Topic: Some questions
Started by: Marhault
Started on: 2/16/2004
Board: Dark Omen Games
On 2/16/2004 at 3:23pm, Marhault wrote:
Some questions
So I spent a little time with the Alyria Quickstart Rules this weekend. Made up a few characters, resolved a few conflicts, that sort of thing. I have a few comments and questions for you.
First off, are the changes you discussed in Contemplated rules adjustments official? The rest of this post will assume that they are, I'm reading everything more or less at the same time, so it's hard for me to keep track of what's current. . .
The big problem I have here: Why assign Traits freeform, and Attributes with a point system? Didn't it used to be the other way around? Why the change? It seems to me like you're trying to balance character's power level with their importance in the story, which is, of course, a good thing. If you're going to freeform either Traits or Attributes, you've got to trust the players to keep the right goals in mind. If you're doing that, you might as well let them assign both, if you're not, why would you limit the one and not the other?
Personally, the way that makes sense to me is to assign Virtue freeform, and give 5 points for Traits (1 point = 1 new Trait or 1 Quarter Moon shift away from virtue) and 5 points for Attributes. (1 point = 1 Quarter Moon) The only problem is that some characters are simply more powerful than others, (ie. a Dragon) and the way Alyria is structured, these characters can sometimes be PCs.
Next question: Can you please clarify the assignment of Moon Phases to Traits? I assigned them freeform this weekend, and ran into a problem. Is it the inherent nature of the Trait, or the use to which it is put that determines it's phase? Example: A good character (Gibbous Virtue) is willing to do things many other good people would not, such as kill a defeated villain so that they don't gather strength to cause trouble again. I assigned this character Pragmatic as a Trait. How should I rate this? Crescent, because he's willing to essentially perform an evil act to further his cause, or Gibbous because he's doing it to further a good cause?
And now for an easy one: Do the descriptors for Attributes have any mechanical impact, or are they just their for characterization?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 3125
On 2/17/2004 at 7:16pm, GreatWolf wrote:
Re: Some questions
Marhault wrote: So I spent a little time with the Alyria Quickstart Rules this weekend. Made up a few characters, resolved a few conflicts, that sort of thing. I have a few comments and questions for you.
Sure thing.
First off, are the changes you discussed in Contemplated rules adjustments official? The rest of this post will assume that they are, I'm reading everything more or less at the same time, so it's hard for me to keep track of what's current. . .
That's fair. As I glance at my post in the thread that you cite, I believe that I have kept all those rules changes with the exception of the narration rules.
The big problem I have here: Why assign Traits freeform, and Attributes with a point system? Didn't it used to be the other way around? Why the change? It seems to me like you're trying to balance character's power level with their importance in the story, which is, of course, a good thing. If you're going to freeform either Traits or Attributes, you've got to trust the players to keep the right goals in mind. If you're doing that, you might as well let them assign both, if you're not, why would you limit the one and not the other?
Personally, the way that makes sense to me is to assign Virtue freeform, and give 5 points for Traits (1 point = 1 new Trait or 1 Quarter Moon shift away from virtue) and 5 points for Attributes. (1 point = 1 Quarter Moon) The only problem is that some characters are simply more powerful than others, (ie. a Dragon) and the way Alyria is structured, these characters can sometimes be PCs.
At one point, I used exactly the system that you outline. However, it didn't work well. The problem is that such a system discourages the taking of Traits that vary wildly from the established Virtue. Therefore, it becomes very easy to create a flat character and hard to create a character who has both moral strengths and moral flaws.
As an example, consider Frodo, from Lord of the Rings. As Traits, I'd probably give him Desires the Ring at New Moon, Loves Sam as Full, and...hmm...let's see...how about Duty to the Free People at Gibbous. I'm going to give him a Virtue of Gibbous. Now, here is the problem. That New Moon Trait, under your proposed system, costs 4 points, whereas the Full Moon Trait costs 2 points and the Gibbous Trait only costs 1 point. So, where is the incentive to take that New Moon Trait? However, it is the contrast between Frodo's Virtue and that dark Trait that provide much of the tension in that character.
Also, Traits are double-edged swords. Remember that a Trait can be used against a character as well. As a result, taking an extreme Trait (New or Full) opens up a character to being abused by others more easily through that Trait.
