DC Lore AMA

[Nerei]

Freezing probably would work; I view it as a generic "stop aging" spell that uses time mana.

So in DC canon, if the mana were to be removed, could hatchlings continue to age, or are the effects of time mana permanent?

Edited March 27, 2015 by Niyaka

[TJ09]

So in DC canon, if the mana were to be removed, could hatchlings continue to age, or are the effects of time mana permanent?

I think this has come up before outside of this thread, but no, I don't think there's a constant amount of mana required to "sustain" the effect.

[Herk]

But since they can't be CB, I assume they're actual some ramification of the Black breed, after all. Maybe some alteration in genetics, maybe something recessive?

I'm just picturing Alt Blacks like dragon cuckoos now. That's why you don't find them in the wild (Cave) because the Alt Blacks always put their eggs within the nest of a regular Black who will care for it (instead of just letting it roll away or throw it out to be taken away by humans).

And of course they only hide their eggs with regular Blacks so they won't be spotted easily (dragons are a lot cleverer than birds after all).

[Fiona]

For blacks, it's possible that they aren't actually the same breed; they just happen to have similar eggs.

If they're different breeds, how is it that they can produce eggs of the other breed? They must be very closely related for regular blacks to produce alt eggs and alts to produce regular eggs.

 

And we put the guide notes together instead of being separate because you said they were the same breed. I was just going to copy them over and then make some minor changes for the alts.

 

The person that wrote the initial draft of the guide notes (I forget who, maybe Fiona BlueFire?) had them listed as being prehensile, but I changed it because I thought that was kinda weird.

Not I. I was going to but I think it was Marri who ended up doing purples because she had a bunch of notes from Dovealove on how she wanted them to be.

[Nerei]

If they're different breeds, how is it that they can produce eggs of the other breed? They must be very closely related for regular blacks to produce alt eggs and alts to produce regular eggs.

Well, of course this is because normal blacks also replace the eggs or alt blacks. They're always swapping them around.

[Herk]

Well, of course this is because normal blacks also replace the eggs or alt blacks. They're always swapping them around.

Maybe Alt Blacks TAKE a regular Black egg when they place theirs? More like fairies and changelings than cuckoos really, which would also account for them sometimes keeping their own eggs...

 

I honestly think they're just a minor mutation/sub-species but making up conspiracy theories is fun

[pinkgothic]

If they're different breeds, how is it that they can produce eggs of the other breed? They must be very closely related for regular blacks to produce alt eggs and alts to produce regular eggs.

You can ask the same question about geodes. We class them as hybrids, but you can still get them by breeding pebble x pebble or stone x stone.

 

I like the cuckoo theory.

[zaverxi]

On that subject, there's thousands of examples in nature of species breeding babies that don't look anything like them. Look at white tigers, for instance; it's all in the recessive genes. Two parents with brown hair and brown eyes are perfectly capable of having a baby that's blond haired blue eyed so long as it's somewhere in the family. I think it might possibly be a similar situation, and ditto with hybrids.

 

Personally, from a DC standpoint, I think the chance of breeding alts or not involves Change mana of some kind. Perhaps in the hope of their baby being an alt, parent dragons(or their 'owners') go out and collect pieces of magi, time, and ice mana to place around the nest, hoping to increase the chances of alting/hybridization.

 

 

On the subject of mana crystals... it was stated in the holiday event that a piece of fire mana worked like expected, warming up an egg and such. But what about all the other types of mana? Some are pretty self explanatory, like a light mana crystal would emit light, an ice mana crystal would make things cool, but.. some of the types are a bit less obvious.

 

Light— creates light, makes things brighter and easier to see.

Earth— strengthens the ground, or other things made with rocks like buildings and structures.

Life— can make sickly creatures healthier again, but could also cause rapid growth of things you don't want, like kudzu.

Water— create water out of the air? Cause water levels to rise? Purify water?

 

 

Dark— Make things dark, obscuring vision, and the like.

