Re: Duck Cigar Feats (No, Seriously)

From: Stewart Stansfield <stu_stansfield_at_...>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:15:35 -0000


> It occurs to me that we are assuming here that Duck
> Cigars are made of tobacco. This may well be false.
> I'm sure there are plenty of other plants that can be
> rolled up and set light to, with much more interesting
> effects. And, of course, the effects needn't be the
> same for ducks as for humans.

Whilst Jane's comment has won few friends in "Ogden & 'ling of Nochet: Finest Latakia Import Co. (since 1368 S.T.)", it is a fair point, though one I'd probably side with 'baccy' on.

Why keep tobacco? In fantasy games, whilst we freely experiment with more psychoactive drugs and stronger narcostics, simple staples such as alcohol in the form of beer, wine or mead, rarely change (sure, we may have some weird origins for the sugar at times, but that is often surprisingly rare).

I certainly wouldn't class tobacco in this category, but if we had smokable materials, I'd like to see a 'neutral' common substance, which, apart from horrid health effects, didn't actually affect the user that much. My reason for this is the method of smoking is often as important a characterizational tool as the fact you are intaking some drug.

It's nice to have a character who can smoke a pipe or a cigar, without getting completely wrecked. Whether or not this is tobacco, or a different 'leaf' I'm not really concerned about, and am happy to go with theflow. Tobacco's only useful as everyone knows what it looks like, and certain types and blends (in unsmoked form) are actually quite luxuriant and fun as a prop.

Is a more 'Waccy baccy' available? I'd hope so (urrr...). Is it used in cigars and pipes etc.? I'm sure! Is this a different type of leaf to its milder variants, or a different plant altogether? That people can have much fun deciding.

All I'm saying is I'd rather we had a nonentity as a typical smoke, than a more psychoactive product.

But then I'm biased, and some of these points might be inappreciable or plain daft for people who don't smoke 'good tobacco'. Tolkien was a man who loved his pipe. For fellow men (and rarer women) who love their pipes, a good shag (I had to put that in - if I didn't some else would have) is an uncommon pleasure, as is a fine cigar for some (though I'm not particularly keen).

People who experience the (generally rather foul) smoke of cigarettes don't always appreciate this fetish pipesmokers have. So when a man's love for his pipe tobacco is turned into a geeky love for grass ('Huh. Huhhuhhuh... like he said PipeWEED, heh!'), aided by unmentionable film peoples, it sends us into paroxysms of rage. Well, as much rage as contented pipe-puffer can manage...

As you've noticed, we get remarkably defensive about the tobacco vs. weed issue :o)

Cheerio,

Stu.

Powered by hypermail