Next question: Can you please clarify the assignment of Moon Phases to Traits? I assigned them freeform this weekend, and ran into a problem. Is it the inherent nature of the Trait, or the use to which it is put that determines it's phase? Example: A good character (Gibbous Virtue) is willing to do things many other good people would not, such as kill a defeated villain so that they don't gather strength to cause trouble again. I assigned this character Pragmatic as a Trait. How should I rate this? Crescent, because he's willing to essentially perform an evil act to further his cause, or Gibbous because he's doing it to further a good cause?
This question comes up a lot, so I answered it in the manuscript:
In Legends of Alyria, you are not your character. You should not approach character generation as a method of creating an alter ego. Rather, you are crafting the character whose story you are going to write and witness. Part of that process demands that you, as the player, sit in judgment on your character. Your character may believe things that you do not. He may think that murder is okay or that theft from the rich isn’t so bad. You, however, will mark down a Crescent Moon in “Thief” or a New Moon in “Murderous”. You will have to judge your character.
...
When selecting the proper values for Virtues and Traits, remember to assign them based on your judgment as a player, not on your character’s evaluation of the matter. After all, your character might be deceiving himself, but it is your job as a player to be honest. This is particularly important with Traits. Ask yourself, “Would I want to be on the receiving end of this Trait?” If your answer is “No”, then the Trait should probably be Crescent or even New, regardless of what the character might think about it.
In other words, assigning values to Traits is a reflection of your opinion of the character. Those values are assigned from the meta-perspective, not the internal perspective. So, as I look at your example, I'd assign a Crescent to that "Pragmatic" Trait. Of course, this doesn't mean that all Pragmatic Traits are going to be Crescent. However, that would be my judgment as a player of this character.
Does this mean that players will have to make moral judgments as part of play? Does this mean that players will need to consider the standard for moral judgments? Why yes, yes it does. Funny that.... ;-)
And now for an easy one: Do the descriptors for Attributes have any mechanical impact, or are they just their for characterization?
Actually, in the current draft, I let the descriptors lapse. Honestly, I found that I never used them in my own play, so I decided to let them go. However, they were intended merely for characterization.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 3125
On 2/19/2004 at 3:59pm, Marhault wrote:
RE: Some questions
Thanks Seth, this definitely helps, especially the part about sitting in judgment on your characters.
Because D. Lunacy is so interrelated (especially where morality and effectiveness are concerned) I'm having some trouble keeping my thoughts separate, so bear with me, and let me know if something I say doesn't make sense.
Regimenting Attribute Assignment would be about controlling Character Effectiveness. Since this is opposed to Alyria’s apparent goals, I’m all for the freeform assignment of Attributes.
I get what you mean about traits being double-edged. There is a certain side of me (I lean toward the Sim, but I'm trying to keep it out of Alyria for now) that says characters should only be able to invoke traits they know about. I have to keep telling myself that there are more ways than just one character "playing off" another one to bring a trait into a conflict.
In my mind, a good/interesting character does need to have both kinds of Traits. So far, I see two ways that you've attempted to do this, the point buy like I described in my first post, or the freeform assignment of values. I'm going to try to analyze them separately.
First - Purchase of Trait Values
As stated previously, this does encourage characters with Traits that are in line with their virtues. This is, in my mind, a merit of this system, not a flaw. Most people who are "good" have driving goals and personality traits that are also "good." If I was defining a character, and had given him a Good virtue, but looked at his traits and saw the things that really drove him were Evil, I might reconsider his Virtue. One way to fix this is to make a requirement that all characters must have at least one Good and one Evil trait, but that would then encourage Mid-Virtue characters, and I don’t think the system should encourage any Virtue over any other. Overall: Pros = Traits are linked to Virtue, Easy for newbies to handle. Cons = Too regimented, Limit on number and strength of Traits. It’s my instinct to add a few regulations to this method, rather than just saying it doesn’t work, and scrapping it.
