aeson: hi
your mc: yes
13 Likes
@Sherlock221B
I got the impression it was just this bearer they are scared of.
We have been doing this over and over since before the Gods were born obviously we haven’t actualized our potential yet.
If I was a god, this plan would look pretty iffy to me too. Things must be pretty dire to give an unknown personality this chance. I think @Rohie must have something scary up her sleeve.
Hmm. It wouldn’t seem like such a giant leap of faith for the Gods if they had decided to keep the Bearer on Olympus rather than sending them away to grow up with a potential hatred of the Gods, but it would seem iffy either way.
When the next update comes out though, Thora is going to prove to them that she can kick gigantic amounts of ass while also being a nice person. Bring on the scary stuff; she’s going to knock it right out of the park while the Gods apologise profusely for their assholery. She’ll make 'em if they don’t.
I agree they botched operation Let’s Make A Super Weapon pretty bad with my mc.
I am curious if things would have been smoother if aunt Alice hadn’t messed everything up by kidnapping the Super Weapon.
2 Likes
In general from what ive seen on other threads a FAQ in the very first post does help cut the repeat questions. (: it doesnt get all of them, but instead of go to post whatever (which nobody is gonna scroll through 1,000+ posts) “thats in the first post” makes it better for new people.
Hm, by now it seems I will go with Lone Lavei, because none of the other options really seems to fit my MC. Though ironically I could see Team Player work too, depending on how things would play out…would that strategy play more into “power of friendship” or “who made you the leader? - The fact that I at least know what will get us out here alive, so shush!”?
When you say the lone wolf can do everything they deem necessary, can they still decide to not just leave everyone else back to die, or would that already count as making/trying to make an alliance? I just can see lone laveis becoming victims of Conscience makes you go back depending on morality…
1 Like
I think to be a Lone Wolf you genuinely have to have less morality than you would normally have, because there’s going to be many situations where somebody may need help and they might be close to death; at this point if morality kicks in, then you go over to help them, which almost always ends up with them tagging along with you. Im not saying that would always be the case, but to be a true Lone Wolf you’d often have to be able to walk away from somebody that needs your help.
That’s why most of the true Lone Wolves in media are often antisocial assholes; if they were any other way they’d likely have let their conscience lead them towards someone else, someone who may have needed help.
I think that’s why Team Player works so well because that depends a lot less on Morality than the others; you can have high morality or low morality but if what you do is for the collective good, then it’s most always the right decision. You’d have to be completely selfish to be a Lone Wolf, or even a Cunning Competitor.
I think Cunning Competitor requires you to be extremely immoral, since you can rescue people and have positive relationships, but you need to be prepared to forsake it all at the drop of a hat; nothing can ever be real because everything can be turned against you if it is real.
3 Likes
Considering that Lone Lavei doesn’t seem to have any requirements when it comes to morality I would say it could play out as both Lone Wolf or just Jerk with a heart of gold.
2 Likes
I’m pretty sure the same principle would apply though. And while there may be no morality requirement, it was more of an observation on human nature; morality leads to the desire to help people, and this desire to help people often leads to creating a bond with that person so you can continue to help them in the future if need be.
A Jerk with a Heart of Gold though…I’d lean more towards Team Player for that kind of person; they’d argue with people in the group, but they’d never let anything bad happen to the people in the group. Plus, their jerkiness may make them more willing to kick someone’s ass, which would probably be an asset in a group.
Honestly I think our different perception of the strategy also comes from different perceptions of the lone wolf archetype, as I would argue that the defining trait of the archetype is that even when they help sometimes/on the way other people they still end up alone for whatever reason. When they had to chose they would always prefer to walk/work alone, even when others may insist to group up with them.
Not morality decided reasons in any way.
1 Like
I think you’re right in the sene that we both look at the archetype differently, but it’s also kind of the same; I also believe that a Lone Wolf would be perfectly capable of saving somebody from harm, but even if they did as you said they would still reject the persons plea to come with them. This is where it crosses over from your point to mine, as I’m saying that anybody with a brain would realise that if this person was weak enough to be attacked, then it’s extremely likely that they will be attacked again, and it’s also likely that there won’t be someone like me to save them from the danger. The Lone Wolf may save them, but they would still have to permanently reject the alarm bells in their head telling them that this person would be much safer with them than on their own, which somebody with high morality in all likelihood wouldn’t be able to do.
But you’re right; I believe it is morality based, you don’t. I’m not trying to force my point on you, I’m just trying to explain it.
I mean we also have to look at this as strategies the MC uses, not really pure characterizations of MC, though certain kinds of characters may tend to drift more to a certain strategy as others.
