The World

Myriad Reality

http://pyx-1.socialgamer.net/game.jsp#game=4

Myriad Reality

Or rather who left through the portal?

Myriad Reality

Who all stayed in Existence?

Myriad Reality

Kalamadea said
That's what I'm saying. Most people don't speak in third person, so all I'd really be doing differently is sticking all dialog and action in one block of text. I can eliminate environmental description if needed, I just want to put dialog and action in the same paragraph. That's what I've been trying to say that all along. So (using your example as well) I'd doSo-and-so looks down. I don't usually use terms like "says" or "said". I just kinda stick the dialog right after an action and only use those kind of terms if they speak a specific way.

That would be fine, but the only difference between that and the way we RP is that instead of having actions as normal and speech in quotes, it would just be speech as normal text and actions in asterisks. For example, an introduction of a fire primordial could go as such:

*A strange presence can be felt in the air. Everywhere that (insert character here) looks, a haze can be seen, almost like from a candle flame. After a moment, a dragon seems to form out of the haze* Hello, (insert character here), my name is (insert fursona name).

Or, to the example being used, it could easily go as:

*(Character name) looks down* Hey, I can pull this off.

It doesn't really have to be multiple paragraphs. You could even go so far as to have a block of text such as:

*Heat bursts forward from (name), causing everything within a nearby radius to burst into flames* Hello, my name is (name), pleasure to meet you. *The flames begin to die down as the heat disperses throughout (location)*

This could be used for quite a long paragraph as well, it's really up to the organization style rather than writing style. Otherwise, I'm sure I can think up some arbitrary reason that would let you use your regular writing style without breaking realism.

Myriad Reality

Kalamadea said
I'm saying primordial entities are far, far more powerful than gods. To the point where my fursona, being a primordial entity representing fire, actually completely negates all pyromancy/pyrokinesis within a considerable radius of his current position. He's also completely immune to all forms of fire, even if the fire isn't even hot. Unlike Guardians, which control, primordial entities are literally the consciousness of whatever they represent, which grants them unrivaled control of that aspect. It's why a primordial entity of electricity could easily strip control from a Guardian of electricity despite the Guardian's absolute control, because it would be the electricity simply refusing to cooperate, choosing to do what it wants instead of what someone else wants.I'd understand if this is too much, though. Oh, and I should also mention that primordial entities are always immortal in mind, but rarely in body (meaning you can physically kill them, but given time, they can reconstruct their body; it takes a while to do so, however). The reason is put simply: you can't kill fire, so why would you be able to kill an entity that is the very embodiment of fire?

Again, primordials are awesome, but they'd fit much better in the new parallel rather than the previous one.

Myriad Reality

Kalamadea said
What about a primordial entity? In case you didn't know, primordial entities are among the highest forms of life in existence, as they have ascended farther than even gods have, and usually represent a governing force of existence. For instance, my fursona is a primordial entity representing fire, which means he's the physical embodiment of all fire, whatever the type. Primordial entities are often mistaken for being gods, but they are more powerful. However (and here's the balancing kicker), a primordial entity absolutely must practice total moral neutrality or risk descending from their position. They cannot side with anybody, always acting in the best interests of the Multiverse as a whole, and never in the interests of a certain group. Many also abhor violent solutions, preferring to find diplomatic solutions more often than not.I think I'll still do the standard RP style if it's all the same to you. I'd feel strange not using quotation marks or not describing actions in detail. I also vastly prefer third person over first, since it gives a lot more freedom and flexibility than first person does.

While a primordial would work, we've covered practically all of them that are embodiments of emotions. Your timing is perfect if you want to use any other primordials though, as we just lost what were basically exactly the same, but with various goals of their own. However, the RP is basically about to split into two parallel stories, instead of one massive story as it has been up until now. I would suggest at least reading from page 400 until now, just to catch the most recent relevant plot. It's also great timing on your part because I had planned primordial entities to be very important in the newer parallel story, though in no way as allies.
As for third person, while that's basically exactly what we do in ** as actions, the purpose of this RP is to be as real as possible, instead of fully a story being written by multiple authors.

Myriad Reality

*Everyone who went through the portal to the next Scale loses everything other than their mind, body, and abilities and powers that come from their mind or bodies. Everything else, including souls and spirits, remain in Existence. Everyone who has gone through appears in an empty desert like field, each wearing only a tunic instead of their old attire*

Myriad Reality

Kalamadea said
So... where's the character sheet template and the info on what this RP is, exactly?

There is no CS, and there's a wiki that has basic info. We had a longer explanation back before the old guild went down, but... yeah.

