Jocas = Joking??

More like it's Claremontism (not that kind, the other kind) IE: Seeding your story with obscure references and plot hooks that may or may not be used later on.

It's way less rigorous than the standard method of foreshadowing, but makes it way easier in a serialized media format.

A story arc that evolved around recovering this weapon, that could dwell into its' origin and powers, would be a good start, I think. If this dagger is that important to the plot, surely it deserve a little more exposition.

It could even be a personal-story thing where you play as the Dream Doctor recovering/creating/whichever the dagger.

I disagree. Beating people over the head with plot points before they become relevant and yelling "See this? Remember it because it will be important soon!" is not better writing. If anything, I'll always prefer a plot point that's implied in previous storylines in sideways mentions over something that's overtly established as being meaningful before it's used. The thing is, any reasonably genre-savvy person will figure out that... OK, I get it. This is important. Now how long will I have to wait for it to be used?

There is still room in this game for surprises and twists. Specifically NOT putting those front and centre is a good thing. Having them come up and make you go "Wait, that seemingly throwaway background was actually meaningful?" I firmly believe that the way the dagger/quills were handled was just right.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with. If the above had been my point, I'd disagreed with it too, but that wasn't even remotely what I was suggesting.

Sounds neat. I'd be up for that.

I just object, on principle, to people bashing stuff (even if I might agree with whatever it is) but offering no explanation or counter-point or 'how I'd have done it'.

Admittedly, there are certain things that can't be applied to, like the current ragdoll physics; it's either working right or it's broken (hint, the latter is true)

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

It's important to note that though the Dagger of Jocas is mentioned in various places, the Quills of Jocas are its Praetorian equivalent and may have always been tied directly to the Incarnates in a more obvious and intrinsic way. We have a lot less info on them, so there may not really be a retcon.

Also, it is important to note that we have been told that Rularuu is an a Ascended incarnate, and as such, the Dagger of Jocas may have ALWAYS been related to severing Incarnate power.

Nowhere did it ever say how the Dagger worked, so there is nothing to retcon, really.

I exaggerated, and for this I apologise. All I meant to say was that I don't feel the need for a plot point to be set up and explored before it is used. It's fine if it comes up as a surprise, so long as it was foreshadowed well enough. Sorry if it seems like I descended into parody.

The Well of the Furies, as it exists today, is a new invention. It didn't exist back when the concept of the "incarnate" was being created. It's why Jack Emmert and Matt Miller were tossing around the idea of having Incarnates be an Epic AT. The Well as a sentient malevolent being that's the source of all power is a fairly new idea, so anything that "has always been tied to it" is a ret-con just by virtue of circumstance. That's not always a bad thing, mind you - tying it into Arthurian lore and the sword Excalibur? Not a bad idea. Tying it to the goddess Merulia? Not a bad idea. Tying it to Rularuu? Not a bad idea, either.

Tying it to EVERYTHING, however, very much is a bad idea, and that's my problem. The well as the alpha and the omega of the City of Heroes fictional universe is a fumble on the level of Midichlorians. It's a highly unnecessary plot device from a writing team that apparently had no interest in writing inclusive stories at the time and it frankly just ends up making stories worse by associating itself with them. Giving something a BAD explanation is vastly inferior to giving it no explanation at all, especially when you're trying to use the same one-size-fits-all explanation for everything and anything. The Origin of Powers storyline was terrible with its changes and mischaracterisation, but at least that was easy to ignore. This isn't.

Suddenly discovering that every great power within our fictional universe represents an Incarnate, either past or present, of the Well of the Furies is about the worst kind of ret-con there is, which is why I consider it to be a bad idea. It's no longer shocking or surprising. It's expected. Seeing ANYTHING in new content NOT related to the Well at least by association would be a surprise.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

I bet Jocas was from a previous "age of heroes" and his dagger is similar in origin to the mythical "god-killer" sword the Tsoo sought to use in Dark Astoria.


My suspicion is that the cycle we're seeing here has repeated itself over the centuries:

• the "potential" awakens, bringing with it a new age of heroes
• these heroes do great things, inspire legends and battle among themselves.
• the greatest powers become incarnate, and the greatest of these ascend.
• the ascended ones become so powerful that their wars threaten all mortals.
• as humanity becomes too dependent on the ascended (relying on the gods) their own "collective potential" diminishes and the well goes into a more dormant state.
• some seek to destroy those ascended (perhaps that era's equivalent of malta). The dagger of Jocas is an artifact from one of these, as is the god-killer sword.
• some seek to banish the ascended gods to the spirit world,
• some benevolent ascended may even voluntarily go so humanity can again develop its own potential.
• a few lesser powers stay behind, but don't directly intervene with humanity (the furies, as portrayed in the novel?)
• eventually, a new heroic age emerges and the cycle repeats.

The problem isn't that Schroedinger's Gun is a trope. As you say you can't write without using tropes The problem is that it's a bad trope. It's hack writing.

A one-paragraph obtuse blurb hidden in a part of the game 90% of its players have never seen does not even count as "foreshadowed", never mind the "very well" part.

