|
I Am Just a Box posted:"They/them" is a good inclusive for people. Noted
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:See this is neat, and makes sense, and furthers the theme of "pagan-ish or catholic-ish, all vampire religions are loving horrifying." Still it doesn't answer the question of Humanity - why would one branch of pagan blood sorcery fail if you tell a little white lie and another fail if you don't murder anyone who mildly inconveniences you? They wouldn't fail off of something so simple. From what I remember the failure point for either form of blood magic is above or below 5 humanity for Cruac or Theban Sorcery, respectively. Also, they would only fail if you were a tremendously powerful user of that type of blood magic since from what I recall Cruac effectively requires you to cap your humanity out at 5 to be able to use 5 dot spells and Theban Sorcery requires at least 5 humanity to use 5 dot level spells. If I got the math on that wrong someone feel free to correct me. What's more, you can "opt out" of Cruac or Theban Sorcery the same way you can opt out of those caps or minimums on your humanity by saying you just want to lose access to the highest dot you'd lose if you went past that cap. IE: A practitioner of Cruac could say they want to lose access to Cruac 5 in exchange for getting their humanity back to 6. Given the time it takes to get to 5 dots and that 5 humanity is (in 1e, at least) considered to be one of the better stable ratings of humanity for vampires that are okay with homicide/the culture they got forced into this means that anyone that can't use one or the other is either trying to work their way back to their humanity or is on the slow slide to losing it. As for the in character reasons? Cruac pretty clearly appears to be tapping into the beast as a source of power. So it makes sense that the more power you want to draw out of it the more it's going to require you to give up your humanity. It's all about impulses and desires. Even some of the suggested flavor for spells plays into this. For instance, a dance that'd invoke lust or something like it is mentioned as requiring a vampire to literally dance until they collapse sweating on the ground. In a way, it's all about giving yourself over to something in exchange for a result. Coincidentally, vampires really don't want to give themselves over to their impulses since that tends to lead to bad things for the people around them. (As a somewhat unrelated side note, in several areas it's suggested that Cruac also seems to be a way to work around the restriction on vampires not being able to use essence. Meaning Cruac is potentially a way to interact with spirits and ghosts on top of being full of all sorts of fun things like divination, curses, the ability to create horrifying monsters, and associated body horror. Keep in mind that many members of the Circle also have no idea what the heck things are like outside of the living world too. So in the case of anything to do with spirits they're kind of playing with fire. It kind of puts their tribulation equals creation mentality in a less intelligent and somewhat accidentally suicidal light. Also, hilariously enough, in 1e one of the ultimate abilities a practitioner of Cruac is mentioned as being able to learn straight up temporarily replicates a bunch of high resonance effects from the Abyssal Exalted as mentioned in the "What if the Abyssal Exalted weren't cursed by the Neverborn" write up in Shards too. The Circle considers it as a sort of temporary ascension to godhood. So, uh, yeah. They're not exactly screwing around with safe things. Even if some individual cults can theoretically be more nature, peace and humanity loving and less "gently caress yeah monstrosity is great let's eat people!".) Theban Sorcery is described as an intellectual, will refining, and scholastic exercise that requires study and more than a bit of devotion to the craft. Or to put it in another way, it requires things that require interfacing with the human part of a vampire. Since the Beast is all about vampiric impulses and needs and not things like "thinking", "socializing", or "not ripping your best friend's throat out in a fit of mad hunger" going too low in humanity would logically start to remove access to it bit by bit. Alternatively, maybe it's really just ancient Egyptian sorcery from some presumably benevolent unknown entity that wanted vampires not to devolve into slavering monsters. Only then it got hijacked by a bunch of proto-Dominionist's that decided to use it as part of their justification to wipe out other religions. Along with a justification for why they should get to abuse and terrorize humans into worshiping their preferred god. 
