forums.rs

Forums

History of the Kinshra - Edits

Quick find code: 341-342-323-65566452

of 20
Jakir

Jakir

Posts: 4,506 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
This rewrite doesn't sit well with me for 2 reasons:
1) I just like the progression of the origin story the first time better. It feels like a more detailed and smoother flow covering a lot more of the rise of the Kinshra and their interactions with the King and rigging the court and ect.

2) This version shows that the Kinshra were harmful extremists from the start while in game it is claimed that those "chaos chaos kill kill kill" extremists were taking the true teachings of Zamorak which the Kinshra followed out of context. Lord Daquarius in DaT has us put down some extremist propaganda spreaders as they are not following the way of the Kinshra. If this origin story is to be believed it would be the other way around and he would have infiltrated an extremist organization and be trying to pacify it.

In many ways it has a bit of the same problems as Fwooshel's version except instead of Zamorak himself it instead makes his most prevalent followers look like simple bad guys. I would prefer not to have either Zamorak or the Kinshra be outright "evil' if possible.

I did however think it was a very entertaining story and wouldn't mind if it was just tweaked a bit to make it sound like the problem was with that location because of Dulcin's leadership. Perhaps if the writer had transferred from Daquarius's base and pointed out the stark contrast between the two?

Heck maybe you could hint it was part of ZimZam's design to have extremist and reasonable bases split the Kinshra so he would have varied and flexible followers. I really like the idea of that.

11-Mar-2015 07:38:19

Lord Drakan
Sep Member 2010

Lord Drakan

Posts: 7,043 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Jakir said :
Fwooshel's version
Which would be...?

But anyway, I don't disagree with this. Reading it a second time, it very much antagonises Valzin and the Kinshra, and we were aiming for the opposite of that. Nice usage of Lungrim though.

But still, I very much doubt this could replace the original given that Jagex would have to edit**** and translate all over again****... random idea: we could ask for it to be a Lore & History, but I dunno if that would accomplish anything. Bizarre Boron Fusswell, scryer extraordinaire. OSRS: POH ideas & RS3 minigames & achievement ideas !

Perhaps you're half right; perhaps we can't win. But we can fight.
— Zanik

11-Mar-2015 07:45:20

Wahisietel
Oct Member 2005

Wahisietel

Posts: 3,426 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Ah, but does it really paint the current Kinshra in a bad light? Honestly, I think it may do the opposite (or at least, that's what I take from it).

If Jagex ARE willing to have this version replace the original (and they may very well be), then I see no problem with it doing so. You never were our brightest star, Khazard. 'Vermin slaughtered like lambs'? What does that even mean?

11-Mar-2015 10:01:09

Chaos Lupus

Chaos Lupus

Posts: 9,633 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
This was a great read, I especially loved the inclusion of Lungrim. I definitely prefer this version to the previous one.

Something that I think should be added, though, is more specific details about how the Kinshra helped to establish Asgarnia. Driving the trolls into the mountains, for example.
The strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack.

12-Mar-2015 01:16:16

Rondstat

Rondstat

Posts: 2,770 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
How many languages would it have to be translated into? Just German, French, and Portuguese, yeah? Do we really have no one on the forums who speaks those languages? Why not translate it ourselves?



that said, I don't speak any of those languages, so...

12-Mar-2015 03:04:04

William Witt
Aug Member 2023

William Witt

Posts: 12,465 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Thanks, everyone. I'm really glad you liked it.

@ Rondstat

A mix of both, really. As an example, Bishop Lungrim is from the novels, and I recall a mention of the Kinshra making use of his teachings - but there is original stuff in here, too. :)

About the dark wizards/red wizards thing, I'd ordinarily agree with you, but there is at least one case where they're described as "dark wizards". Granted, said mention was in the present day, long after the First Tower; but then again, this book isn't from the time of the First Tower either.

As for the legacy thing, hmm. I assume you're referencing Armies of Gielinor there (or is there any other reference to God Wars-era black knights?). What's everyone else's thoughts on the topic? Should we include this?

@ Wolfie

1) Hmm, could you elaborate on "smoother flow"? This is something that could potentially be improved, if you mean what I think you mean.