(I also think I should clarify that I meant that morality is not much of an indicator if certain character falls into the lone wolf archetype or not, though I would say that all of them are rather in the grey area, even drifters that pretty much fall into the lone wolf category, alone for them always ending up to walk away. I didn’t meant that the question to help someone is not based on morality, for someone who doesn’t win anything from it like lone wolfs it is, I worded it weirdly, sorry)
Interesting. And I understand your point but the strategies that a person uses is highly indicative of their characterisations as well; they’re both different and it’s entirely possible for them to be different, but it’s unlikely that they’d be different for a large portion of time.
For example, my sister is genuinely one of the kindest, most altruistic people most people have met. So I find it extremely unlikely that if she was put into a similar situation as the MC she would adopt an extremely cutthroat, opportunistic strategy in order to succeed.
You’re right, practically all Lone Wolves fall into the ‘grey’ area and this often allows them to be Lone Wolves, but a persons personality and characterisations is often highly indicative of the strategy that they will take in such a situation that calls for it, as suggested by the sister example.
Or am I missing the point? I just think if you know the personality of somebody, then you can more often than not extrapolate from there and find out what they would be like in various situations. It often works with people I work with very well.
Honestly my MC would go lone lavei (…well maybe because itcs called that and not lone wolf for the purpose of allowing variation?), because working with others and having to adapt their own strategy to their would probably annoy them especially considering, that a) one if them wants to kill them and b) in the end as far as I understood only one person can win, so putting others in a situation in which they think they can depend on MC even when MC themself is in a situation in which they have to play to win and then have to fight each other in the end anyway seems like deception. I mean think about it: people work together and get used to it only for it end with them having to fight anyway, yeah rather avoid that and dealing with the competition alone.
Still, the MC already has build some connections with certain people, so I don’t think that all of them would just leave someone to die. That maybe not the smartest option but if you like someone,would you really leave them to die?
You say that the logical conclusions when somebody once needs help would be that they will certainly need help again, but…eh, sometimes people really have bad luck? I mean imagine Calypso in a situation that ended bad because of circumstances and MC helping her: Them indicating that she will always need their help because of it probably would end with her finishing the MC.
I just really have a problem with why a MC that wants to work alone really needs to have a lower morality as the average as you put it, the grey area is pretty broad.
(And yeah you did get the point of what I meant when I said certain characters tend to drift more likely to certain strategies right, but the grey spectrum is normally broad enough to fit most people somewhat as long as they aren’t saints or demons)
Maybe I just shouldn’t have used the lone wolf term, even when it already was used by others to dub the lone lavei strategy.
(Also I hate typing on mobile devices, just btw.)
Being a Team Player only for the team to dissolve isn’t the point; it’s about showing the kind of person you are; even if the MC ended up killing everybody in the Trials, the impression you get from somebody who protected everybody they could until the bitter end would be a lot more favourable than somebody who was a loner from the get-go. The same ending still happens, but by the time it does the kind of person you are will have been demonstrated. People would probably be more sympathetic to a person who had to kill their teammate than to a person who ended up slugging it out with a competitor who to them would be almost random. If sympathy was what you were aiming for; a Team Player would be prized higher because of how they went about the Trials, not just disregarded based on whether or not they win.
And the example with the attacked person was general, and while the example with Calypso is perfectly likely to happen, it’s much less likely to happen to someone who got unlucky than to a person who genuinely needs help.
People don’t need to have a lower morality to be a Lone Wolf (or a Lone Lavei); there are many Lone Wolves that are considered heroes. I’m simply saying it would be easier for them if they were morally compromised.
1 Like
helen’s such a cutie
lol, certainly not, where did you get that from? Or was that just an example?
I think here we somewhat talked past eachother. I merely pointed out one possible reasonig for a character to prefer working solo. (But seriously should this end up like the strategies in heroes rise, that really did restrict playing a complex character…Well I would be somewhat annoyed and very happy that the trials aren’t all of the game)
The example may have been general, but the conclusion was rather specific…and just think about all the people that in normal life may help a person during an acute emergency but as far as I could see not much would see it as inventation to mother other people. In best case they make sure that people are somewhat recovered before they send them away on their own. That’s the most common reaction. Not “oh well, they may end up in a similar situation, may go out of my way and my normal plans to help them also in future”?? How often did you see people react that way? Helping someone and then going back to what you did before seems honestly like the most typical reaction you can expect. If people even will help other. Also being unlucky often can end in genuinly needing help…
Then we had a misunderstanding. Though I wonder at what point you would consider someone morally compromised.
I leave to work on my game for eight hours, come back, and am completely lost.
Are we listing common tropes among MCs, or…?
Nah, Rohie just gave us a little pretaste of what kind of strategies MC could use during the trial and that ended in a discussion about tropes…and morales. It escalated quickly, I guess…
1 Like
No, it was a discussion among me and @Sammysam regarding whether a ‘Lone Wolf’ type person would be better off morally compromised or not. At least that’s how it started.
And eight hours? Kudos to you; I’m a complete couch potato, I can only ever handle about seven. After that I’m spent.
1 Like