Archonex fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Feb 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Again, you're just trying to sneak in as much othering language as possible in order to dodge the basic moral issue: vampires are people, and people need blood to function. Can you actually explain what's monstrous about receiving a blood donation? Vampires aren't people. They are humanoids but they are not human
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Vampires aren't people. They are humanoids but they are not human Bold choice to advocate for outright anthropocentrism in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 03:33
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Again, you're just trying to sneak in as much othering language as possible in order to dodge the basic moral issue: vampires are people, and people need blood to function. Can you actually explain what's monstrous about receiving a blood donation? please don't engage with those two. What part of the last two threads have convinced you that anything they post is in good faith and not just to piss people off?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
If I ever get round to writing up the vampire hunting style paper I might include a section on the ethics of eating people. But we'll see - it turns out the reward for a job well done is more work even when you're just chasing a PhD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Bold choice to advocate for outright anthropocentrism in 2020. Lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
I Am Just a Box posted:You were so close Missed this before but this is like the NWoD version of Yes, Yes, Yes, NO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 04:41
|
|
|
I was being extremely hyperbolic, Archonex. I did remember that "most vampires stabilize at Humanity 5" would allow an average vampire to use the most powerful of either of the blood sorceries, and I think that does ameliorate some of my complaining in practice, but I guess I'm still bitching about things in theory. My fundamental issue is just that Humanity is pretty close to a "goodness meter," or like one of those lightside / darkside meters from the KoToR games, and that gives a weird tinge to the whole thing in a way that implies "THIS violent and terrifying vampire religion's secret blood magic is the good secret blood magic, but THAT violent and terrifying vampire religion's secret blood magic is the bad secret blood magic." Now that I think about it, it's probably coming from a fundamental confusion: that Humanity captures both something like "human morality" and "beastness." If say it ditched the morality elements entirely - if a Humanity 10 vampire could be just as monstrous as a Humanity 1 vampire, but in a DIFFERENT way (say Lawful Evil vs. Chaotic Evil, or a calculating sociopath instead of a violent berserker) than the two blood magics use of Humanity could work. So for example Theban Sorcerers keep a high humanity because their magic is about control and will, but that doesn't make the evil they use that will for less scary. Except we don't have that, because Humanity also has an element of morality in it, where "the beast" and "is evil" are co-identified, and the result is a weird suggestion of a moral hierarchy that flies in the face of how the covenants are written (which is, again, that they're both violent and terrifying vampire religions)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
Look at it from the other direction, though. What does having a high or low Humanity actually do? It restricts social situations, makes being out during the day hurt more, and makes you sleep deeper when you slip into torpor. And in 2e, the things that break it are almost more like Promethean in terms of "I dunno, pretend to still be a person to keep your Pretending To Be A Person stat high." For example, breakpoints at Humanity 5: Second week without human contact, Blood Potency rises to 3, death in the family, swearing to a covenant You've got: - You went a long time without talking to people. Think about how easy it is, even only going out at night, to just exchange pleasantries at a checkout or say thanks to someone who holds the door for you, once, in two weeks. - Getting more vampire-y. So less-human. - The loss of familial ties that remind you of your human life. - The gain of vampiric ties, moving you closer to that world. VtR Humanity, especially in 2e, only really relates to human morality when it comes to prohibitions against violence. It's more a "lower = more vampire, higher = more clinging to human stuff" than anything else. If you want the real-deal stupid "property crimes are a Humanity breaking point" stuff, VtM's got you covered, where they already have all the Paths Of What I Was Already Going To Do Anyway where you can have a rating of 9 or 10 in "just be a monster this other way."
