Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
We are definitely not lobbyists. Lobbyists are, by definition, hired by a business or cause to pursue the agenda of that business or cause. We are volunteers who should be primarily concerned with game balance issues before independent agendas. No one is upset that we don't dictate the direction of game balance, no one is saying this should be a democracy. People are upset because our opinions were requested, by a post directed to all of us to provide feedback, and even against the overwhelming consensus, it was the single party who stood to benefit the most that decided whether our feedback was valid or not. Even in this scenario, the strength of the case really didn't matter.
If the envoy system is to be successful, one envoy cannot be elevated above all the others like Kelly was here. It's clear, at least to me, that we can't trust the previous impressions of an envoy when dangling a carrot in front of them. We just have to assume they will take the carrot for their own purposes, as Kelly is now openly admiting to doing. It's one thing to have a special envoy to coordinate with the admin and players and sift through the mountains of feedback and information like Shuyin was with choke and other things, but it's quite another to award one unilateral control over whether they get a big buff for their own side or not.
We are definitely not lobbyists. Lobbyists are, by definition, hired by a business or cause to pursue the agenda of that business or cause.
I'm pretty sure we're lobbyists. I wasn't paid one cent when I lobbied my town council to increase the fine for refusing to mow one's lawn (one of my neighbors just doesn't like to own nice things -- but at least now he mows his lawn!). Being that as it may, if it helps you pigeon-hole everything in nice and neat boxes, then how about ``we are petitioners, not legislators'' ? This certainly seems fair to me, since IRE owns the technical resources and implements the code then they certainly ought to have an overriding vote in any circumstance (analogously they certainly have a compelling interest in maintaining the culture and theme, and who would argue against that?).
Perhaps I misunderstand the Envoy system, but I think it might work rather perfectly given this new addition. Firstly It is assumed only our most expert players would be envoys (they know about all the skills in their Guild, and have experience in many others), and therefore can speak intelligently with each other on the various reports. Secondly, from my observations, IRE does a very a good job of address these reports on an almost routine manner. It is true that some reports are resolved sooner than others, but the team seems to have a good handle on ``implement what we can, when we can'' methodology. Thirdly I think this new addition, an actual Admin, will help matters tremendously. Like prayers, all reports are answered (sometimes the answer is ``no''), and having an Admin spend three minutes typing a few sentences on assent/dissent would certainly move almost future matters towards a more civil and speedy conclusion.
As for the specifics of the OP? I can certainly appreciate @Silvanus' frustration. If someone didn't want my advice or didn't want me to answer a question then they shouldn't have asked me for either in the first place; it's just rude and insulting to be ignored. As for bias? I've accepted universal bias as tautalogical. The phrase ``Conflict of Interest'' is not without merit. The phrase ``follow the money/benefit'' is also applicable here. As for specifics of if someone ``snuck'' something in or back-doored something through or whatever, I've really no idea. I seldom consult the reports (that's what my envoy is for!), and obviously lack the experience to try to judge them any way. I've got the RP down and I know something of each of my guild's skills but I am no @Fillin or @Thoros or @Silvanus, so you won't catch me weighing in on reports; I'm a little too green to be shaping the physics of Lusternia in such a fundamental manner.
Sorry to hear of the troubles, but maybe things are on the up-swing now?
</RANT>
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Lobbyists vie with each other for limited legislative time and attention, and do so with their own agendas on the forefront. The former is not really how envoys work, the latter is how an envoy shouldn't work (though some admittedly do). I have the sometimes unfortunate pleasure of living in DC and knowing several lobbyists personally, and while I call them friends, I would never want the envoy system to work like lobbyists, hahaha.
What bothered me the most beyond the nature of the change to the Celestine pacts was the turn-around time between the report submission and implementation/approval. The other guilds have to wait for a month for their reports. Was Celestine combat truly so broken by the state of Supernal pacts that it merited such a swift change?
Viravain, Lady of the Thorns shouts, "And You would seize Me? Fool! I am the Glomdoring! I am the Wyrd, and beneath the cloak of Night, the shadows of the Silent stir!"
So not only do Celestines get Shackles, they get a totally new affliction added as well.
Grand.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
What bothered me the most beyond the nature of the change to the Celestine pacts was the turn-around time between the report submission and implementation/approval. The other guilds have to wait for a month for their reports. Was Celestine combat truly so broken by the state of Supernal pacts that it merited such a swift change?