Second – Free Assignment of Trait Values
This option has something great going for it, freedom. You can have a character with anything you want, a Trait for anything from Compassion to Hates Puppies, and, more importantly, you can do them all on the same character. This allows for great character conflicts, and multileveled characters. It also does something horrible. Make your character, assign your Moon Phases, then look back at the top of the page. There it is, sitting a like a great, lazy black and white blob. A Trait that doesn’t get rolled. A statistic that is supposed to define where your character fits into the grand scheme. One that is supposed to define who he is and underlie every decision he makes. Virtue. If it doesn’t influence the game mechanically, then what is it for? Also, it has come up a lot, that rating these things is difficult for newbies. Overall: Pros = Freedom, accurately portrays characters. Cons = Virtue is cut adrift, takes some getting used to.
Again, I might be making erroneous assumptions. I haven’t read the current version of the rules, and don’t know how outdated the ones I have read are.
Which of these better aids the play goals you want in Legends of Alyria? With good writing and examples you can deal with the problem of teaching people the game (I think you already have, from that snippet of the manuscript), but what’s to be done about Virtue? Am I wrong about it being lost?
Third – Hey, This Wasn’t Here Before!!!
Instead of paying for each phase shift away from the character’s Virtue, the character must pay for each phase shift away from Half Moon. Characters get “good” or “bad” points based on their Virtue. In order to stick with the theme, I’ll call ‘em Wax and Wane points. Crescent Traits cost 1 Wane, and New Traits cost 2 Wane. Gibbous Traits cost 1 Wax, and Full Traits cost 2 Wax. Characters with New Virtue get 4 Wane 1 Wax. Characters with Crescent Virtue get 3 Wane, 2 Wax. Characters with Full get 1 Wane, 4 Wax. Characters with Gibbous get 2 Wane, 3 Wax. Characters with Half Moon Virtue get 2 Wax, 2 Wane, and 1 extra point which is either Wax or Wane at the player’s discretion. Characters must spend all of their points, thus giving each character some internal conflicts.
It’s interesting, though entirely coincidental, that the version of Frodo Baggins you describe above fits these point values perfectly. With Gibbous Virtue, Frodo would receive 2 Wane Points (1 New Moon Trait) and 3 Wax Points (1 Gibbous Trait and 1 Full Trait)
Anyway, this is just the direction my mind went when pondering Legends of Alyria, a little exercise in system tinkering, if you will. I feel a little bit naked with so few rules. It looks to me (on paper) that it gives the right balance of moral ambiguity and placing the emphasis where it belongs.
To put some more definite questions in the air:
At this point, does Virtue have any mechanical significance?
If so, what is it?
How are values assigned to Attributes?
How are values assigned to Traits?
On 2/19/2004 at 6:27pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Some questions
Marhault wrote: Thanks Seth, this definitely helps, especially the part about sitting in judgment on your characters.
Sure thing. I've played the game enough that I've begun to get a sense of the standard player "hang-ups", so I've tried to answer as many of those questions as possible in the actual game text.
Regimenting Attribute Assignment would be about controlling Character Effectiveness. Since this is opposed to Alyria’s apparent goals, I’m all for the freeform assignment of Attributes.
Well, under the current system, Attributes are not assigned free-form. I decided that I needed *some* structure. However, I also make clear in the game text that Attribute levels are relative measurements to the others in the storymap, as opposed to absolute measurements of ability.
I get what you mean about traits being double-edged. There is a certain side of me (I lean toward the Sim, but I'm trying to keep it out of Alyria for now) that says characters should only be able to invoke traits they know about. I have to keep telling myself that there are more ways than just one character "playing off" another one to bring a trait into a conflict.
Yep. Remember that Alyria demands a division between player and character. Use of Author stance is pretty much a requirement to have fun with the game. (I think that I address the use of OOC information in the game text.) Invoking a Trait is usually a matter of Author stance, not Actor stance.
Now to your questions at the end:
At this point, does Virtue have any mechanical significance?
If so, what is it?
Virtue has several purposes. Some are mechanical and ome are inter-player communication. I'll address each in turn.
Mechanical: Virtue establishes the cost to adjust Traits during play or to purchase new ones. The further a Trait is from Virtue, the more effort it takes to change it. A player spends Inspiration to "add light" to a Trait or spends Corruption to "add darkness" to a Trait. (BTW, if a Trait ever becomes Half-Moon, it is removed.)