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:I was being extremely hyperbolic, Archonex. I did remember that "most vampires stabilize at Humanity 5" would allow an average vampire to use the most powerful of either of the blood sorceries, and I think that does ameliorate some of my complaining in practice, but I guess I'm still bitching about things in theory. My fundamental issue is just that Humanity is pretty close to a "goodness meter," or like one of those lightside / darkside meters from the KoToR games, and that gives a weird tinge to the whole thing in a way that implies "THIS violent and terrifying vampire religion's secret blood magic is the good secret blood magic, but THAT violent and terrifying vampire religion's secret blood magic is the bad secret blood magic." Eh, i'd say that humanity isn't really a karma meter so much as it is an assessment of how much control you've ceded to the Beast. The Beast is evil because it's a rabid douchebag. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the humanity meter qualifies as a meter for goodness. If you really want to push your luck you can get started on some pretty awful poo poo around humanity 6, which is a humanity level that some actual murderers and criminals come in at. It's more like a meter ticking down until you go batshit insane and someone needs to quickly write and enact the script of 'Old Yeller 2: This Time it's Vampires'. This is especially true in 1e, where a vampire starts getting more and more visibly mentally unstable, corpse like, and more prone to losing control of themselves as they get lower on the humanity scale. It's only really above 7 that the meters start getting overtly "good" in increasingly ridiculous ways. Saying it's directly a karma meter is like playing a zombie apocalypse style game and putting a karma meter on anyone that gets bitten. It's more a case that they're losing to whatever infection is plaguing them. Only, in that metaphor they can actually regain control if they can be snapped out of the downward spiral instead of turning at the worst possible moment and biting someone's throat out. Not that vampire society is inclined to do that for others, but yeah. Likewise, a Kindred at 5 could technically be a good guy. Albeit in that edgy 90's anti hero sort of way that's entirely fitting to VtM. They're not actively murderous, and would probably go out of their way to avoid murdering someone if they could. But they would if they had too. Really, I think the real issue with the Pagan/Christian bad/good divide is that vampires are explicitly said to have no loving clue what they're doing. A member of the Circle could practice Cruac without being a monster (And the fact that there's a fair number of downright heroic cults in the books is proof of this.) while staying at a steady 5 or above (Really, any vampire can get at least 3 levels of Cruac and stay at the default "human" level of humanity.) and a Lancea et Sanctum vampire could be a monster that only barely qualifies as righteous while having access to the strongest levels of Theban Sorcery available. But the ignorance of how they and their magic works makes sure that people that practice Cruac are more likely to degenerate since they're capped out at 5 if they want to push their capability of Cruac to 5 dots. While the hosed up ideology of the Lance means that those vampires are more likely to only meet the bare minimum standard of using Theban Sorcery at it's max while having free reign to occasionally do all sorts of awful things. Ignorance gets a lot of people turned into vampires in the canon, and ignorance also plays at least a small part in turning them into monsters. It's a plot point that the vampires don't have the rule books in front of them after all. Likewise, none of the splats really have a detailed idea of what's up with themselves or how they work. Or even regularly communicate between cities for that matter. Like the discussion veered too a few pages back all the communities of supernaturals are metaphorically a bunch of primitives huddled around a fire, afraid of the night. This is especially true of vampires, which have to deal with essentially being undead hunter gatherers since there's no effective alternative to eating people outside of possible AU alternative sources in certain books. Edit: I'm probably going to say something controversial with this, but I really think it this is part of why the derangement system works so well for vampires. If you want to play vampirism as an infection (And keep in mind that zombie movie classics like Night of the Living Dead were inspired by I Am Legend --- a book about a vampire apocalypse. Which itself was inspired by some really old vampire myths. So it's not like there isn't some precedent for that.) then it's all too easy to play it as whatever consciousness is controlling the body is coming unhinged at the seams bit by bit as the vampirism starts to mentally take over. I mean, it's all but implied at some points that vampires are actually more the blood than the body they're puppeteering around like they're in some sort of bio-punk occult horror setting. Hell, some clans and bloodlines in 1e and 2e (like the Pijavica or whatever they're called. Along with that bloodline that can literally grow an heir to act as a backup body to transfer into if their current one dies. Seriously, you could substitute that with tech instead of vampires and you'd have a cyberpunk mainstay.) literally weaponize this to great and often horrifying effect. I know it made some people uncomfortable since people in real life can't just cure themselves of life long mental conditions by changing the way they act. But outside of hunters or a prelude chronicle you're literally not dealing with normal humans. You're allowed to stretch the rules a bit when you're talking about a bunch of blood powered walking corpses desperately trying to hold onto their humanity. Archonex fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Feb 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 06:43