Some people love that Lusternia will change something in a matter of hours (and having the admin say it was changed due to player input), while others would like every decision to take months.
When I was envoy, I wanted the system to be longer. I wanted there to be more than a months of discussion. Current system does not require even a full month. I wanted to see something like a few weeks to discuss the idea as a suggestion (so that hopefully the best suggestions were going though). A month to submit and discuss. But also two weeks after finalizing to discuss. Most of this can be almost done with the current system. The problem is you can 9th hour most of the steps and then last minute your final comments.
I'm sure there are admin who are reading this thread and perhaps musing about how difficult working with players can be. Granted. But it is also the case that not weighing in very early, even before you understand the question tends to backfire. I'd like to be able to take a couple of days to mull things over, read what other people have put forward themselves, maybe work up a thoughtful response over a couple of days, but why bother? Many of the times the decision will have already been made, or we'll be told the coding as already started, etc.
Lobbyists vie with each other for limited legislative time and attention, and do so with their own agendas on the forefront. The former is not really how envoys work, the latter is how an envoy shouldn't work (though some admittedly do). I have the sometimes unfortunate pleasure of living in DC and knowing several lobbyists personally, and while I call them friends, I would never want the envoy system to work like lobbyists, hahaha.
I dig what you're saying, and can certainly empathize (one of my sisters was a professional lobbiest for a while), but I think you're far too narrow in your definition of the western democratic process. Your definition assumes opposition and friction which is not necessarily the case; 99% of envoy reports do not result in such scandal, and my own home-town politicking was similarly smooth. You earlier implied paid labour, where this is clearly not the case in my
Regardless of the above, I think I have plenty of agreement with you. If the system is traditionally one thing, and then suddenly another thing pops up (such as seems to be the case), then the cry of ``foul!'' would have merit. No society can function with an health on a ``special-case by special-case basis''. I'm especially dismayed in that it would seem the person with the most to gain (and certainly nothing to lose!) appears to have been the sole arbiter. @Estarra raised some good point. Each of the pledges should offer 5, non-duplicated powers. But shackles? Seriously?
If this is the overhaul, I'd hate to see the underhaul. Oh, that already happened to the Nihilists, didn't it?
So not only do Celestines get Shackles, they get a totally new affliction added as well.
Grand.
This was discussed among the admin, as we're cautious of adding anything new at this point. That it is non curable and its existence is tied into the debuff's duration puts it in outside the realms of affliction bloat in terms of cutting down on necessary player curing.
Furthermore, it doesn't harm or directly hinder the afflicted, it is essentially a situational function that will mostly have benefit in group combat, without adding a great deal in one on one scenarios. It's simply an option for the Celestine to have in their toolkit while retaining their general theme.
So not only do Celestines get Shackles, they get a totally new affliction added as well.
Grand.
For the record, I don't know of a Celestine who wanted karmichealing. Our envoy, as well as a number of other envoys, specifically stated that we thought Celestines already had enough defensive potential. Sorry if that puts a pin in this beautiful conspiracy theory about the Celestines running the show and somehow getting everything they wanted.
I will admit, though, that I am excited by the prospect of having a unique pledge power (ie, karmichealing). All the pledge powers that are just some standard affliction are just a bit... boring. Will be nice to have some unique flavor, even if it doesn't turn out to be super useful for us in most circumstances.
Inquisition plus lock-down? Most definitely super useful in any situation.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I was talking about karmichealing (which is purely a defensive affliction). Again, we specifically asked to have something else in its place.
I understand that some folks are concerned about the potential impacts that shackle will have on things like astrology and tarot kills. Admittedly I don't know much about that, but I honestly don't get this consistent return to the argument about inquisition. According to the report, angel shackles will never afflict someone who is under heretic, infidel, or inquisition (by design, you CANNOT be under inquisition without simultaneously being under heretic and infidel). That is, if you try to make it hit someone, it will miss, and you've just wasted your affliction. How is this limited version of shackles going to help me pull off a million easy-mode inquisition kills? Please tell me what I'm missing here so I can start preparing my new combat strategy.
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Is it just me or are the Celest responses to this change sounded scripted at this point. It's like listening to echoes.