Lightning— Creates electricity, possibly used to power things? Do mages use electricity?

Death— can kill things/drain the life from them. Doesn't have to be bad, but it is destructive.

Fire— Used as an example, creates heat, not necessarily fire. Can melt things if strong enough.

 

 

Magi— ???? Bolsters a dragon's or mage's magic power? No idea.

Air— Creates air that can be breathed, limited use under water, also breezes?

Time— Due to its rarity, possibly has unpredictable results, like speeding up time or slowing it down, or for a limited amount stops it completely?

Ice— Makes things cold, opposite of fire. Capable of freezing things.

 

I dunno, just my two cents' worth!

[Fiona]

Light mana is not just illumination but also well... goodness? as a counter to Destruction's dark. Dark is not just absence of light but bad things.

 

 

Don't like the cuckoo theory. The eggs are recorded as having the lineage from those parents. We at least believe that the egg has the parents who raised the egg.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Fiona BlueFire

[Ansela Jonla]

Light mana is not just illumination but also well... goodness? as a counter to Destruction's dark. Dark is not just absence of light but bad things.

Why does Light have to be "good" and Dark "evil"? Why can't Light be bad and Dark be good? No need to make things so black and white and cliched.

[JavaTigress]

Why does Light have to be "good" and Dark "evil"? Why can't Light be bad and Dark be good? No need to make things so black and white and cliched.

While I agree that Dark doesn't INHERENTLY have to mean evil and Light doesn't INHERENTLY have to mean good... the world is very often more complex than that ( AND AS I understand it, mana basically keeps itself in balance to some extent, so that an overabundance of ANY kind of mana MIGHT become a problem that causes negative effects. Hence the avatars whose job is to keep them all in chekcs and balance) ... I don't know that I entirely think to summize that there is at least the INCLINATION in certain directions or maybe that prejudice ( do to the effects they have) at least, is necessarily 'cliche'

 

That word is overused SO MUCH.

 

IF, for example, dark has the tendency to mean destruction... how far fetched is it for it to be perceived as evil, even IF mana itself just does what it does without even really having any consciousness of what it is doing, per se? (AND therefor no REAL intent)

AND even IF there is a need for balance overall?

Edited March 28, 2015 by Silverswift

[zaverxi]

Light is perfectly capable of harm. If you stare into the sun too long you can go blind.

Dark, represented by night, is a very important part of life cycles. It provides an environment for things to rest that are diurnal, and provide an environment for activity for nocturnal. Plants in particular require darkness half the time in order to process sugars they generate during the day for photosynthesis. Darkness is restful.

 

'good' and 'evil' are human interpretations of things, and have no basis on the actual nature of something.

 

The same thing can be said for 'life' and 'death'. Neither are good or evil, they just have positive or negative connotations associated with them.

 

The Ebola virus is a prime example. The virus itself is definitely benefiting from a profusion of life. Swarms of plant-life covering over other organisms is certainly a representation of life, but in a very harmful way. Think about vines growing over a tree and choking the life out of it, or parasites infecting lifeforms. Or massive blooms of red algae, which is poisonous to pretty much everything else and causes 'red tide'.

 

On the flip side, death is not 'bad'. Some things, it's necessary for them to die to provide life. Look at dead leaves, for instance. They die, fall to the ground, and start rotting. But the nutrients from the leaves lead to new life in the spring.

 

Lots of things are dead that benefit others. Hair is dead, and it insulates your head and protects you from sunburn and cold and the like. Dead coral provides a foundation for new coral growth. Dead trees provide cavities for animals to live.

 

Saying light and life are good and dark and death are bad is a self-centered human interpretation of things. Light and life are good for people, dark and death aren't, so therefore good and evil! It's anthropocentric, and arrogant to assume things are that way because people want them to be that way.

 

Light and Dark are two sides of a coin, without one, the other won't exist.

 

Life and Death are also two sides of a different coin. Without death, there would be no new life.

 

There is no good or evil involved with any of those.