|
|
|
Archonex posted:I know it made some people uncomfortable since people in real life can't just cure themselves of life long mental conditions by changing the way they act. But outside of hunters or a prelude chronicle you're literally not dealing with normal humans. You're allowed to stretch the rules a bit when you're talking about a bunch of blood powered walking corpses desperately trying to hold onto their humanity. And yet this is all the more reason not to do it through derangements, which are clearly modeled after normal human mental conditions. Why would a consciousness buckling under the alien will of the Blood manifest as Inferiority Complex or Vocalization or Schizophrenia? The problem with derangements is not just a resistance to sanity mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
I Am Just a Box posted:And yet this is all the more reason not to do it through derangements, which are clearly modeled after normal human mental conditions. Why would a consciousness buckling under the alien will of the Blood manifest as Inferiority Complex or Vocalization or Schizophrenia? Some of them weren't human mental illnesses though. Wasn't Sanguinary Animism a thing? Or did I misremember that as being part of the NWoD and not the OWoD? I'm not sure that vocalization qualifies as a real mental illness too. A derangement that causes you to spout off your innermost thoughts at precisely the most inopportune or dangerous moment is more a tool of narrative fuckery than it is a legitimate mental illness of any sort. Especially when you consider the sort of thoughts that a vampire in this setting is likely to have. Having the entire hall be serious grimdark politics only for the clearly evil vampire that looks like he came straight out of the mirror universe suddenly start a villainous monologue about how he's going to betray everyone and take over the city never gets old. It's also not exactly anything you'd expect to see in real life. Unless you're some sort of super villain in which case I tip my hat to you and ask that you don't turn your death ray towards my house.  Inferiority complex and the like really don't fit though. I'll agree that the derangements system kind of hosed up in that it just threw everything at the wall and didn't take the opportunity to say "Would this fit with vampires." and just went straight with "It's just all the mental illnesses we can think of!" outside of stuff like Sanguinary Animism or the aforementioned vocalization derangement. Archonex fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Feb 18, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 08:27
|
|
|
Sanguinary Animism is listed in Requiem First Edition as part of a list of additional derangements, but so are Dependent Personality Disorder, Manic Depression, and Bulimia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 09:27
|
|
|
The mechanical structure of derangements seems to work pretty well for "this is a pattern of behavior which your dracula curse forces upon you, which you can either roll with, work around, or temporarily suppress with Willpower, but which won't ever go away." The problem is that the structure is Derangements and most of them are like cartoons of major mental illnesses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 09:56
|
|
|
Archonex posted:This doesn't really fly with me. It assumes that everyone is going to look at their blood and say "Okay, yeah, I need some of this!". It removes altruism from the equation and is quite frankly odd given how your average person looks at the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 10:33
|
|
|
Warthur posted:It doesn't require everyone to come to that conclusion - just enough people, with enough power and lack of scruples to exploit it. Good thing we live in an egalitarian society where a disproportionate amount of power has not been accumulated in the hands of billionaires, eh? This is the same logic that says that nothing good that could be abused by bad people should be done ever. It's bullshit nothing matters-ism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
Archonex posted:This is the same logic that says that nothing good that could be abused by bad people should be done ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 10:51
|
|
|
Archonex posted:This is the same logic that says that nothing good that could be abused by bad people should be done ever. Nah, it's the logic that says "Ok, now imagine that happening in a world where people like Trump not only exist but thrive. What happens then?" Bad people can be expected to abuse good things. That doesn't necessarily mean good things are impossible, but it does mean that if you don't consider the ways bad people will abuse them, you're being either naive (if the thought of bad people abusing it never occurred to you) or negligent (if you foresaw the abuse but didn't care to consider how to confront and stop it).