In addition, when an I/C meter fills up, all the points are spent and Virtue moves one phase in the appropriate direction. In other words, it costs 5 points of Inspiration to bump Virtue up one phase and 5 points of Corruption to bump Virtue down one phase. (This is mandatory upon filling a meter.) Therefore, if a player doesn't want his character to change, he must find another way to bleed off the I/C. Lo, you can spend the points on Traits or on Drama resolution of actions! So this puts some pressure on the player to spend his I/C. Otherwise, his character's Virtue will shift to represent his new "alignment".
Communication: Virtue is a way for a player to establish the character's role within the storymap and to communicate this in a concrete way to the other players. Giving a character a New Moon Virtue means that the player sees him as currently villainous, even if his Traits don't necessarily demonstrate it.
Taken together, Virtue shows the way that the character will be pulling in play.
How are values assigned to Attributes?
A player is given 5 points to divvy between the Attributes. A New Moon costs zero points and a Full Moon costs 4.
How are values assigned to Traits?
Player choice, based on his assessment of the intensity and alignment of the Trait.
(BTW, it seems like everyone wants to add Waxing and Waning into this system. Even me. :-D )
Got more questions? Keep 'em coming.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
On 2/19/2004 at 6:31pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Some questions
Oops! One more thing....
Marhault wrote:
Anyway, this is just the direction my mind went when pondering Legends of Alyria, a little exercise in system tinkering, if you will. I feel a little bit naked with so few rules. It looks to me (on paper) that it gives the right balance of moral ambiguity and placing the emphasis where it belongs.
I remember when I first played Puppetland. No dice, just a few rules, and me as the GM. I felt naked. But then we started playing and it all fell into place.
Legends of Alyria does require that you think about your roleplaying differently than many other mainstream games. However, I think that you will find that the required mindset is fairly close to that required by games like Sorcerer, My Life with Master, or Universalis. If you have never played like this before, then there will be adjustments to make. However, once you get used to it, I think that you will find yourself amazed at how easy it is.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
On 2/20/2004 at 8:20pm, Marhault wrote:
RE: Some questions
GreatWolf wrote: Well, under the current system, Attributes are not assigned free-form. I decided that I needed *some* structure. However, I also make clear in the game text that Attribute levels are relative measurements to the others in the storymap, as opposed to absolute measurements of ability.
Hmmm. . . I’ll have to think about that for a while. . .
GreatWolf wrote: Mechanical: Virtue establishes the cost to adjust Traits during play or to purchase new ones. *Snip*
Oh yeah. . . I kind of forgot about this aspect of Virtue and I/C. This sounds like it really pays off over the long term. Have you (or anyone else, for that matter) run any long games with characters changing over time?
I can just see it now, a Good, but conflicted character sets his foot on the path of evil in the name of justice, and finds himself frantically trying to burn off his Corruption before it taints his soul, only lending strength to the forces of Darkness around him. . . Yeah, that’s one of the cool things about this game!
GreatWolf wrote: A player is given 5 points to divvy between the Attributes. A New Moon costs zero points and a Full Moon costs 4.
But everything is relative, right? Okay, so looking at that, what do I see? I see that Good Traits are way more useful than evil ones. (which is a nice touch, by the way, slanting things toward the heroic very subtly) I think the only problem I might wind up with is that I still need to wrap my mind around this “relative to the other characters” thing. Still thinking. . .
GreatWolf wrote: BTW, it seems like everyone wants to add Waxing and Waning into this system. Even me. :-D )
Heh. Yeah, I got most of the way through writing that calling them “Good Points and Bad Points” until I remembered Mike trying to get you to add Waxing and Waning to Attributes and Traits. . .
GreatWolf wrote: Got more questions? Keep 'em coming.
What? You want more? Okay, they’ll be here soon. . .
GreatWolf wrote: I think that you will find that the required mindset is fairly close to that required by games like Sorcerer, My Life with Master, or Universalis. If you have never played like this before, then there will be adjustments to make. However, once you get used to it, I think that you will find yourself amazed at how easy it is.
Yeah, thanks for reminding me how many games I still have to buy! For what it’s worth, I trust you on that. It’s just a matter of finding my Nar-legs.
Your questions, sir:
1) I still feel a little strange about paying for traits during play, but not paying for them during CharGen. Why not both? Or neither?