 

 

 

 

From a non-literal standpoint, light and dark aren't good or evil either. A person who completely thinks they're right, and fighting for what they perceive to be 'good', is equally capable of doing evil as any person intent on doing bad things. The Nazis fervently believed that humanity should be 'purified' and that only one sort of people should exist. The Crusades believed that their religion(Christianity) was the best one and that everyone should be converted, which kinda led to people getting murdered to 'cleanse' them. Heck, the extremist Muslims also believe this, and we all know how well THAT is going.

 

Intentions are pure, methods are decidedly not. They're fighting 'for the light'.

[JavaTigress]

Light is perfectly capable of harm. If you stare into the sun too long you can go blind.

Dark, represented by night, is a very important part of life cycles. It provides an environment for things to rest that are diurnal, and provide an environment for activity for nocturnal. Plants in particular require darkness half the time in order to process sugars they generate during the day for photosynthesis. Darkness is restful.

 

'good' and 'evil' are human interpretations of things, and have no basis on the actual nature of something.

 

The same thing can be said for 'life' and 'death'. Neither are good or evil, they just have positive or negative connotations associated with them.

 

The Ebola virus is a prime example. The virus itself is definitely benefiting from a profusion of life. Swarms of plant-life covering over other organisms is certainly a representation of life, but in a very harmful way. Think about vines growing over a tree and choking the life out of it, or parasites infecting lifeforms. Or massive blooms of red algae, which is poisonous to pretty much everything else and causes 'red tide'.

 

On the flip side, death is not 'bad'. Some things, it's necessary for them to die to provide life. Look at dead leaves, for instance. They die, fall to the ground, and start rotting. But the nutrients from the leaves lead to new life in the spring.

 

Lots of things are dead that benefit others. Hair is dead, and it insulates your head and protects you from sunburn and cold and the like. Dead coral provides a foundation for new coral growth. Dead trees provide cavities for animals to live.

 

Saying light and life are good and dark and death are bad is a self-centered human interpretation of things. Light and life are good for people, dark and death aren't, so therefore good and evil! It's anthropocentric, and arrogant to assume things are that way because people want them to be that way.

 

Light and Dark are two sides of a coin, without one, the other won't exist.

 

Life and Death are also two sides of a different coin. Without death, there would be no new life.

 

There is no good or evil involved with any of those.

 

 

 

 

From a non-literal standpoint, light and dark aren't good or evil either. A person who completely thinks they're right, and fighting for what they perceive to be 'good', is equally capable of doing evil as any person intent on doing bad things. The Nazis fervently believed that humanity should be 'purified' and that only one sort of people should exist. The Crusades believed that their religion(Christianity) was the best one and that everyone should be converted, which kinda led to people getting murdered to 'cleanse' them. Heck, the extremist Muslims also believe this, and we all know how well THAT is going.

 

Intentions are pure, methods are decidedly not. They're fighting 'for the light'.

Which is sort of where I was going with this.

 

Humans, AND possibly dragons too if they are sentient, might very well put interpretations on these things... valid or not.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Silverswift

[Nerei]

But our interpretations still cannot make something good or bad.

[JavaTigress]

But our interpretations still cannot make something good or bad.

No, but they certainly CAN effect our views on it AND our reactions to it.

 

It also occurs to me that different breeds of dragon, being aligned to different kinds of mana, might well have differing views on various forms of mana.

 

As example, a red dragon might have positive views of fire mana, while a vine or or neotropical might have a negative view of it.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Silverswift

[TJ09]

IF, for example, dark has the tendency to mean destruction... how far fetched is it for it to be perceived as evil

Destruction is as necessary for the forward progress of nature as creation, I'd say.

 

Everyone is also neglecting that there's a whole third aspect that balances out the other two. e.g. it's not some cosmic struggle between light and dark.

