Proposal: Eliminate the Holy damage type.

[Sapient]

Isn't it as simple as adding an event in the new unit that filters on the new unit as defender where the attack has the special holy and multiplying the damage by some value?

That method would produce incorrect values in the attack dialogs and AI calculations (which would be unacceptable, IMO). There are a couple of better ways of doing it, however, they aren't really simple.

[Gus]

Ok, i apologize if this post proves to not be helpful at all...

I have been reading this thread, and i thought that a decent replacement for Holy could be, simply, "Life" damage.
Obviously, it should work well enough against Undead, and it could still work, even though in a reduced manner, against the other units. It works well with healing too.
The only slight problem i could see is that using "life" magic to hurt living being looks a bit like necromancy/death magic. I'm not sure this is of importance though, since the change of name should probably go with a change of design for the "white" mages, and the blade of a Paladin should probably get a new "hallowed" special.

Anyway, that was my proposal, feel free to criticize it =)

[Temuchin Khan]

Ok, i apologize if this post proves to not be helpful at all...

I have been reading this thread, and i thought that a decent replacement for Holy could be, simply, "Life" damage.
Obviously, it should work well enough against Undead, and it could still work, even though in a reduced manner, against the other units. It works well with healing too.
The only slight problem i could see is that using "life" magic to hurt living being looks a bit like necromancy/death magic. I'm not sure this is of importance though, since the change of name should probably go with a change of design for the "white" mages, and the blade of a Paladin should probably get a new "hallowed" special.

Anyway, that was my proposal, feel free to criticize it =)

"Vital" might make more sense in this context. The idea would be that this damage type uses magic to weaken the bonds that hold a being together. In the case of Undead, it would weaken the magic that holds them together. In the case of normal creatures, it would attack their bodily processes.

However, figuring out how such damage type could possibly hurt demons will be difficult. On that score, I haven't been able to think of anything that makes sense.

I still vote for "radiant" as my preferred name for a new damage type that would replace "holy."

[Gus]

No, not "vital" but "life" ^^ Life magic, as in a magic which can act on Life and Unlife. Which can both give life (heal) and take it away (attack), and also destroy the unliving aberrations.

[Temuchin Khan]

No, not "vital" but "life" ^^ Life magic, as in a magic which can act on Life and Unlife. Which can both give life (heal) and take it away (attack), and also destroy the unliving aberrations.

Yes, and that is among the meanings of "vital" and "vitality."

Besides, "the vitality of the blade" sounds better than "the life of the blade."

But "the radiance of the blade" still sounds the best.

[Gus]

Well, "the vitality of the blade" and "the life of the blade" sound equally ridiculous to me ^^ And the same goes for "the radiance".
Now don't get me wrong, i don't think radiant is such a bad name. I just think that it doesn't mean much. Life does. It has been used in a number of other fantasy settings before. It gives a direct explanation for pretty much everything we need (healing, hurting, fighting undead). Radiance needs complicated or at least elaborate explanations. Life is obvious. And Life is much more obvious and wide than Vitality or Vital magic. Much simpler, plainer.

And, to go back to the "sentence"... Blade, Impact, and Pierce do not even belong to the same category of nouns. Blade describes an object or part of it, Impact describes the manner a force is applied, and Pierce describes the property of an object. Sharp, Blunt, and Piercing would be the same category, i assume. The point being: i don't think it's a good idea to reject a name (whatever it may be, this is obviously not limited to my proposal) because it doesn't fit a strict linguistic criterion (that even the most basic and well-accepted types don't fit).

[Temuchin Khan]

Well, "the vitality of the blade" and "the life of the blade" sound equally ridiculous to me ^^ And the same goes for "the radiance".

Unless the blade is shining. Then "radiance" does make sense....

Now don't get me wrong, i don't think radiant is such a bad name. I just think that it doesn't mean much. Life does. It has been used in a number of other fantasy settings before. It gives a direct explanation for pretty much everything we need (healing, hurting, fighting undead).

But it does not indicate in any way whatsoever doing damage to demons.

On the other hand, insofar as the Bible speaks of God as "dwelling in unapproachable light," the concept of "radiant damage" can include everything that is included under "holy" while remaining open to a wider range of interpretations -- perhaps including even lasers.

Radiance needs complicated or at least elaborate explanations. Life is obvious. And Life is much more obvious and wide than Vitality or Vital magic. Much simpler, plainer.

Not to me. Honestly, if I saw "Life" as a damage type, my first reaction would be laugh. I'm sorry if you feel hurt, but that would be my first reaction.

And, to go back to the "sentence"... Blade, Impact, and Pierce do not even belong to the same category of nouns.

This is true.

Sharp, Blunt, and Piercing would be the same category, i assume.

No. "Sharp, Blunt, Pointy" or "Slash, Crush, Pierce" or "Cutting, Impacting, Transfixing" would be in the same category.

The point being: i don't think it's a good idea to reject a name (whatever it may be, this is obviously not limited to my proposal) because it doesn't fit a strict linguistic criterion (that even the most basic and well-accepted types don't fit).

What can I say? I'm an aspiring writer, and the question of whether a linguistic formulation sounds good is important to me. Others may have different priorities, but that is one of mine.