You people have got to stop looking at your skills in a void, or as if making shackles not work with inquisition means Celest can act like inquisition doesn't exist. If you have an extremely powerful, universally effective offense that is arguable one of the best kill methods in the game that is not particularly difficult to pull off and has no cure but running away, on top of the undisputed best defense skill in the game, you probably don't also need high end hindering as well. Just because a caveat was added to not work during the inquisition process does not mean, by any leap of logic, you needed the ability to passively entangle someone. You're not supposed to be amazing at everything. Celestines had decent hindering with passive stun, passive paralysis, and stackable entangles and aeon with tarot, Kelly decided it was unfair because apparently wiccan hindering (read: brownie and vines) somehow justifies giving Illuminati/Nihilist level hindering to Celestines but, conveniently, without giving Celestine level defenses to everyone else.
Considering we all got screwed with shackles, god only knows what you asked for in place of karmic healing. Aeon?
Considering we all got screwed with shackles, god only knows what you asked for in place of karmic healing. Aeon?
There's really no reason to be so venomous.
As far as I'm aware, everything that was asked for was asked for in the envoy report. Our previous envoy made a report to ask for blackout as a replacement for vapours; when that report was essentially dismissed despite the fact that all of the envoys were in support of our request, our new envoy asked for the dismissed report to be reviewed because we were confused about what we should be doing if not trying to replace the many pledges we had lost to the overhaul. As you well know, the admin then suggested a number of replacements, including shackles, karmichealing, powersap, etc. I am quite certain that our envoy never specifically asked for any particular pledge outside of the official report. She didn't ask for shackles to be under consideration to begin with, but she did attempt to explain in the report why we would like or wouldn't like certain pledges that were offered by the admin. And as far all these accusations against Kaimanahi... if she were being biased, I would like to think she would have just asked for shackles without any strings regarding inquisition. Honestly, I think epilepsy would have been much more beneficial to inquisition than a restricted-use shackles.
Seriously folks, I'm really shocked by the level of hatefulness in some of these comments. I can only imagine what the envoys channel must be like... Baelor has my sympathies for being given this task.
Yo, quit the holier-than-thou shit. You're not a Celestian IRL. We speak civilly to each other just fine, thank you very much.
This is what Saoirse asked for in place of karmichealing, for those keeping score:
...Although karmichealing sounds great, I think we prolly need more offensive skills rather than another defensive skill. How about something like, Charm, which gives the Celestine a 5-second boost to damage? At any rate, I fully support all the other pledges and thank you, again for looking into it!
Having never been an envoy, I can't say I've ever witnessed the vitriolic nature of their channel. I've seen logs, and it's pretty bad.
Let's put this into context. Let's say Hallifax's institute loses an affliction on their onyx gem. Let's say they lose....masochism. Their envoy complains and asks for a replacement, maybe..paranoia.
What the admin have just done is given the institute passive ectoplasm, plus the gem can now strip quicksilver. Despite the envoy not asking for this, and 95% of the other envoys thinking this is a bad idea, the admin think it's not only fair and balanced, but throw the rest of the envoys a bone by allowing the ectoplasm to not hit people afflicted by aeon.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
class="Quote" How about something like, Charm, which gives the Celestine a 5-second boost to damage?
I could see that, especially for those trying to damage down inquisition targets.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I personally think karmic healing is a cool concept, and I'd like to see it spread to other uses across the game.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Its mentioned that Estarra felt the need for Celestines to have this. Yet, once again, the Nihilists are ignored, and are about to lose another strategy as Bleeding is to be removed. All in all, the Nihilists will be losing Ectoplasm, their soft-Aeon lock (no asthma besides poison spit, comes with resist chance), their bleeding prowess (more pacts to lose, Torture needing to be re-envoyed again then), and their ability to damage kill (Omen, the crime that happened to Torture). And we've gotten nothing to compensate for anything nor any suggestions, nor communication, or even acknowledged that the Nihilist has been screwed. Its been mentioned over Envoys and ignored still.
I think the whole five-powers per pact pledge (and Angels/Demons) are a pretty outdated mechanic that is often unreliable. If I were a Celestine, I wouldn't even bother with the Blackout and just run out Stun/Shackles, that's 3-4 seconds of being unable to attack every 8 seconds. You may not even need heretic/infidel and could probably Judge/Soulless someone with that kind of passive hindering. But no, this report gets rammed down our throats.
