Talk:Lorebending/@comment-4835297-20131025215155

Lorebreak: A complete contradiction of the lore of RuneScape supplied by Jagex, something that directly goes against any idea, belief, setting, or theme within the game's lore.

Lorebend: An action that may or may not be against the lore of RuneScape. Lorebends do not completely contradict lore of RuneScape, nor do they have any strong proof that they exist within the lore of RuneScape.

Is it agreed that those defintions are somewhat accurate when it comes to RuneScape Roleplay? I made them up at the top of my head, but if there's a dispute, please tell me.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Player rulers within POC's are unquestionably lorebreak when it comes to the common case. Lorebreak is the act of taking the official undeniable proof supplied to us by RuneScape lore and completely contradicting it. It may sometimes be good to break lore, but I completely disagree in simply calling it lorebend. There is no way to disprove the existence of the rulers and taking their place as a player ruler is not only lorebreak but also powerplaying NPCs. (I'm not giving any special support or anything, I'm going by the defintion.)

"Another great example of lorebending is landscaling.": Landscaling can really go either way. In most cases it's more close to lorebend, as there's no evidence for or against the existence of scaled places. However, I've seen roleplayers throw cities and such down in places that already exist. A good example is the New Kingsport (not sure if that's the correct name) that was land-scaled just south of Taverley on the coast. That is in-fact a break of lore due to the fact that there is undisputable proof that there is nothing on that coast in the current lore of RuneScape suggesting a port.

Timescaling: With the examples used above, I really can't find an argument to that not being lorebreak. It's self-explanatory really. "Year 170 of the Fifth Age, Year 2 of the Sixth Age, or Year 1 of the Seventh Age, may be considered a huge or small lorebend."  A huge or small lorebend? I'd personally consider that one of the biggest loreBREAKs that can happen. Once again, there is absolute, unquestionable proof that a year 170 of the Fifth Age did not happen and will not happen. That makes it lorebreak, not bend.