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 11:09
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Nah, it's the logic that says "Ok, now imagine that happening in a world where people like Trump not only exist but thrive. What happens then?" Or to put it another way, it seems like if a bad person uses a good thing (or good-intended thing) for bad ends, the responsibility would rest upon the bad person, rather than the good person who did not have the gift of prescience. I will grant a certain amount of due diligence is necessary, but in my experience, good people will need no particular assistance in blaming themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 11:33
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:please don't engage with those two. What part of the last two threads have convinced you that anything they post is in good faith and not just to piss people off? I mean it's Ferrinus, dude's a Marauder when it comes to these threads
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
Ferrinus is a highly specialized Iron Master Rahu whose favored prey is Bad Posters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 12:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Leaving aside the moral center of the universe and our rightful liege-lord, I believe that your construction here places an additional, explicit burden upon those who are already conscientious, which in my pragmatic experience will tend to lead to paralysis, indecision, and guilt, because you are essentially centering the blame for various actions away from the people who execute those actions, and instead putting it upon the conscientious. Those who are not conscientious will, of course, not give a poo poo, and will proceed as they will. Let's say I build an orphanage. That's a good thing! Regardless of whatever happens next, I'm still the dude who built the orphanage and claiming like I didn't would be daft. Except I built the orphanage without smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, a sprinkler system, fire escapes... oops. Now, maybe I was just naive there - I just incompetently designed an orphanage because although my heart was in the right place I have no business actually designing a building. If a fire happens and the orphans burn my ignorance definitely contributed to that, but you might come down on the side that I was still morally in the right to build the orphanage in the first place, I was just naive and overconfident and working outside my area of competence. On the other hand, if it turned out I knew full well about the risks of fire in such a building and I go ahead and build it that way anyhow because it's easier - then I'm being negligent. If a fire happens and orphans die then it's ridiculous to say I don't bear part of the blame, even if the fire was set by a third party, because when made aware of a foreseeable risk I made no effort to take appropriate precautions. Sure, the blame primarily lies with the arsonist. But are you actually going to say that no blame lies with me at all? Not even a little? Now take a situation where we know there's bad actors in society. We are not imagining a utopia where all the inconvenient people who don't agree with your vision for the utopia have been re-educated into supporting it or whatever. We are imagining a world largely like the real world, only worse because it's the WoD/CoD setting, and we know drat well that there's lovely people out there. Yes, they bear the primary blame for their actions and that blame should always be centred for them. But the difference between a well-meaning idiot - or, worse, someone who's doing superficially good things in a slipshot, negligent fashion - and someone who is actually going to make a difference in the world is that the person who's going to make a difference in the world takes the bad actors' actions into account. You are not necessarily a morally bad person for not doing so if you fail to do that - but you are pragmatically less effective at best if you don't do it, and again, there comes a point where negligence is so flagrant that actually some of the blame does sit with you, because due diligence is in fact a thing and you ostentatiously shat the bed on it. I mean, maybe these factors will lead to paralysis, indecision, and guilt on the part of people who try to do good things. But if the moral good to be accomplished isn't enough to outweigh your paralysis, indecision, and guilt, evidently you weren't that passionate about doing good to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 12:31
|
|
|
Are we discussing the hypothetical mainstreaming of vampire blood as a theraputic agent, orphanage construction, or general moral philosophy here? I suspect there isn't actually a lot of daylight here because there is no easy way to quantify what this due diligence should be, although I would say in my part that at a certain level you're essentially conceding veto power to bad actors, in a rhetorical and cognitive sense if not an explicit or legal one. Where is that point? Your example emphasizes a range of fire-protection technologies. Is it irresponsible to include these, but build your orphanage from wood, instead of concrete? What if the arsonist claims it was because you accepted refugee children into your orphanage? Where does the line get drawn? It is genuinely difficult to do in the abstract; what would seem reasonable is if, for instance, you build your orphanarium to the prevailing business codes, and don't cut corners. quote:but you are pragmatically less effective at best if you don't do it, and again, there comes a point where negligence is so flagrant that actually some of the blame does sit with you, because due diligence is in fact a thing and you ostentatiously shat the bed on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 12:50
|
|
|