Being a longtime Nihilist, I still never use anything besides Shackles. I find Wrath/Scourge a waste in most cases when I've had access to shackles. Of course, I've never been able to make Shackles last longer like Celestines will with stun (well, outside of good timing ectoplasms), so I would probably Scourge my Demon if I had stun to go along with it. There would be no Pact power that would end up beating out Shackles in the long run, only pacts to fill certain niches.
I personally think Demons/Angels should be a lot more involved rather than set and forget, which is exactly how it has been all the time. You could try and time your demon to give anorexia/impatience (not a strong combo anymore, aeon is cured by asthma, only Nihilist access is from beast spit) right after aeoning, but any disrupt in that timing (and there's a lot) means you just wasted 1 out of 10 chances. And even when you do get the right combo off, it could be cured in 4 seconds, and the only two things to make that last longer that a Nihilist has access to is ShieldStun or Stupidity from Moon Tarot for 3 power. All in all, a waste of time and power.
Both Celestinse and Nihilists are outdated mechanics that were built around cheese skills. They both have needed updating for a long time. Adding things like Shackles and providing a caveat where it doesn't work is just patchworking around the main problem: Inquisition chain sucks, is incredibly frustrating for user and victim, and any mechanic that forces you to run shouldn't exist. And the reverse is true, no one likes being Stuck on a Crucifix being unable to do anything for 30 seconds at a time, while the Nihilist is equally frustrated that I afflict someone with Scabies/Epilepsy right before Crucifix, and the Scabies tics on me before the person I gave it too (has happened plenty of times, because I cry to RNGus). Pacts like Karmichealing and Darksilver should be more of the norm rather than basic attacks like clumsiness, paranoia or a host of other useless afflictions that I would never use over passive stun/entangling.
TL/DR: Nihilists have gotten screwed, the one thing that kept them afloat are ectoplasm and shackles, and now neither is unique, and one is being removed. Once ectoplasm is gone, Celestines will be better hinderers and better defensively than a Nihilist.
Editted: It was pointed out that Hexes have asthma and Astrology has asthma too, but hexes can't aeon, and astrology aeon is unreliable (as everything with astro is).
2014/04/19 01:38:01 - Leolamins drained 2000000 power to raise Silvanus as a Vernal Ascendant.
2014/07/23 05:01:29 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Munsia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:07 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Arimisia as a Vernal Ascendant.
2015/05/24 06:03:58 - Silvanus drained 2000000 power to raise Lavinya as a Vernal Ascendant.
8
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited April 2015
Tip: not liking what someone is saying does not make it "venomous" or "hateful." Disagreeing with someone's perspective is not license to paint their response as something it is not. I'm just not really interested in the "omg mean sounding tones!" reaction to sarcasm and pointed comments. No one called your mom ugly or said you look fat in that dress. Respond to the information, not the person.
At any rate, we've entered the echo chamber at this point. I've come to terms with the reality that an envoy has openly admitted to using personal bias without soliciting feedback about class specific information to advocate for a change with reasoning that they also have admitted is completely different than what the originally intent of the Admin's decision was. They abused the system. Whether that person and the people who gave that person the authority to make the call want to do anything about it is out of my hands. Either way, it's in writing now, so at least we can all look back on it fondly for years to come.
Yeah....the bias came out the moment the envoy greenlit buffs to their own skills instead of having the opportunity to return things to the status quo (as per the intent of the original report). Based off a feeling that only Celest(ines) happen to share.
Out of curiosity, have the admins ever established a balancing foundation since I've payed attention? I remember pretty vividly from being an Envoy that there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for what was accepted or not. The one common thread that stands out in my memory is if things made roleplay sense.
For instance, EVE Online's core basis is risk vs reward. The riskier it is (that can often be interpreted as how hard something is to do successfully) the better the reward. Using that, changes have to fall within that framework to be accepted.
Thematic adherence has been relaxed some. Especially with the overhaul going on. It is still something that is discussed and seems to still be a factor in decision making.
Out of curiosity, have the admins ever established a balancing foundation since I've payed attention? I remember pretty vividly from being an Envoy that there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason for what was accepted or not. The one common thread that stands out in my memory is if things made roleplay sense.
For instance, EVE Online's core basis is risk vs reward. The riskier it is (that can often be interpreted as how hard something is to do successfully) the better the reward. Using that, changes have to fall within that framework to be accepted.