2) I think this text is actually more in line with original Death of Chivalry than the current ingame text is. Remember, the quest treated Lord Shadwell - who is described as a fanatical extremist, etc - as having been in charge of the order up from the founding date til 163... Until Robo pointed out this would make him at least 150 years old. I've also heard that Mod Stu explained in a livestream (which I haven't actually personally watched, admittedly) that the Kinshra bastar(c)dize Zamorak's philosophy. This, plus the way the quest talked about Dulcin's death being the end of Shadwell's ideology and stuff like that leads me to suggest the quest was originally trying to show Daquarius as heralding a new era for the Kinshra. (Also, I now remember Mod Stu talking one time about how Dulcin follows the old ways of his family)

@ Chaos Lupus

Robo did suggest that readding the minor details of the current version might mess up the flow of the text, but let's give your request a try anyway. :) I've edited it into the text now.
The Asgarnian ale must flow.

12-Mar-2015 06:36:38 - Last edited on 12-Mar-2015 08:32:26 by William Witt

Jakir

Jakir

Posts: 4,506 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
When I talked about smoother flow what I meant was the original version had a:
"First this happened"
"Which created this opportunity"
"So then this branched out into that"
"But then everything went to crap because *"
"So that brings us to the current state of affairs"

And it just was a very detailed step by step origins of the Kinshra. I greatly enjoy the complete view it provides.

As for the early Kinshra being extremist nutters from the start and not simply having some members like that I don't like it at all. There would need to be one hell of a reason for the king to approve their order then and I haven't heard one that makes any sense yet.

13-Mar-2015 03:39:38

Rondstat

Rondstat

Posts: 2,770 Adamant Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
William Witt said :


As for the legacy thing, hmm. I assume you're referencing Armies of Gielinor there (or is there any other reference to God Wars-era black knights?). What's everyone else's thoughts on the topic? Should we include this?


You know, I went looking for a source and couldn't find it. I feel like I remember seeing a reference to black knights in the 3rd Age and originally thinking it was a lorefail, but now I'm wondering if I made that up, just cos I've assumed the Black Knights were around in the 3rd Age for so long. I never knew where it came from, and if it's from funorb, well (1) I'm a very silly person for assuming its lorefulness, and (2) it's probably not something worth modifying the text over.

The first version is written in a more text-book format, and I suppose has more informational bullet points, but it doesn't flow like this one. While the original has more facts, this one tells you so much more. I think little tidbits of sequential minutiae are much less significant than something that imparts the full impact of this group's rise and fall, from a place that sounds personal and deeply invested. This version has a voice .

13-Mar-2015 05:14:39

Hazeel

Hazeel

Posts: 6,735 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I agree with Wolfie on the fact that it paints the Kinshra as scum from beginning to end. On the other hand, I'm not too bothered by that because it does give the opportunity to show the differences the Kinshra and true Zamorakianism.

I think it needs a bit of cleaning up though. In a way it kinda sounds like a bitter RS clan member lamenting about his clan's history of drama and how he and his friend are disappointed by it. A little touching up to make it sound more professional would be nice.

Something else to consider is that from DaT, it sounds like Saradomin and Saradominists spread the misinterpretation of Zamorak's ideology and people just took it as fact (including Kinshra members who joined because they wanted to be as evil as Saradominists said they were). That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened this way, but it feels a bit contradicting.

Ideally I think it would be cool for the Kinshra to start out as a respectable organization and maybe detail more how it deteriorated and from there explain how the organization began to differ from Zamorak's ideology.

Maybe it could have started with the original story, but when the Kinshra got kicked out and Zamorakian's were no longer tolerated, the Saradominist view became "fact" because there was nothing to oppose it. And with these views being spread around, the Kinshra would get lower quality recruits (the ones who join because they want to be these "Evil Black Knights" ) which would contribute to the fall of the Kinshra. Runescape doesn't need a hero...it needs a villain. An all encompassing force of evil that will remain ever-threatening and use chaos to make the peoples of Gielinor tolerate each other, grow strong together, and fight side by side against this evil. I am that villain.

13-Mar-2015 05:33:44 - Last edited on 13-Mar-2015 05:36:15 by Hazeel

Quick find code: 341-342-323-65566452 Back to Top