time advantage while the rest of the suggestions were posted days after. It might just be me because I do think other players are interested in other thematics, but it still felt unfair.

I suggest that there is a 7 day wait period before guild submissions are submitted to give prospective guild masters ample time to write and refine their guild proposal, as well as a time period where guild suggestions are submitted for review, and a date where guild proposals can be posted in the suggestions board.

I'd just like to clarify that I'm not suggesting we create rules that say independent guilds have to equally lean towards legal and dark in how their numbers are divided. Of course there are guilds that are "truly neutral" in the sense that they're based on their goal alone. But when we're thinking about whether those goals fit within legality, things tend to lean one way or another. What I was saying about how our current indie guilds lean more towards legal sides of things and

Should there be four independent guilds, ideally two would sway more towards the darker side and two would sway more towards the legal side. However, none would be overtly dark (in order to prevent being labeled dark) just like none are supposed to be completely the same as legal guilds are defined.

This is my opinion. I think it would be ideal if the independent guilds could present a variety of alignments and goals. Just because a guild "sways more towards dark activity" doesn't necessarily mean it's not still a neutrally aligned guild or an independent guild. But in my opinion if all of the indie guilds are very legal and good in their outlooks, goals, activities, etc. then that's disappointing. If you disagree with that we can just agree to disagree.

Of course independent does not necessarily mean neutral. All independent guilds could be extremely morally good. That's what I'm trying to hope we can avoid by adding an indie guild that is less legal and good and leans more towards darker (illegal) activity and darker morals. Part of my concern with my own suggestion of adding another guild slot would be further skewing alignments if people try to make yet another extremely legal and morally good motivated guild and that is the suggestion that ends up getting approved.

I would offer up a suggestion to change the way the Alternate Character List works. Instead we could have a Member Directory, and implement sections alphabetically sorted for members and their attached characters. A profile field could be added to every account mini profile for 'Alias' or 'OOC Name' both which mean exactly the same thing. A member can choose their alias; it can be their main character's first name or a shortened/partial form of it e.g. 'Syn' or what they are most commonly called out of character e.g. 'Secret.' A field could be added to character applications at the very bottom denoting the player's alias.

If a member has some characters active but not others, only the active accounts would be listed in the Member Directory under that player's name. If a member has no active characters their name can be wholly removed from the Member Directory, and if they regain activity they can post to add their alias and character(s) back. This way the Member Directory can be kept up to date with a count of how many players (not characters) actively roleplay on site.

I believe this would help accommodate players who prefer not to be called one of their character names OOC, alongside having other benefits. Choosing an alias would mean players cannot pick the same alias, leading to greater clarity. There would be no doubt whatsoever who plays a character, so contacting players OOC would be simpler. A mandatory Member Directory that one is meant to post in immediately after being approved, similar to claiming a Face Claim, would mean it is constantly up to date. Nobody creates an alternate character then forgets to post in the Alternate Character List.

Staff could facilitate this by adding a small note when placing their approval stamp and quoting the application. "Approved! Please remember to post in the Member Directory and if necessary, claim your character's play by here." This note is just a small example in order to possibly show what I mean.