[Sangel]

This is probably not an issue which will be solved by debate - opinions are too varying - but I thought I'd chip in to say that I think a damage type along the lines of "Radiance" works well, though "Arcane" and "Mystic" have their charms. The only real concern with "Mystic" is that it would be a damage type used AGAINST "Mystic creatures", which may or may not be a problem.

[Gus]

Unless the blade is shining. Then "radiance" does make sense....

So you're hurting them by light? I thought that earlier in the thread, this proposal had been rejected.

But it does not indicate in any way whatsoever doing damage to demons.

It affects life. That means anything, that's the great thing about life.

On the other hand, insofar as the Bible speaks of God as "dwelling in unapproachable light," the concept of "radiant damage" can include everything that is included under "holy" while remaining open to a wider range of interpretations -- perhaps including even lasers.

Errrr, since God is the basis of everything, arguably any kind of damage is related to god. He's mentioned wielding swords of flame too, so that makes Blade and Fire a godly manifestation i guess? =)

Not to me. Honestly, if I saw "Life" as a damage type, my first reaction would be laugh. I'm sorry if you feel hurt, but that would be my first reaction.

I'm not hurt at all, seeing as, as i've said, it has been used in a number of fantasy settings. I'd tend to trust the authors of those settings more than you. I'm sorry if you feel hurt

What can I say? I'm an aspiring writer, and the question of whether a linguistic formulation sounds good is important to me. Others may have different priorities, but that is one of mine.

Being a linguist, linguistic formulation is of prime importance to me. Not _any_ linguistic formulation, though. And in this case, the one you (and some others) used does not seem to be a good one, simply because otherwise perfectly fine names we have at the moment don't even fit well in this canvas.
In other words, i'm not saying the name should be anything, i'm saying the checking method used is not a good one.

[Zhukov]

Sangel is right. This is getting nowhere fast (unless it's been decided over IRC which would not surprise me at all).

What might help is if we know exactly what this damage type is supposed to do, in gameplay terms.
Something along the lines of:
• Undead/demons/magical constructs get -50% weakness.
• Magical/fearie ceatures like elves/mermen get -20% weakness
• Not-particularly-magic-creatures like woses/naga and maybe drakes get 0%
• 'Normal' creatures like ogres/orcs/humans/saurians/dwarves/trolls get +20% resistence.

(Now everyone can argue about which creatures go into which catagory, oh joy. Anyway, this is just an example.)

PS. I think Radiant is a bad idea. Sorry Temuchin. It doesn't sound good. It basically mean 'glowiness' which doesn't make much sense. Glowy magic damage? Nah. My preferences go towards Arcane and Mystic.

[Temuchin Khan]

I think Radiant is a bad idea. Sorry Temuchin. It doesn't sound good. It basically mean 'glowiness' which doesn't make much sense. Glowy magic damage? Nah. My preferences go towards Arcane and Mystic.

I didn't suggest it, I only defended it.

Besides, it means more than just "glowiness" "giving off light." It can also mean "emitted or transmitted by radiation," and radiation is something that can certainly cause damage. Besides, in the form of a laser beam, light is quite capable of causing damage even without radiation.

Be that as it may, I have no objections if something else is chosen.

[irrevenant]

In response to the issue that started this thread, IMO, the best way to handle Holy damage is to allow attacks to have multiple damage types. In that case they would just automatically deliver the highest amount of damage possible. I envision this being rare, and mostly (entirely?) used for Holy damage.

That way (eg.) a Paladin's sword will do Holy damage vs undead, but blade damage vs everyone else.

(Alternately there's the workaround of just giving him two different sword attacks - one holy, one blade).

Namewise, I think 'Holy' is fine - though it may not entirely represent the idea on a metaphysical level, it's probably what they would have called it in a metaphysical fantasy world.

P.S. Sorry for the ultra-delayed reply. I didn't notice this thread until Shadow Master referred to it in Off-Topic.

[irrevenant]

BTW, has anyone considered 'ethereal' as an alternative name for the 'arcane' damage type? Given that it damages ethereal creatures such as ghosts or the ethereal bodies of creatures such as Walking Corses and Fae it seems more appropiate.

P.S. This looked like the appropriate thread to post this in. Apologies if it is not.

[Temuchin Khan]

BTW, has anyone considered 'ethereal' as an alternative name for the 'arcane' damage type? Given that it damages ethereal creatures such as ghosts or the ethereal bodies of creatures such as Walking Corses and Fae it seems more appropiate.

P.S. This looked like the appropriate thread to post this in. Apologies if it is not.

Gosh, this thread has so many suggestions, I don't even remember if "ethereal" was considered.

[Cuyo Quiz]

BTW, has anyone considered 'ethereal' as an alternative name for the 'arcane' damage type? Given that it damages ethereal creatures such as ghosts or the ethereal bodies of creatures such as Walking Corses and Fae it seems more appropiate.

P.S. This looked like the appropriate thread to post this in. Apologies if it is not.

I believe Ethereal and Mystical were among the musings.

Ethereal, by its meaning, didn't actually made much sense. Sure, you can damage ethereal beings, but the "damage" being "ethereal?.

Mystical was considered to overlap too much with the meaning of "magical", IIRC.