While we all have much love for EVE Online, Lusternia is Rp-Enforced at the server (not the corporation). Being that as it may, even the nice people in Iceland have an interest in the mechanics of the environment, and therefore assure you that plenty of ``one in a million shots''' have been denied.
None of this has anything to do with EVE Online, btw, I'm not trying to be pedantic (I just comes off naturally!), but the topic is, at a minimum, did envoys have any expectation of being considered? It would seem not. A pity too. IRE can certainly burn the envoys to Hell, but it is just plain rude to say ``you get a voice'' in one breath, followed by ``... and no one gives a damn!'' in the next. I love IRE in the same way I love fresh and whole food: always delicious and a pleasure to preapre; I just get grumpy when the packaging is misleading (or even a lie).
None of this has anything to do with EVE Online, btw, I'm not trying to be pedantic (I just comes off naturally!), but the topic is, at a minimum, did envoys have any expectation of being considered? It would seem not. A pity too. IRE can certainly burn the envoys to Hell, but it is just plain rude to say ``you get a voice'' in one breath, followed by ``... and no one gives a damn!'' in the next. I love IRE in the same way I love fresh and whole food: always delicious and a pleasure to preapre; I just get grumpy when the packaging is misleading (or even a lie).
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point, but I hope I came across the way I intended. My main thrust being that if the devs are able to give players a broad balancing theme that they stick with, players are better able to understand what fits into that criteria and what doesn't. It leads to a much clearer message and discussion. I only use EVE Online as an example, not as something to emulate directly.
Meh. Shackles not being usable on someone under the inqui line removes the worst celestine-specific synergy.
Two other Celestine specific items I can think of are: With kneel it will make meteor trivially easy to land. A wrathed "kneel blackout shackles" invest will both hide a soulless fling and stun/prone/entangle just before the soulless resolves.
I propose swapping shackles for dominate :P. More seriously, I think kneel and shackles are too much passive / no-balance-use active hinderance to give to a guardian class.
edit: The announce says that kneel is gone but lists powersink twice. A celestine tells me that this is a typo and kneel is still present.
If you have an extremely powerful, universally effective offense that is arguable one of the best kill methods in the game that is not particularly difficult to pull off and has no cure but running away...
This is a better description of shadowtist than it is of inquisition. Inquisition has finite, clearly telegraphed windows of opportunity and a time limit which gives the intended victim much more room for counterplay than shadowtwist. Inquisition also has a power cost which, in conjunction with the time limit, forces a choice between offense and defense. Shadowdancers don't have to make this choice with shadowtwist.
They're both based on a naff mechanic and I agree with Silvanus that we'd be better off with something entirely different.
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
edited May 2015
Only ironic to people who haven't been involved in the ongoing envoy discussion. Though uninformed sass from the peanut gallery is always welcome, I guess. I've been comparing SDs to Celestines throughout the envoy discussion because they both operate on similar mechanics and premises. Especially healer SDs, which I play. I even drew specific comparisons with SDs to argue that I wouldn't give SDs passive entangle for the same reason I wouldn't give Celestines passive entangle. As a Healer SD, I can prep for the kill over and over and over until it works with low to no risk of dying. A celestine with shackles and blackout can do the same with soulless. The difference being I lack the hindering, and give up an entire tertiary and a lot of flexibility to do that. Celestines do it with tarot, there's no give and take. That was my major issue with the change.
You're drawing distinctions between the two, which while not inaccurate, have nothing to do with the original comment. Inquisition remains universally effective, not particularly difficult (as event he Celest envoys have admitted to, especially with Holy Light), and has no cure but running away. Being finite and clearly noted windows of opportunity are distinctions you added, but they don't contradict any of my points.
You're misrepresenting the situation. The "choice" celestines have between offense and defense is an extremely potent offense or an extremely potent defense, both of which consume power. The Shadowdancer "don't have to make this choice with shadowtwist" because shadowdancers do not have access to high level defensive skills like trueheal. The "choice" is not a choice, it's a lack of an option, there is not choice to make. SD defensive skills are drink and dmp, and while awesome, are not sacraments. We can either passive tank it or we can't, there's no emergency escape button. The fact that Celestines have that option is one of the things that sets them apart from SDs and other guilds, and also why they don't also need the option of high tier hindering.