2) That then raises this question, how are Attributes changed over the course of play?
3) Are dice only rolled when a conflict is between characters that are on the Storymap? If so, how are other conflicts resolved? Through narration?
4) It looks to me like the Citadel and the Ark are one the same “landmass.” I know the “Isle of Refuge” is out there in the Sea of Mist. What other islands/continents are out there? All those Mistships must be going somewhere!
5) Are there any other major settlements? Does the Citadel have colonies perhaps?
6) How long is Alyria's Lunar Cycle? (Their day is 25 hours, don't tell me you haven't thought of this one!) And does the Lunar Cycle affect the Outsiders and their Rain?
On 2/20/2004 at 9:20pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Some questions
Marhault wrote:
Oh yeah. . . I kind of forgot about this aspect of Virtue and I/C. This sounds like it really pays off over the long term. Have you (or anyone else, for that matter) run any long games with characters changing over time?
Alas, not yet. Shame on me, I know. However, this is mostly a result of my having been in the middle of learning certain techniques of play while
I was in the middle of designing the game.
I can just see it now, a Good, but conflicted character sets his foot on the path of evil in the name of justice, and finds himself frantically trying to burn off his Corruption before it taints his soul, only lending strength to the forces of Darkness around him. . . Yeah, that’s one of the cool things about this game!
Bingo. That's pretty close to what happened in the Forever Lost game that I ran.
GreatWolf wrote: A player is given 5 points to divvy between the Attributes. A New Moon costs zero points and a Full Moon costs 4.
But everything is relative, right? Okay, so looking at that, what do I see? I see that Good Traits are way more useful than evil ones. (which is a nice touch, by the way, slanting things toward the heroic very subtly) I think the only problem I might wind up with is that I still need to wrap my mind around this “relative to the other characters” thing. Still thinking. . .
Well, actually, Evil Traits pack a little more punch than Good Traits. However, this means that the most mechanically effective route to take is
one that turns an Evil Trait against its wielder. So, the game does slant the playing field towards the heroic but in a different way than it
might appear.
Also, don't get too hung up over what the Attributes being relative vs. absolute. When I talk about Attributes being relative, what I mean is
"Half Moon Force doesn't map to being able to lift X pounds". That's it.
Your questions, sir:
1) I still feel a little strange about paying for traits during play, but not paying for them during CharGen. Why not both? Or neither?
Honestly, the best answer that I can give is that it worked best during playtest. Trust me when I say that, once you play it, it will make perfect
sense.
2) That then raises this question, how are Attributes changed over the course of play?
With the exception of the Blessing rules, they don't. In Alyria, character development is measured mechanically through Virtue and Traits.
Attributes do not ordinarily change.
3) Are dice only rolled when a conflict is between characters that are on the Storymap? If so, how are other conflicts resolved? Through narration?
Well, back up a moment. What other sorts of conflicts are there? Remember that the focus of the game is on the characters in the storymap. Where are these other characters coming from?
Here's one answer. They are minor NPCs that exist as part of a group that should already be on the storymap. (For example, the Citadel might be
on the map.) A group on a storymap should be assigned Attributes and Traits, just like a character. What I usually do, in this case, is use the
stats for the group for the specific individual. So, if there is some Citadel guard involved in a conflict, then he is acting as a "representative" of the group and therefore uses the group's stats.
4) It looks to me like the Citadel and the Ark are one the same “landmass.” I know the “Isle of Refuge” is out there in the Sea of Mist. What other islands/continents are out there? All those Mistships must be going somewhere!
5) Are there any other major settlements? Does the Citadel have colonies perhaps?
6) How long is Alyria's Lunar Cycle? (Their day is 25 hours, don't tell me you haven't thought of this one!) And does the Lunar Cycle affect the Outsiders and their Rain?
The answer to these questions is simple.
Whatever you like.
Now, before you start frothing at the mouth ;-) , hear me out.
One of my earliest design parameters for Alyria was to avoid having too much canon. The setting for Alyria exists to provide a starting point the custom setting that the group will produce. In other words, the setting establishes the genre and style of the game, but I have decided not to fill in all the details.