I have to wonder what the people who think this was "well foreshadowed" thought of Darrin Wade suddenly whipping out a ritual that would kill Statesman, given that the difference between the two is one scant paragraph or so. I'll also add that the "incarnate powers are not magic" camp is looking even sillier now. What we've gotten here is no different from needing the Sword of Macguffin to kill the dragon in Generic Fantasy World #7897.

I would not have written this story on a bet, so the question is really moot. If I were somehow stuck with it, I would have, as referenced by another respondent, made sure that the Whatevers of Jocas had an adequate build up in the story I was actually telling and not just an off-hand blurb under a pile of dust in the corner.

Excellent synopsis: it's certainly the impression I was given. I do wonder if any future storylines will make this explicit, perhaps with you confronting a past or future incarnation of yourself (doesn't Darrin Wade obliquely allude to this possibility in SSA1?).



-Captain Aegis aka @Captain Valiant EU

One problem is that ascension severs your ties with your well and with your race so people not become too dependant on ascendeds they become dependant on incarnates (Zeus was an incarnate not an ascended since his power returned to well, MoT was trying to ascend which suggests that he was also an incarnate or similiar being not an ascended there for implying that ascended are gods is wrong) which increase that incarnates powers but to ascend it requires mroe than that.

I was thinking of it as this:

-Our "collective potential" is just that- a civilization's collective capacity to achieve.
-A benevolent "ascended"... no longer tied to the well but remaining among the people... is perceived as a God. He protects these people and he even uses his power to care for his people. The problem is, though, that they rely on this ascended one- one that is no longer part of their collective potential- rather than do things themselves. Their collective potential diminishes.
-A malicious "ascended" crushes others under his will and power, similarly reducing their collective potential.
-In the end, the only thing that can allow the collective potential to develop and allow humanity to reach its full potential is for the ascended to step away or be driven away.

I missed that in the content. I figured MoT wasn't tied to the well at all.

Also, note that "gods" are a human attribution here, something that people perceive. Cultures have called a very mortal king a god in the past, so some gods may have just been powerful incarnates, some may have been ascended, and some may have been demons, spirits, or mere mortals with a very good PR team...

I suggest you read "Web of Arachnos" it explicitly states the Well is the source for all powers.

Nope Prometheus explicitly mentions that ascension severs your ties with your well and race while droping their collective potential dramatically in one of his dialogues and only selected few should be ascend in the guidance of his organisation.

For MoT reference it is not mentioned if it is connected to our well or not but it was using our wells collective potential by stealing peoples and incarnates potential to ascend.

I'm not sure how in-canon the novels are, and I sincerely hope that this is never followed up on because it removes pretty much the sole reason there is to make your own hero in this universe. Without that, we may as well be borrowing other people's signature characters for a spin.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Well, kind of of sort of. I don't think it's that bad.

To be honest though, I've never gotten why in these kinds of settings it needs to be explained Why there are supers to begin with.

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.

Some people like a "why." Like me.

Okay, but does the 'why' really need to extend beyond individual power origins? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just curious.

I mean I've been kicking around an idea in my head form y own superhero universe, and one of the things I had for the longest time was the explanation that Super Powers came about due to an event that, literally, rewrote all of reality and history known as "The Resonance."

But as I developed the world more I realized: okay, so I'll know what caused this, but at the same time this meta-origin of super powers honestly adds little to any of the stories I have planned. So why should I bother with it as an author, and would any reader seriously find mention of it as anything meaningful when it has no weight beyond the story than 'just 'cause'.

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.

The problem with presenting a single "why" for such a fundamental and character-defining aspect of a fictional universe six years after it was created simply puts a lot of characters in a bad spot, to say nothing of eliminating all attempts at creativity. The primary reason, for instance, why I never even considered playing DC's MMO is because I don't enjoy the origin of every character I ever made to be Lex Luthor.

One of the upsides of comic books is the diverse and creative origins the various super heroes have in them, even if they're ostensibly UN creative such as the X-Men handwave of "oh, they were just born that way." Even when a wizard did it, that's still a legitimate origin as long as it doesn't repeat that of too many other characters. It's the reason why we don't have traditional gear, as the concept of a super hero whose powers don't revolve around gear (say, Shuma-Gorath) is just as legitimate. It's a question of variety and freedom of expression.

I respect people wanting to know why super heroes have powers. I do NOT respect people trying to enforce that answer onto MY characters, however, especially when there's no need for it. City of Heroes is a great fictional universe to tell a whole host of divergent stories in, and the less it's restricted the better. The game gains nothing by foisting the REAL reason we all have powers six years in, when it could have let us pick for ourselves.

And, really, with the concept of Ascendants, it kind of does. Sure, we have to mess with the Well, but ultimately, the goal is for our origin to be... Our origin, more or less. Where do an Ascendant's powers come from? Himself, and whatever his origin is, because that Ascendant has become like unto a Well, only without the various power stops attached. That's how it should be. If you need a more specific why, then no-one will ever get in your way and insist the "why" you chose is wrong. Because they're your characters. You get to do whatever you like with them. That's the whole point.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.