[Nerei]

Do Valkemare oceans have all of the same oceanic regions as we do? Deep Sea dragons are described as living at the ocean floor, at the deepest depths. The lowest level of Earth's ocean is the hadopelagic zone, I think 20,000 feet deep. The Marianas Trench is about 36,000 something feet deep. Can Deep Seas actually survive at this level?

 

Also, I forgot that my original question was whether any oceans were named at the moment. If not, do you think you could confirm one? /hopeful

Edited March 30, 2015 by Niyaka

[TJ09]

Do Valkemare oceans have all of the same oceanic regions as we do? Deep Sea dragons are described as living at the ocean floor, at the deepest depths. The lowest level of Earth's ocean is the hadopelagic zone, I think 20,000 feet deep. The Marianas Trench is about 36,000 something feet deep. Can Deep Seas actually survive at this level?

 

Also, I forgot that my original question was whether any oceans were named at the moment. If not, do you think you could confirm one? /hopeful

I'm inclined to say yes, they exist on the ocean floor for at least some of the not super-deep ocean regions (obviously 20k ft deep is different from 36k), though that may bring up some biological concerns (involving going from surface to 20k) that perhaps I should just gloss over.

 

I thought one of the oceans had at least a working name, but it looks like, no, that hasn't been decided yet. Feel free to suggest things.

[Red2111]

Are the dragons in the wild, the ones that we release from our scrolls among the dragons that we steal CB eggs from? and do all eggs have lineages, just with CB's we cant view the lineages because we have no info on the parents?

 

 

i had to laugh at your "kids game" comment from the first page of this thread. personally i've come to imagine this to be sorta like Valkemare's version of a hybrid between Skylanders, giga pets & Beanie Babies.

 

 

[TJ09]

Are the dragons in the wild, the ones that we release from our scrolls among the dragons that we steal CB eggs from? and do all eggs have lineages, just with CB's we cant view the lineages because we have no info on the parents?

 

 

i had to laugh at your "kids game" comment from the first page of this thread. personally i've come to imagine this to be sorta like Valkemare's version of a hybrid between Skylanders, giga pets & Beanie Babies.

I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but most of the dragon raising you see on DC wouldn't actually happen at the same scale that it does on DC. Which means humans releasing dragons would be a pretty rare occurrence, and certainly wouldn't make up an appreciable portion of wild dragons.

 

All eggs that were laid have lineages by definition (they have parents, who had parents, and so on), even if you don't know what that lineage is.

[Nerei]

Is it possible that other creatures from popular mythology exist in Valkemare? If so, would they be magical like dragons, or otherwise affected by mana?

[TJ09]

Is it possible that other creatures from popular mythology exist in Valkemare? If so, would they be magical like dragons, or otherwise affected by mana?

There are definitely other lifeforms that aren't humans and aren't dragons.

 

And they're totally affected by mana. Not all would have it as a core part of their identity, but it's still a thing.

 

I don't have a good idea of what creatures would exist yet (though I'm open to suggestions); I have a few vague ideas that need to be more fleshed out.

[zaverxi]

Ooooooh suggest a creature thread!

 

Given the sheer size of some of the dragons, I think we'd need some equally large prey animals to sustain them. Preferably magical ones with their own (limited) supply of mana for nutrients and the like. Hmmmmm.

 

*researches mythological creatures from cultures around the world*

 

ahh, yes. My obsession. See everyone in a week with a billion ideas!

 

Also a question!

 

Given how we've had many references so far to cats, are they somewhat viewed as sacred or otherwise highly regarded, and do dragons like them?

 

*looks at the cat snowmen and various cat items in Halloween events*

Edited March 31, 2015 by zaverxi

[Pyrowings]

That sounds cool, though it would be confined to the encyclopedia only, right?

[TJ09]

Given how we've had many references so far to cats, are they somewhat viewed as sacred or otherwise highly regarded, and do dragons like them?

 

*looks at the cat snowmen and various cat items in Halloween events*

Events are non-canon. Any surplus of cats within them is likely Odeen's fault.

 

Cats are probably as normal as they are in this world.