Myriad Reality

I need input on something. I'm writing a story and there's about to be an election. I need you guys to choose who wins.

There is no bill of rights in this world, only the basics of the constitution.

Background:

Candidate A:
He fought in a war that was over the national debt. During the war, he committed many human rights violations, and many war crimes. These included killing civilians, attacking and even destroying religious buildings (which is against the rules of war set by the Geneva convention btw), wiping out entire towns over rumors that there might be enemies based there, encouraging the men in his command to rape both enemy females and civilian females in enemy territory, and holding public executions of civilians, regardless of if they were male, female, or children.
He was never even brought to trial for these crimes, because the military considered him both a war hero and that he alone was the reason the war wasn't a stalemate. He lives in a giant mansion that was given to him for his war efforts, and he is known to be cruel to his animals.

Candidate B:
Is a well known scientist who teaches reason and logic to various universities as an invited guest. He is a peace advocate who believes that war is necessary, but only as a last resort when reason fails to work. He lives in an apartment and served 10 years in jail for being a drug dealer, despite all of his drugs being legally prescribed and despite him not distributing them. He is a former type 2 diabetic who needed the drugs he was arrested for only because he volunteered to be a test subject for an experimental cure for diabetes, which caused him to need multiple high dosage pain pills and antibiotics.

Media coverage:

The media absolutely loves candidate A, and even though it's public knowledge of everything he's done, the media still covers for him and tries to justify all of his actions.
The media hates candidate B though, and attacks him constantly, portraying him as evil for his drug usage and for being the first to use a successful operation to cure diabetes type 2, when nobody else can yet afford it.

They were each given debate topics during the national debate. Those topics were:

What laws will you inact first when you become president?

Candidate A:
My laws will be:
I cannot be impeached. It is illegal to elect anyone of my opposing party. Talking bad about me as your president is treason and you will be arrested for life. All businesses, public or private, must be closed on Monday. Never disagree with your parents or authority figures. Murder will be met with the death penalty. Cheating on your spouse will be met with the death penalty. Theft will be met with the death penalty. Lying in court will be met with the death penalty. If you want something that belongs to someone else, you will be arrested. If you harbor anyone without citizenship, you'll be sent to jail for life. If you eat organic food, you will be arrested. Every eldest child will be drafted when they reach 17. Everyone must follow the same holidays that my religion does. Taxes will be flat taxes of 25%. All "cruel and unusual" punishments are legal, except for boiling alive.

Candidate B:
It is against the law for the media to give their opinions alongside the facts unless asked to by the public. Do not protest unless what you're protesting against has a policy to allow it (such as the government); petition or boycott them instead. If you go to another's home or business, show them respect or do not go there; showing disrespect in their home or business after being asked to leave will be met with 24 hours in jail. If someone in your home goes against the rules you set, you have legal rights to kick them out mercilessly. If you rape someone, you will not go to jail, you will not be killed, you will be tortured. Theft will be met with harsh jail time. Give credit to those who have helped you, or your success will be deterred by the court of law. It is against the law to protest against something, even if they have a policy allowing protest, if you are able to avoid the subject of the protest in your life. If you harm little children, you will be jailed until the child harmed forgives you. It is against the law to kill animals unless you are attacked or unless it is for food. In public spaces, do not annoy the others there directly or purposefully. If someone does so to you, it is within your right to bring them non-permanent harm.

How would you deal with government funding?

Candidate A:
Taxes will be flat across incomes, 25% for everything taxed, and 75% tax on any government issued fines.

Candidate B:
I will reduce all taxes to a flat tax of 5%, privatize the funding of the government, and eliminate all non-essential spending and government interference in the lives of the citizens. Essential spending would include things such as the military, roads, hospitals, and monopoly prevention.

What are your foreign policies?

Candidate A:
Other countries will be ignored. If they do anything to anger us, we will destroy them. In the event of a war, all 17 and older males will be drafted unless in a necessary occupation.

Candidate B:
I will do everything within my power to avoid war, without sacrificing anything of ours. If war is unavoidable, we will show no mercy, giving a three day evacuation window for their, where we will have boots on the ground to help evacuate citizens, before nuking the vital points of the country until they surrender.

Both candidates are 100% honest, and will enact everything they ran on. Which would you vote for and why?

Myriad Reality

*A portal opens in the white tiled room*
There. Set on a timer. Now it'll only open if someone is nearby. Five minutes in total.
...
*I place a hand on the Mammon Machine*
Goodbye, my old friend.