Comments
Perhaps I misunderstand the Envoy system, but I think it might work rather perfectly given this new addition. Firstly It is assumed only our most expert players would be envoys (they know about all the skills in their Guild, and have experience in many others), and therefore can speak intelligently with each other on the various reports. Secondly, from my observations, IRE does a very a good job of address these reports on an almost routine manner. It is true that some reports are resolved sooner than others, but the team seems to have a good handle on ``implement what we can, when we can'' methodology. Thirdly I think this new addition, an actual Admin, will help matters tremendously. Like prayers, all reports are answered (sometimes the answer is ``no''), and having an Admin spend three minutes typing a few sentences on assent/dissent would certainly move almost future matters towards a more civil and speedy conclusion.
As for the specifics of the OP? I can certainly appreciate @Silvanus' frustration. If someone didn't
want my advice or didn't want me to answer a question then they
shouldn't have asked me for either in the first place; it's just rude and insulting to be ignored. As for bias? I've accepted universal bias as tautalogical. The phrase ``Conflict of Interest'' is not without merit. The phrase ``follow the money/benefit'' is also applicable here. As for specifics of if someone ``snuck'' something in or back-doored something through or whatever, I've really no idea. I seldom consult the reports (that's what my envoy is for!), and obviously lack the experience to try to judge them any way. I've got the RP down and I know something of each of my guild's skills but I am no @Fillin or @Thoros or @Silvanus, so you won't catch me weighing in on reports; I'm a little too green to be shaping the physics of Lusternia in such a fundamental manner.
Sorry to hear of the troubles, but maybe things are on the up-swing now?
Grand.
When I was envoy, I wanted the system to be longer. I wanted there to be more than a months of discussion. Current system does not require even a full month. I wanted to see something like a few weeks to discuss the idea as a suggestion (so that hopefully the best suggestions were going though). A month to submit and discuss. But also two weeks after finalizing to discuss. Most of this can be almost done with the current system. The problem is you can 9th hour most of the steps and then last minute your final comments.
I'm sure there are admin who are reading this thread and perhaps musing about how difficult working with players can be. Granted. But it is also the case that not weighing in very early, even before you understand the question tends to backfire. I'd like to be able to take a couple of days to mull things over, read what other people have put forward themselves, maybe work up a thoughtful response over a couple of days, but why bother? Many of the times the decision will have already been made, or we'll be told the coding as already started, etc.
Regardless of the above, I think I have plenty of agreement with you. If the system is traditionally one thing, and then suddenly another thing pops up (such as seems to be the case), then the cry of ``foul!'' would have merit. No society can function with an health on a ``special-case by special-case basis''. I'm especially dismayed in that it would seem the person with the most to gain (and certainly nothing to lose!) appears to have been the sole arbiter. @Estarra raised some good point. Each of the pledges should offer 5, non-duplicated powers. But shackles? Seriously?
If this is the overhaul, I'd hate to see the underhaul. Oh, that already happened to the Nihilists, didn't it?
Furthermore, it doesn't harm or directly hinder the afflicted, it is essentially a situational function that will mostly have benefit in group combat, without adding a great deal in one on one scenarios. It's simply an option for the Celestine to have in their toolkit while retaining their general theme.
This is what Saoirse asked for in place of karmichealing, for those keeping score:
...Although karmichealing sounds great, I think we prolly need more offensive skills rather than another defensive skill. How about something like, Charm, which gives the Celestine a 5-second boost to damage? At any rate, I fully support all the other pledges and thank you, again for looking into it!
Let's put this into context. Let's say Hallifax's institute loses an affliction on their onyx gem. Let's say they lose....masochism. Their envoy complains and asks for a replacement, maybe..paranoia.
What the admin have just done is given the institute passive ectoplasm, plus the gem can now strip quicksilver. Despite the envoy not asking for this, and 95% of the other envoys thinking this is a bad idea, the admin think it's not only fair and balanced, but throw the rest of the envoys a bone by allowing the ectoplasm to not hit people afflicted by aeon.
Two other Celestine specific items I can think of are:
With kneel it will make meteor trivially easy to land.
A wrathed "kneel blackout shackles" invest will both hide a soulless fling and stun/prone/entangle just before the soulless resolves.
I propose swapping shackles for dominate :P. More seriously, I think kneel and shackles are too much passive / no-balance-use active hinderance to give to a guardian class.
edit: The announce says that kneel is gone but lists powersink twice. A celestine tells me that this is a typo and kneel is still present.
They're both based on a naff mechanic and I agree with Silvanus that we'd be better off with something entirely different.