The King Of The Moon 5501 Share Posted Tuesday at 10:23 AM Original [Naztherak] Lore:Updated [Naztherak] Lore: - Malflame cauterises as it burns, failing to cause bleeding even on major arteries or where entire limbs have been burnt away. If allowed to burn in certain areas for the right duration (emote counts beginning with when the victim is ignited) these burns become lethal when eventually burning into a vital organ in the torso [4], the brain in the head [3], to the oesophagus in the neck [2]. If the flame is smothered before this total is reached, the victim is not lethally injured. Attempting to reignite and continue burning away at the same area (if not healed since) continues emote counts where left off in the overall total requirement. If an area is already wounded when lit, or if malflame is placed advantageously (e.g. inside the mouth of someone whose head is to be burnt), the emote timer to death is reduced by [1] regardless of how severe the pre-existing wound.Explanation: The crux of this amendment is basic logic, where the current redline contradicts the implications of the lore as well as historic precedent for how malflame was used (it was always as lethal as normal fire in past writes as well as event applications). As well as phantom and eidola lore that details ways in which malflame can kill a character, the implications in question are found in the current naztherak lore as:"Upon direct contact with the soul-bearing substance, malflame not only sticks to the point of contact until nothing is left" "Malflame will slowly spread across skin as if it was a flame spreading across paper until nothing is left" If a person is burnt until there's 'nothing left', the suggestion the 'nothing' in question would still be alive is a bit strange. If you burn my stomach until there's nothing left then I don't have a stomach, and if I don't have a stomach then I'm unlikely to stay alive. If you burn my whole body until there's nothing left than I'm not going to be a 'still technically alive because it says malflame can't kill a person' heap of dust. If a person jumps into a pit of malflame and is not put out, it seems nonsensical that their cause of death would be - with the current redline - starvation. I could go on. I appreciate the redline may have been added with balance in mind and have tried to accommodate this with emote timers that ultimately make malflame an inefficient tool for murder (all of the above being far less efficient than simply stabbing or shooting someone), though the ramifications of the current redline as written lead to a more OOC feel than a lore logic to be roleplayed. 21 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minth_11 91 Share Posted Tuesday at 10:25 AM Lol 3 hours after pallodiums malflame guide 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of The Moon 5501 Author Share Posted Tuesday at 10:27 AM 2 minutes ago, Minth_11 said: Lol 3 hours after pallodiums malflame guide The guide is what highlighted the issue. This one redline (until the guide made it more visible) is the only place it says anywhere in the lore that it's not lethal. Everything else implies otherwise. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBox 3307 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:11 AM 48 minutes ago, The King Of The Moon said: (it was always as lethal as normal fire in past writes as well as event applications). ET can rp malflame in events as they see fit (including killing people), however malflame has not been lethal for 3-4 years now, as it was non-lethal in the Luci rewrite. I generally think the emote timers need tweaked a bit more in this amendment. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of The Moon 5501 Author Share Posted Tuesday at 11:12 AM 4 minutes ago, BobBox said: ET can rp malflame in events as they see fit (including killing people), however malflame has not been lethal for 4 years now, as it was non-lethal in the Luci rewrite. I generally think the emote timers need tweaked a bit more in this amendment. What timers would you suggest? Also, where was it written to be non-lethal in the Luci lore? All I can find is the same "burns until nothing is left" lines that contradict the redline in the new lore, which I'm amending. During the previous write I saw plenty of people die from being burnt to death (as would be logical if someone is burnt to the point of organ failure). 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBox 3307 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:17 AM Torso seems fine but throat should be the same as the head, otherwise if someone is hit with malflame on their throat, if their next emote isn’t putting it out, they die the following emote. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of The Moon 5501 Author Share Posted Tuesday at 11:18 AM 14 minutes ago, BobBox said: Torso seems fine but throat should be the same as the head, otherwise if someone is hit with malflame on their throat, if their next emote isn’t putting it out, they die the following emote. My counter to that would be if someone sets my throat on fire I can't think of anything else that'd take priority in that situation over trying to put it out. A character just letting their throat burn for 2 emotes whilst busy with something else is, realistically, powergaming or otherwise dooming themself to die. Again, this is also on the assumption that someone has cast a malflame spell (fastest is 3 emotes I believe) and successfully hit a person in the throat, which itself has to be unprotected enough for malflame to access skin, after which they have 2 emotes to put it out (5 emotes total for a person to be killed, assuming everything goes in the favour of the naztherak). If someone was shot in the throat with an arrow they'd just be dead. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBox 3307 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:22 AM 11 minutes ago, The King Of The Moon said: Also, where was it written to be non-lethal in the Luci lore? The redline provided had no emote-counters associated with it, and the community was informed to rp it as non-lethal. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_of_losers 1308 Share Posted Tuesday at 03:26 PM could always use the same emote count as fire evo Should fire be exposed to a vital region for more than four emotes, the victim will begin to die unless unaided quickly. blue fire does it in 2 if that helps. idk. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aehkaj 534 Share Posted Tuesday at 03:42 PM Malflame already takes away a turn in the sense you have to pat it out otherwise you can’t use another action and naztherak has access to summons as well. I feel like non-lethality is a good balance option for this fact 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
creamynoteblock 2772 Share Posted Tuesday at 04:19 PM 5 hours ago, The King Of The Moon said: the torso [4], the brain in the head [3], to the oesophagus in the neck [2]. 6 4 4 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greehn 2010 Share Posted Tuesday at 04:54 PM 34 minutes ago, creamynoteblock said: 6 4 4 -rw-r--r-- 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProcaPro 128 Share Posted Tuesday at 05:24 PM IMO the issue with malflame is it doesn't burn the skin. It burns your soul and the marks from that manifest upon the skin. Unlike normal burning you won't bleed, it's not gory or your skin sloughing off from the heat, it's basically "I've burned your soul and the damage is represented on your physical form". It can't even move past or burn clothing. Malflame does NOT function like actual fire and treating it like it does is contradictory to lore. Like sure if I stuck a hand in your gut and malflamed it that would burn your gut soul and leave some aesthetic visual burns but the more pressing matter would then be how did my hand get in your guts. Long story short, I don't agree with it killing. It isn't normal fire, does not burn like normal fire, and I think it makes sense it can't kill. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elennanore 2901 Share Posted Tuesday at 05:40 PM 1 hour ago, Aehkaj said: Malflame already takes away a turn in the sense you have to pat it out otherwise you can’t use another action and naztherak has access to summons as well. I feel like non-lethality is a good balance option for this fact 👆 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
creamynoteblock 2772 Share Posted Tuesday at 06:14 PM 1 hour ago, Greehn said: -rw-r--r-- creep strike 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.0e874c05c09cddabe93b4e6bace18f3a.thumb.jpg.264699986aa5930c292aaf19836912bf.jpg)
.thumb.jpg.bba105f0f68aa5b4821c622e40a6cdf3.jpg)
Recommended Posts