The reason for this is simple. IMHO, most setting-heavy games do not allow for the gaming group to create its own "space" in the world. Rather, the gaming group has to adapt its ideas to fit into the larger setting that someone else has written, or the group needs to ditch portions of the written setting. Alyria is about telling your stories, not mine. Therefore, the setting exists to act as a toolbox, not as a formal "roadmap" to the world.
(Incidentally, this is why Mike's Wiki idea is intriguing to me, because it could be used to permit Alyria players to share "their" Alyria with the rest of the Net.)
So, for instance, if I gave you a specific answer about other land masses, I would either be crimping your game (for those who are concerned about following canon) or providing useless information (if you are wanting a different answer and are willing to discard canon). Even the Isle of Refuge exists as an example of creating your own setting elements. The Digger Paladins are another example of a designer-created, non-canonical addition to the game.
So, does the Citadel have colonies? Well, do you want it to have colonies? What is your vision of the Citadel? I could see how folks might want to set one of their stories in a community that is culturally Citadel but without the color elements of the Citadel (e.g. the constant rain, the heavy steampunk elements). So, for this group, the Citadel has colonies. Another group might want to focus on the xenophobia and decadence of the Citadel. (Insert props here for Vance's The Last Castle, of which Ron recently reminded me.) For this group, it makes no sense for the Citadel to have colonies.
Also, you need to remember that the first rule of Alyria setting is style and symbolism, not internal consistency. Do you want to know why the Alyrian day has 25 hours? Because I liked the idea of Devil's Hour, and because I liked the idea of fallible Keepers, and because I liked the idea of superstitious fear lurking under a veneer of scientific reason. Do you know why Outsiders are red? Because I knew that I liked the idea of the Blood Moon (aka the Weeping Moon) because of apocalyptic Biblical imagery. (Sun being turned to darkness and the moon to blood.) I had a Blood Moon before I had Outsiders, and I had Outsiders long before I knew what they were. Alyria is a gas giant because I needed to justify a sea of clouds. And so on and so forth.
Alyrian setting isn't required to make sense on a rational level, but it is supposed to make sense on an emotional level. It
I hope that this doesn't sound like a dodge; it really is supposed to be a design feature.
I discuss this more in the "Dreaming Out Loud" column that I wrote, which can be found at www.key20.com/alyria
I hope that you are finding this conversation helpful.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4236
On 2/24/2004 at 3:44pm, Marhault wrote:
RE: Some questions
GreatWolf wrote: Well, actually, Evil Traits pack a little more punch than Good Traits. However, this means that the most mechanically effective route to take is one that turns an Evil Trait against its wielder. So, the game does slant the playing field towards the heroic but in a different way than it might appear.
Okay. At first glance it seems like Good traits are better, because the purchase of Attributes at CharGen skews towards the darker phases. This may not be true due to the varying commonality of the moon phases on the die. I plan to examine this when I get some time, so you can expect some more discussion on this point.
GreatWolf wrote: Alyria is about telling your stories, not mine. Therefore, the setting exists to act as a toolbox, not as a formal "roadmap" to the world.
*snip*
I hope that this doesn't sound like a dodge; it really is supposed to be a design feature.
Yeah. I kinda figured you'd say something like that. I've read the Dreaming Out Loud columns, and everything else that has to do with Alyria that I can get my hands on. The setting fascinates me (it's what attracted me in the first place) and I already have more of my own ideas than are likely to ever be used, so I consider this to be neither a dodge, nor a disappointing answer.
GreatWolf wrote: I hope that you are finding this conversation helpful.
Yes, I am. Very much so, and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to answer my questions so thoroughly.
I think I only have one more question. What sort of rules/guidelines do you include in the game for the creation of setting elements?
On 2/24/2004 at 7:01pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Some questions
Currently, I don't have anything in the manuscript about how to go about making up your own setting elements. However, I added a note to myself to add such a section. I'm doing my best to have a manuscript that clearly explains what the players need to be doing and, in particular, how the players' duties are different than in a normal RPG. So, having such a section would be quite helpful.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
On 2/25/2004 at 3:12pm, Marhault wrote:
RE: Some questions
Sounds good to me, Seth. I'm all out of questions for the time being. Thanks for all the help, and thanks for a very interesting and promising game design. I can't wait for Legends of Alyria.