Metapod posted:Vampires aren't people. They are humanoids but they are not human Vampires may not be human, just like elves or Klingons aren’t, but they are people. A vampire has a name and an identity and can express their feelings and and pursue their desires and so forth. Morality is at minimum based on how we treat other people, not how we treat only those other people who look and talk like we do. Vampires have feral instincts stronger than ours, but try and see how polite someone is to you if you starve them for three days and then wave some chicken in their face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 13:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So does pragmatism or passion determine whether or not the orphanages are built here? This seems to be about creating a situation immune to criticism. There is no such thing possible. To wind the conversation back to the point, this whole thing came out of the thought experiment of whether vampires existing openly and feeding on a 100% consent basis would be a workable solution and coming to the conclusion "Not in today's society, bad actors would wreck poo poo almost immediately". Creating a situation immune to criticism makes for a bad game, of course, because then there's nothing to play for. But it also means that "vampires should just reveal themselves and feed by consent" isn't the moral no-brainer it's made out to be because of the easily foreseen and highly catastrophic consequences that would follow. How you get from a society where mass awareness of the existence of vampires and the properties of vampire blood doesn't lead to the instant commodification of vampire blood and associated utter disasters is a difficult question. Some social changes it makes sense to advocate for immediately, some social chances would be instantaneously exploited by bad actors unless we do prerequisite work to make sure they don't have the power to do that before pushing ahead. "A difficult question" doesn't mean that change shouldn't be sought or worked towards! But blithely saying "You shouldn't acknowledge the difficulties because that's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good" is the output of a brokebrained robot who doesn't understand risk management and is >< this close to going on my block list, you dense motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
I miss the good old days when being a Vampire was a metaphor for being a rapist, instead as a living manifestation of Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:I miss the good old days when being a Vampire was a metaphor for being a rapist, instead as a living manifestation of Capitalism. It always was both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:24
|
|
|
Yeah, vampires are cool monsters and Vampire is a good game precisely because the creature in question isn't a super straightforward 1-to-1 representation of a single real thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yeah, vampires are cool monsters and Vampire is a good game precisely because the creature in question isn't a super straightforward 1-to-1 representation of a single real thing. And yet weirdly, Demon: the Fallen, which accurately depicts the literal demons from Hell which exist IRL, is also a good game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:I miss the good old days when being a Vampire was a metaphor for being a rapist, instead as a living manifestation of Capitalism. I like them in Revised being a metaphor for addiction and tend to carry that one with me. You can be Archbishop of Detroit, Prince of Chicago, whatever, but you need that red stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:41
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:And yet weirdly, Demon: the Fallen, which accurately depicts the literal demons from Hell which exist IRL, is also a good game. I have for you what is either some really good or really bad news with regards to the actual existence of Hell and demons...
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:please don't engage with those two. What part of the last two threads have convinced you that anything they post is in good faith and not just to piss people off? I mean I generally agree with you, but why is the onus on us to ignore them rather than on them to post in good faith?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:08
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:I mean I generally agree with you, but why is the onus on us to ignore them rather than on them to post in good faith?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:I mean I generally agree with you, but why is the onus on us to ignore them rather than on them to post in good faith? Because we have no mod to ban them from the thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Soonmot posted:Because we have no mod to ban them from the thread. Why do you think a differing opinion = posting in bad faith
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:I like them in Revised being a metaphor for addiction and tend to carry that one with me. You can be Archbishop of Detroit, Prince of Chicago, whatever, but you need that red stuff. Oh yeah, being an addict is such a more interesting story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
Attorney at Funk posted:And yet weirdly, Demon: the Fallen, which accurately depicts the literal demons from Hell which exist IRL, is also a good game. Do we know why there was never a DtF 20? Did Onyx Path just think it wouldn't make enough money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
White Wolf happened. Same with Hunter, though Demon at least isn’t past the twenty year mark yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
Ah well. I guess D5 will exist at some point, probably.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2020 18:01
|
|