Not so, all I objected to was your objection to my statements on the grounds that I should be more vague and less detailed. I felt this was pointless. If you wanted to say something you would have suggeted a different point of view. Instead, all you did was denegrate mine which is naturally offensive.
>>Please quit having a emotional reaction
> Now why would I have done that?
Beats me. Your reaction was what brought forth my comments on "boxing" in the first place.
>>I wasn't trying to gross anybody out.
> If you say so.
> But it came across that way.
You could have asked me first before assuming. Another reason why I was annoyed. Why assume the worst in people?
Deleted <comments on the Blue Vadeli culture>
Look, why didn't you come out with this stuff in the first place instead of attacking my opinion. These are perfectly valid arguments. I didn't post what I posted with the idea that it was definitive. The whole point was to _create_ discussion and idea exchanges, not a war. However to do that you have to argue about the idea, not the person behind it and have to be detatched from the issue.
>If the red vadeli are red I prefer to think it is because they use
>lots and lots of blood in their magical rituals. If the blue vadeli
>are blue I prefer to think it is because they are walking, necrotic,
>rotten corpses, not because they are necrophiles.
This works for me. Plainly, the Necrophilia idea is too gross for most folk to consider so them being lichs is probably safer all round.
Loren:
>I am not censoring the list. If I had planned to censor the list I
>would have censored it long ago. And there is no need to get
>defensive or angry. In fact, if I were in your shoes I should ask
>myself a few questions before I pop my cork:
> "Why does it make me so mad when people ask me to tone down?"
Because thats censorship and also telling me what to do which I accept from no man. If they don't like what I say, don't read it, but _don't_ tell me to shut up, cos I won't.
> "Why do I take every comment on my writing style as a personal insult?"
If I were writing in to a digest on writing styles then I wouldn't but I thought this was a digest devoted to discussing all things Gloranthan and to discussing ideas in a pure and unfettered way, free of personal feelings, free of political dogma, free of anything other than logical and fast paced debate. Instead I find people assuming that what I write is what I think and slandering me for that. I find people making personal remarks about me even though they have never met me or even tried to see my point of view though I always try to see theirs, even if I disagree.
The point is that there should be NO personal comments about anybody of a derisive nature. What are we; children that have to bully and cajole?
>"Why does everybody appear to be unable to reason logically, unlike me?"
Beats me.
>Even "Why do I enjoy imagining the details of bloodthirsty,necrophiliac
>rape-murders?"
Good grief, I hadn't even thought of Necrophilia till it was mentioned in relation to the Blues. I really do wish you'd ask my personal opinion before making personal assumption and then personal insults.
>Though I am not censoring the list, I am stating that I personally
>do not enjoy imagining or reading the details of necrophiliac
>rape-murders, and from the reaction of the general list-membership I
>believe that many if not most of the list members agree. Since I
>often peruse this list while I am eating lunch, and this topic is so
>manifestly disgusting and awful, I (me, Loren the person, not Loren
>the list-owner) would appreciate it if you would refrain from such
>stomach-churning descriptions in the future.
No problem. If I'd known it would have caused this much fuss, I'd have kept out of it. I guess I assumed most people are like me and find words incapable of raising those kinds of feelings. I'm sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable and that applies to anyone else I upset too. I'll be more careful in future.
> I have done. Though not a "High School" as I lived most of my
> life in Britain. I regularily used to read Stephen King there and I
> first read Clive Barkers "the Damnation Game" which deals with
> necrophilia to prolong life when I was 12 in my school library in
> the HORRROR section, which was quite large. Perhaps things have
> changed but I'm only 26, I don't think they've changed that much.
>My schools never had horror sections, but even if they had I went to
>HS before Barker published the Books of Blood. And you are right.
>The USA is heavily censored, not as badly as Canada but it's close.
>In an America where Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice and Men, and Catcher in
>the Rye are hardly ever available on HS shelves because they are
>considered too offensive, do you really think that Cabal or The
>Damnation Game are going to go untouched?
?????? Huckleberry Finn?????? No way! Thats a disgusting attack on peoples right to read what they want! I can't believe it. I'll check out the site you posted. Thanks for the info.
Lewis Jardine comments:
> The problem is not with people being "grossed-out" by
>biology textbook style descriptions of the the mating habits of the
>near-extinct, lesser-spotted, rarely-seen, blue Vadeli. The problem
>is that if they are demystified then they are just another monster
>to work out how to kill.
I see what you are getting at but I look at it from a GMs perspective. As a GM it really narks me not to know what these races get up to. Details are very important as they are superb source of scenrio information. One of the reasons why Greg is so astute as a writer is that he is constantly throwing in the little details that can be the source of a whole campaign. Eg in KoS the little bit of Varmandi history and their endless feud with the Orlevings (spit) has already provided endless entertainment to Jeff Richards Taming of Dragon Pass group. The detail on the Orlanthi creates an awareness of social functions which also create adventures.
For me detailing the Vadeli makes them much more real. For me to run them I have to _know_ how gross they are. I _need_ the details because those details are what gives you a complete picture in your head and what makes you run a good game, not a thin game.
I think the prime example of this is the Trolls. They were HEAVILY demistified and became a people instead of a group of monsters. The same principle should be applied to every race in Glorantha and then we would truly have an alive world.
I used my "biology text book style" to be inoffensive (big mistake there eh?) but I was hoping for a response, even a one of disagreement but at least some discussion on what makes the Vadeli tick. Without that they are faceless and not threat. What you don't know will not scare you is my approach.
Peter Metcalfe commented on Menstrual Intercourse taboos (this seems to be a relatively safe subject)
>Certain old passages from Leviticus proscribe menstrual intercourse,
>frex. Only the Aztecs AFAIK didn't see any big deal about it. I
>think in glorantha, the West would have some sort of archaic (looks
>around) strictures against it, but I don't think it's a big issue.
Yes, you're right. I did a bit of reading and asking around and there are some pretty big taboos against it. In fact it still exists today. I know people who won't have sex while the woman is mentruating.
Perhaps its more of a Western thing, more prevalent in masogenistic societies like the Malkioni. It seems to have been linked to uncleanliness by many church people in our own middle ages so that would make sense. It would also make the average westerner totally grossed out by the Reds if they practised this. Wouldn't have much effect on an Orlanthi though.
>IMMORTALITY
>Do you still go with the idea that they tap suffering to maintain
>immortality or is there some use of blood involved, perhaps they
>have to drink or bathe in a certain ammount per week/season etc?
>Blood taken from suffering people is probably the best for their magics.
They probably farm the blood rather like the Masai do.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail