http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_LegaciesOfBlood
Matata
Group 4 Akuanse
9-Cap
aus cel obf ABO ANI FOR
Laibon: Matata gets an optional press each combat. +1 strength.
I like, though until we know what abombwe translates into VTES, he may
seem a little bit old...
Certainly useful for multi round with ability, +1 str, ani and for...
WTF??!? Is it a cat, a lion or a bear?
I have a problem accepting new V:tES stuff that isn't related with a
[dark/gothic/gloom/whatever you call] environment...
Despite these new stuff could result since it uses the same base
mechanisms with presses and maneuvers and bleed, etc, i don't
expect to play against an alien expansion with alien vampires with
disciplines called "Alpha-5" that has +1 stealth equipping with a
ZRH Laser Beam from planet DS-31, you know what i mean....... :-(
Let's what happens...
.- Luis Duarte
Man that is so broken!
Let's boycot the alien expansion!
But you can't play group alpha-5 with other non-alpha groups of
vampires, that's at least something.
HardyRange wrote:
> EzekielMoer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=Checklist_LegaciesOfBlood
> >
> > Matata
> > Group 4 Akuanse
>
> Matata is Group 3, not 4.
>
Maybe it's just me, but... how come *all* of the Laibon are not group
3? I suppose group 2-3 for all 4 clans was almost full?
[ quoted text not captured ]
The answer by way of illustrative question:
Why 3?
Did you choose that because you supposed group 1-2 for them was
(almost) full?
LSJ wrote:
> > > Matata is Group 3, not 4.
> > >
> > Maybe it's just me, but... how come *all* of the Laibon are not group
> > 3? I suppose group 2-3 for all 4 clans was almost full?
>
> The answer by way of illustrative question:
>
> Why 3?
> Did you choose that because you supposed group 1-2 for them was
> (almost) full?
>
The answer by way of an actual answer:
I said 3, so that they could play with the group 4 Bloodlines vamps
that are in the same set. If they were group 2, you would have 2 sets
of vampires in the same set that couldn't be used with one another.
(And the Bloodlines apparently *have* to be group 4, because group 3 is
full for them, despite having 0 or 1 vampire per clan.)
So, assuming that group 1-2 are out of the question, why is group 2-3
full already?
Chris Berger wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > > > Matata is Group 3, not 4.
> > > >
> > > Maybe it's just me, but... how come *all* of the Laibon are not group
> > > 3? I suppose group 2-3 for all 4 clans was almost full?
> >
> > The answer by way of illustrative question:
> >
> > Why 3?
> > Did you choose that because you supposed group 1-2 for them was
> > (almost) full?
> >
> The answer by way of an actual answer:
>
> I said 3, so that they could play with the group 4 Bloodlines vamps
> that are in the same set. If they were group 2, you would have 2 sets
> of vampires in the same set that couldn't be used with one another.
> (And the Bloodlines apparently *have* to be group 4, because group 3 is
> full for them, despite having 0 or 1 vampire per clan.)
Note that a single group in isolation is neither "full" nor "not full".
Fullness is only meaningful when examining a group pair.
> So, assuming that group 1-2 are out of the question, why is group 2-3
> full already?
Group 2 being out of the question would be a sufficient answer for
explaining
why they start in group 3-4 instead of 2-3.
Nice work.
If you want to investigate more deeply, try looking at the DS/AH
Independents.
Chris Berger wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but... how come *all* of the Laibon are not group
> 3? I suppose group 2-3 for all 4 clans was almost full?
Just another point: If all the Laibon are group 3, and the next set
(or the one after that, whenever) arrives with a lot of group 5
vampires, including one or two Laibon, as in Gehenna, it will really
mess up the system.
I prefer all the Laibon group 4, with perhaps one or two bridge
vampires in Group 3.
[ quoted text not captured ]
A "full" group for most bloodlines is something like 5 vamps in group 2
and one vamp in group 3- see Baali, Samedi, or Blood Brothers
(considering each circle separately) for examples of this. These four
new bloodlines don't necessarily have to follow the same formula, but
even if they have 6 or 7 in group 3, there'd be room for some group 4
vamps of each in this set, especially since each starter's going to
have 6 starter-only vamps(!). That's assuming they want to stagger the
bloodlines so that the Laibon make their strongest showings in the odd
groups (3, 5 ...) along with Camarilla, while the Sabbat, Indies, and
other Bloodlines make their strong showings in even groups (2, 4, ...),
which seems like a good idea to me, but if they decided to keep all the
bloodlines parallel, then they'd have an even smaller group 3, and a
larger group 4.
So the answer to "why is group 2-3 full already?" is probably something
like "We filled it up in this set."
John
[ quoted text not captured ]
I wouldn't mind if all the Blood Brothers became common. They're the
only clan that breaks the bloodlines generality of "use with another
clan", because their cards have no outferiors. This means you have to
collect twelve blood brothers, and they need to share a circle, before
you can even start player. If there's only five of each circle, and the
set is huge, that means a lot of packs. Making them common makes sense.
jnewqu...@difsol.com wrote:
> I wouldn't mind if all the Blood Brothers became common. They're the
> only clan that breaks the bloodlines generality of "use with another
> clan", because their cards have no outferiors. This means you have to
> collect twelve blood brothers, and they need to share a circle, before
> you can even start player. If there's only five of each circle, and the
> set is huge, that means a lot of packs. Making them common makes sense.
For sure.
I just don't like Blood Brothers. ;-)
[ quoted text not captured ]
Next up: Vampires Many Leagues beneath the sea.
Featuring vampires that have adapted disciplines to survive the depths
of the ocean, with a new society, sect, clans. Look for whale ghouls,
and were sharks!
Coming August 2006.
~SV
Why are people so scared of anything new? I mean, just because their
names are African (therefore hard for English speakers to pronounce),
or because they make a vampire group 3 not group 4, or because they
create a new Disciplin, or a new sect... Why does this HAVE to mean the
game is changed forever and they will DESTROY it with all these new
stuff, and in EVERY expansion from now on they will create something
very strange and odd (to these players's standards, I must say) and
this will be UNPLAYABLE and ruin the game forever! Yeah, let's "boycot
the alien expansion" instead of trying to enjoy something new...
Get a grip... nothing changes... open your mind to new stuff, it's only
a matter of matching symbols (in LSJ's words)... otherwise we should be
playing G1 vamps forever and there would be no need of nothing
different since 1994...
I believe VTES players are smart enough to adapt to this new
environment (which I don't believe to be so new after all)... otherwise
they wold be playing other easier to play and to find on retailers
games.
Come on, we can enjoy this new stuff and keep playing and liking the
old. I am LOVING LoB so far. Congratulations White Wolf.
LSJ wrote:
>
> Group 2 being out of the question would be a sufficient answer for
> explaining
> why they start in group 3-4 instead of 2-3.
>
Most questions of design like my original one, you tend to ignore. My
questions, you seem to try to just answer in the most infuriating way
possible. Nice work... ;)
I know they start in group 3-4. But why aren't they all group 3? Is
group 2-3 almost full?
Chris Berger wrote:
> LSJ wrote:
> >
> > Group 2 being out of the question would be a sufficient answer for
> > explaining
> > why they start in group 3-4 instead of 2-3.
> >
> Most questions of design like my original one, you tend to ignore. My
> questions, you seem to try to just answer in the most infuriating way
> possible. Nice work... ;)
Asking questions about design (or any "why" question related to
anything that isn't hard science) is a lot more work than asking such
questions, so I offer instead avenues/directions of thought that, given
a suitable level of earnest contemplation, can lead to an answer,
thereby shifting the workload. Delegating, that is.
> I know they start in group 3-4. But why aren't they all group 3? Is
> group 2-3 almost full?
As I said: If you want to investigate more deeply, try looking at the
DS/AH
Independents.
LSJ wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > >
> > > Group 2 being out of the question would be a sufficient answer for
> > > explaining
> > > why they start in group 3-4 instead of 2-3.
> > >
> > Most questions of design like my original one, you tend to ignore. My
> > questions, you seem to try to just answer in the most infuriating way
> > possible. Nice work... ;)
>
> Asking questions about design (or any "why" question related to
"Answering questions ..." that is.
[ quoted text not captured ]
[ quoted text not captured ]
<MODE="LSJ"> Why should they be all group 3?</MODE> :)
Jokes aside, so far all Laibon vampires we've seen have combat
specials. Maybe that's the general flavour for them as designed, so
it's better to avoid them being easily integrated with group 2 since
this group already has Theo Bell, Beast, Lazverinous and such. Yeah, I
realize they have different discipline spreads. But should group 5 come
out soon, that would mean the Laibon can be mixed with groups 2 to 4
Cam, Sabbat, Bloodlines and indie vampires, but not with any group 5
vampire so far. Since I don't expect new Laibon vampires to appear soon
after Legacies, I'd rather have the bulk of each Laibon clan as group 4
so they can be mixed with future vampires.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Denalex wrote:
> I think the symbol for Abombwe is ridiculous...
... as everything which is new tends to seem at first glance, depending
on the general feel for the old.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
Luis Duarte - Powerbase:Lisbon wrote:
> WTF??!? Is it a cat, a lion or a bear?
> I have a problem accepting new V:tES stuff that isn't related with a
> [dark/gothic/gloom/whatever you call] environment...
So you acknowledge that's a personal issue, don't ya? ;-)
Myself, I don't see why the Abombwe symbol is more strange than, say,
the Ahrimanes or Gangrel symbols. Both of these are not
"gothic/dark/whatever" also.
I'd say it has more to do with familiarity than anything else.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
"Denalex" wrote:
>
> I think the symbol for Abombwe is ridiculous...
>
My wife is a big fan of the Care Bears. Maybe
the new symbol will get her to play V:TES.
Jay
In message <1129650492.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Ezekiel...@gmail.com writes:
>Just another point: If all the Laibon are group 3, and the next set
>(or the one after that, whenever) arrives with a lot of group 5
>vampires, including one or two Laibon, as in Gehenna, it will really
>mess up the system.
It strikes me as unlikely that the next set would have more Laibon in.
In significant numbers, anyway. New sets take time to bed down.
>I prefer all the Laibon group 4, with perhaps one or two bridge
>vampires in Group 3.
"Bridge vampire" is a term that's typically been applied to vampires
like Barbaro - bridging between a chunk in Group 2 and a chunk in Group
4. Since the Laibon don't have any vampires in Group 3, they don't
bridge to anywhere.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
LSJ wrote:
> Chris Berger wrote:
> > LSJ wrote:
> > >
> > > Group 2 being out of the question would be a sufficient answer for
> > > explaining
> > > why they start in group 3-4 instead of 2-3.
> > >
> > Most questions of design like my original one, you tend to ignore. My
> > questions, you seem to try to just answer in the most infuriating way
> > possible. Nice work... ;)
>> [Answering] questions about design (or any "why" question related to> anything that isn't hard science) is a lot more work than asking such
> questions,
Which is why I expected no answer (rather than the usual unsatisfying
answer), since it was more of a gripe than anything that needed
answering. Since you did answer, I felt the need to clarify my gripe,
sorry. I *do* feel strongly that the Laibon vampires in LoB should
have been all group 3 (since one is expected to be able to make a deck
out of just these clans, there shouldn't be a problem with having at
least half as many of each Laibon clan in group 3 as vamps for any
particular Cam clan in that group - which would mean there'd be no
particular need to go to group 4 in this set, not unless there were
more than 8-10 for each clan), in order to slow down group number
proliferation, which tends to make it harder to mix and match cards
that are already in our collections. I understand that WW has its own
reasons for converting crypt-construction into a "Type-2"-like
environment, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
>
> > I know they start in group 3-4. But why aren't they all group 3? Is
> > group 2-3 almost full?
>
> As I said: If you want to investigate more deeply, try looking at the
> DS/AH
> Independents.
If DS/AH Independents had been made group 1, then all of the Cam
vampires in those same sets would have been group 1 as well (unless an
additional confusing rule was added, that group was based not only on
presence/absence of an expansion symbol, but also on certain clans - or
unless WW wanted there to be about 30 of each Cam clan in group 1). I
assume that leaving group 1 empty of Independents was preferrable to
increasing the confusion which was already, at the time, being
instilled by retro-fitting old cards with a new rule. If, at the time
DS and AH were printed, group numbers had existed, it would have seemed
somewhat absurd to not make a bunch of group 1 Ravnos, etc. Although
to be fair, it would have seemed absurd to have the rule at all, since
all vampires were either group 1 or 2, and none of them were excluded
from being in crypts with each other.
In message <1129655665.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, LSJ
<vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>Chris Berger wrote:>> I know they start in group 3-4. But why aren't they all group 3? Is
>> group 2-3 almost full?>
>As I said: If you want to investigate more deeply, try looking at the
>DS/AH
>Independents.
Is it just the DS/AH ones, or do we need to bear in mind the Final
Nights ones too?
If we can include them, then I can construct a line of reasoning
involving far too many vampires having been put in Group 2 for them,
meaning that Group 3 for them was very small.
Having several Laibon in Group 3 and Group 4 means that you can then add
several in Group 5, rather than the 6 then 1 then 6 and so on - giving
more interesting crypt potential, possibly.
The same "mistake" might have been made with Bloodlines - since it
occurred pre-grouping, and so you may have preferred to have some of the
Ahrimanes, Baali etc. in Group 2 and some in Group 3, if you were re-
doing the sight with 20-20 hindsight.
Anywhere close?
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
>
> Is it just the DS/AH ones, or do we need to bear in mind the Final
> Nights ones too?
>
> If we can include them, then I can construct a line of reasoning
> involving far too many vampires having been put in Group 2 for them,
> meaning that Group 3 for them was very small.
>
Group 3 for them should have been bigger, and could have been without
overpowering the independents any. Really, other than Ravnos
weenie-breed with WoN (which wouldn't be made any better by adding a
couple of group 3's, especially if they were on the large side), and
the occasionally decent Giovanni power-bleed, the independent clans
still suck, especially their vampire selection. I really think if a
mistake was made with the independents, it was skipping Group 3 almost
entirely, not in putting too many in Group 2.
If it would help get me some more G3 Settites, I'd be happy to
retroactively remove Dedefra, Hadrian Garrick, and Danny Larskill from
the game, not to mention some of the other big vamps. Just put those 3
on the banned list, and print 3 more G3 Settites... ;)
Maybe Matata coulbe be used together with Silvia Giovanni
Both have ANI and at least for, and +1 Strenght and a press... OK,
maybe they don't work that much together, since they're both hi-caps
that only share one "and a half" disciplin, but it would be fun :P
Cheers
Fabio Ciccone, Giovanni with an optional press
In message <1129665188.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
>James Coupe wrote:>> If we can include them, then I can construct a line of reasoning
>> involving far too many vampires having been put in Group 2 for them,
>> meaning that Group 3 for them was very small.
>>>Group 3 for them should have been bigger, and could have been without
>overpowering the independents any.
There's a difference between overpowering and slowly winding up the
power levels, but it's one of degree not of substance.
Once you follow this line of reasoning, it's easy to move into "Well,
you could have just stopped printing weenies..." and stop using grouping
at all.
You have to draw a line somewhere, and pushing it a bit further, and a
bit further, and a bit further means you suddenly find yourself halfway
down the drive where you still think you're on the threshold.
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1129650492.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Ezekiel...@gmail.com writes:
> >Just another point: If all the Laibon are group 3, and the next set
> >(or the one after that, whenever) arrives with a lot of group 5
> >vampires, including one or two Laibon, as in Gehenna, it will really
> >mess up the system.
>
> It strikes me as unlikely that the next set would have more Laibon in.
> In significant numbers, anyway. New sets take time to bed down.
Thats exactly my point. If they include masses of new Laibon, it
wouldn't be a problem and will only provide an extra option to crypts.
However, if they include one or two these will be totally unplayable if
most of the new Laibon is group 3.
> >I prefer all the Laibon group 4, with perhaps one or two bridge
> >vampires in Group 3.
>
> "Bridge vampire" is a term that's typically been applied to vampires
> like Barbaro - bridging between a chunk in Group 2 and a chunk in Group
> 4. Since the Laibon don't have any vampires in Group 3, they don't
> bridge to anywhere.
I meant with their parent clans. For instance, mixing Osebo with
!Brujah or Nossies, the OCCASIONAL group 3 vampire will be useful.
Not much, but a bridge.
BTW, isn't this debate about groupings the SAME one we had when group 3
was first released? Or for that matter, every bitching that pops up
about groupings?
In message <1129670323.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Ezekiel...@gmail.com writes:
>James Coupe wrote:>> It strikes me as unlikely that the next set would have more Laibon in.
>> In significant numbers, anyway. New sets take time to bed down.>
>Thats exactly my point. If they include masses of new Laibon, it
>wouldn't be a problem and will only provide an extra option to crypts.
>However, if they include one or two these will be totally unplayable if
>most of the new Laibon is group 3.
Huh? Why should the next set include any of a new group? There are
plenty of things that could turn up in the next set that are nothing to
do with the Laibon.
>> "Bridge vampire" is a term that's typically been applied to vampires
>> like Barbaro - bridging between a chunk in Group 2 and a chunk in Group
>> 4. Since the Laibon don't have any vampires in Group 3, they don't
>> bridge to anywhere.>
>I meant with their parent clans. For instance, mixing Osebo with
>!Brujah or Nossies, the OCCASIONAL group 3 vampire will be useful.
There are plenty of the main clans in Group 3 and 4 who can mix and
match happily with a [3/4] Laibon crypt. Doesn't strike me as
problematic that [3/4] vampires can mix happily with Laibon, in the same
way that a [1/2] Camarilla deck can mix and match with some Bloodlines
set vampires, or whatever else is lurking around.
The point of the groups is that different possibilities are possible,
without creating dial-a-crypt situations.
[ quoted text not captured ]
> I have a problem accepting new V:tES stuff that isn't related with a
> [dark/gothic/gloom/whatever you call] environment...
Ummm... as far as I'm aware, sub-Saharan Africa is part of the world,
and hence part of the world of darkness. And why can't things
happening in Africa fit the gothic criteria? I seem to recall that for
quite some time Africa was referred to by Europeans as the "dark
continent", and one of the best gothic novels, Conrad's Heart of
Darkness, is set in the Congo. Why is this sort of material not
interesting for fans of dark fantasy worlds in general, and of vampires
in particular?
To be honest, and not to pick on anyone in particular, the discussion
around this whole issue has at many times appeared to me quite racist
in its subtext. I realize noone is trying to be offensive but it
really looks like people are operating under the tired assumption that
only North America and Europe matter. Seriously, grow up people.
</rant>
"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:1129675066.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> To be honest, and not to pick on anyone in particular, the discussion
> around this whole issue has at many times appeared to me quite racist
> in its subtext. I realize noone is trying to be offensive but it
> really looks like people are operating under the tired assumption that
> only North America and Europe matter. Seriously, grow up people.
Oh fer crying out loud! OF COURSE it's not racist. It's not even
Eurocentric. All the guy said was that he has a hard time accepting
the new stuff as "gothic". That may not be your experience with it and
you give some good reasons why you think it fits right in. But that's
a subjective matter that hinges on what each person associates with the
terms 'gothic' and 'vampire', which has nothing whatsoever to do with
racism or having a world view that "only North America and Europe
matter".
I guess what strikes one of my nerves is when someone can't say
something slightly negative that has do to with a specific geographical
location (and notice, the negative thing was not said ABOUT the
geographical location or its denizens) without someone else worrying
about racism. Cripes, that's paranoid!
Fred
> If DS/AH Independents had been made group 1...I assume that leaving> group 1 empty of Independents was preferrable to increasing the
> confusion which was already, at the time, being instilled by
> retro-fitting old cards with a new rule.
Oh, if only it would have been possible to make DS/AH Group 1. That would
have made grouping work very well. Unfortunately, the reasons why they
couldn't be were too big.
>Oh fer crying out loud! OF COURSE it's not racist. It's not even
>Eurocentric. All the guy said was that he has a hard time accepting
>the new stuff as "gothic". That may not be your experience with it and
>you give some good reasons why you think it fits right in. But that's
>a subjective matter that hinges on what each person associates with the
>terms 'gothic' and 'vampire', which has nothing whatsoever to do with
>racism or having a world view that "only North America and Europe
>matter".
I wasn't reffering solely to that particular post. Other examples
include Lion King jokes and complaints about difficult pronunciation.
While I'm certain that nothing overtly racist is *meant* by any of
these comments, I feel that the subtext is definitely there. I mean
really, when you compare bringing sub-Saharan Africans into the game
with introducing vampires from outer space, you're really saying
something about your own biases. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone
here is a Klan member or anything stupid like that; I'm just pointing
out what appears to be a general unspoken assumption of Eurocentrism.
>I guess what strikes one of my nerves is when someone can't say
>something slightly negative that has do to with a specific geographical
>location (and notice, the negative thing was not said ABOUT the
>geographical location or its denizens) without someone else worrying
>about racism. Cripes, that's paranoid!
Oversensitive perhaps, but not paranoid. Just for context, I'm an
anthropology student, and anthropology has a rather disturbing history
of *extreme* racism whether intentional or not (and this is well
documented in contemporary anthropological writing). To a large
extent, picking up on these things is what I'm trained to do, so maybe
I brought that into a context where it was inappropriate. I'm still
more or less willing to stand by my comments however.
Jeezz...I get the feeling that I'm rapidly becoming the least popular
poster in this group. Oh well....
It's not racism. It's only a matter of expectation and game
environment. Like Fabio Macedo said it's a personal matter but it's a
valid thougth to debate here so i can find new arguments to accept
better the new ideas. Otherwise the easiest solution was just to ignore
the new expansion and buy part of it on eBay or any singles store which
is the opposite of what i want to do.
Anyway, to make things clear, Followers of Set and Praxis Seizure:Cairo
are not related to Euro-American environment and i play with them since
Ancient Hearts. The same applies to Assamite and its cards. So i guess
it's a matter of time to accept it...
.- Luis Duarte
> Anyway, to make things clear, Followers of Set and Praxis Seizure:Cairo
> are not related to Euro-American environment and i play with them since
> Ancient Hearts. The same applies to Assamite and its cards. So i guess
> it's a matter of time to accept it...
>
You mean the racist charicatures of Egyptians and Arabs?
CthuluKitty wrote:
> I wasn't reffering solely to that particular post. Other examples
> include Lion King jokes
New ideas, new challenges!
Lion King jokes are that so bad?
> and complaints about difficult pronunciation.
Yes, maybe for some. Do you remember the posts here when in the Final
Nights expansion launch people complained about Veneficorum Artum
Sanguis?
> While I'm certain that nothing overtly racist is *meant* by any of
> these comments, I feel that the subtext is definitely there. I mean
> really, when you compare bringing sub-Saharan Africans into the game
> with introducing vampires from outer space, you're really saying
> something about your own biases. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone
> here is a Klan member or anything stupid like that; I'm just pointing
> out what appears to be a general unspoken assumption of Eurocentrism.
Nice evaluation but with a wrong conclusion on the biases. We're
talking about a specific game in a specific context and not someone's
personality.
The alien stuff example was to show that although the game base
mechanics remain the same, i wasn't expecting these kind of theme
changes. Let me give you another example: Monopoly. If Hasbro decides
to replace the Jail for a Sex Shop, and if i don't like it and compare
it with the International Space Station, does that means i'm puritan?
:-D
Another thing: does Eurocentrism includes USA, Canada, Mexico and
Egypt?
> Oversensitive perhaps, but not paranoid. Just for context, I'm an
> anthropology student, and anthropology has a rather disturbing history
> of *extreme* racism whether intentional or not (and this is well
> documented in contemporary anthropological writing). To a large
> extent, picking up on these things is what I'm trained to do, so maybe
> I brought that into a context where it was inappropriate. I'm still
> more or less willing to stand by my comments however.
Man, we're talking about a game based (originally) on dark gothic
theme. That's written in the Rulebook that comes with the starter
decks. It has nothing to do with real and personal racism. I understand
that's your natural sensitivity for your anthopology knowledge but,
again, we're talking about a game... bring Count Dracula instead!
That's what game is all about!! :-D
> Jeezz...I get the feeling that I'm rapidly becoming the least popular
> poster in this group. Oh well....
Nope.
.- Luis Duarte
"CthuluKitty" <vtana...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:1129677577.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>Oh fer crying out loud! OF COURSE it's not racist. It's not even
>>Eurocentric. All the guy said was that he has a hard time accepting
>>the new stuff as "gothic". That may not be your experience with it and
>>you give some good reasons why you think it fits right in. But that's
>>a subjective matter that hinges on what each person associates with the
>>terms 'gothic' and 'vampire', which has nothing whatsoever to do with
>>racism or having a world view that "only North America and Europe
>>matter".>
> I wasn't reffering solely to that particular post. Other examples
> include Lion King jokes and complaints about difficult pronunciation.
> While I'm certain that nothing overtly racist is *meant* by any of
> these comments, I feel that the subtext is definitely there.
I can't speak to the Lion King jokes since I never saw the movie and
don't know what they were. But you have problems with the fact that
English speaking people find African languages contain things we find
hard to pronounce? Why? THAT'S THE TRUTH! When making a reference
to a truthful thing becomes "evil" and "racist", we've got a problem,
Houston! This is the reason polical correctness has become so
reviled: it suffocates frank discussion and any and all use of humor,
execpt of the most banal kind.
The truth is, by and large, English-speaking monophones have trouble
pronouncing words from lots of languages from lots of parts of the
world - including, in some respects (if less so), other European
languages. We make jokes about the way other cultures from all parts
of the world and of all races pronounce their words. And I would be
shocked and disappointed if other cultures didn't make fun how
Americans speak at times as well. (Especially Texans. :-) ) Sheesh,
lighten up.
> I mean
> really, when you compare bringing sub-Saharan Africans into the game
> with introducing vampires from outer space, you're really saying
> something about your own biases.
I totally disagree with that, too. The original Vampire story
involved a eastern European count of a decidely pale complexion.
I hardly think it says anything of the sort about a person except
that his imagination doesn't stretch as far as the White Wolf writers'
does. (And, of course, White Wolf's employees have a decidedly
distinct financial incentive to be imaginative about such things.)
>>I guess what strikes one of my nerves is when someone can't say
>>something slightly negative that has do to with a specific geographical
>>location (and notice, the negative thing was not said ABOUT the
>>geographical location or its denizens) without someone else worrying
>>about racism. Cripes, that's paranoid!>
> Oversensitive perhaps, but not paranoid. Just for context, I'm an
> anthropology student, and anthropology has a rather disturbing history
> of *extreme* racism whether intentional or not (and this is well
> documented in contemporary anthropological writing).
Sure. That is also the truth.
> To a large
> extent, picking up on these things is what I'm trained to do, so maybe
> I brought that into a context where it was inappropriate.
In my opinion, you are being far too quick to make assumptions about
peoples' motivations and to inject your values into the conversation as
a result. It may be that there are overt racists who post in the group
and it may also be so that many of us have some latent racist attitudes
we're not even conscious of just from the limitations of our own
cultural experiences. But it still doesn't do to fly off the handle
and start fencing with shadows. That sort of thing just poisons the
environment, which is no damn good. As a student, you need to
understand that one of the most important resources in a free and
enlightened academic world is the ability to speak openly. Sometimes
this looks like other people saying controversial things or using
edgy (or perhaps just immature) humor which doesn't make you comfortable.
Unless it's something that's out and out wrong and offensive, you
should let it be.
> Jeezz...I get the feeling that I'm rapidly becoming the least popular
> poster in this group.
No, that would be me, when I start a thread about how terrible the
rating system is. But I think popularity is overrated.
Fred
Frederick Scott wrote:
> No, that would be me, when I start a thread about how terrible the
> rating system is. But I think popularity is overrated.
Aw, cummon Fred! I love those threads!
Peter D Bakija
pd...@lightlink.com
http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6
"So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot,
easily spilled liquids to naked people."
-Brittni Meil
"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote in message news:BF7B159D.22A4B%pd...@lightlink.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
>>> No, that would be me, when I start a thread about how terrible the
>> rating system is. But I think popularity is overrated.>
> Aw, cummon Fred! I love those threads!
Only because I look like more and more like a fruitloop as time goes
on. Sort of the same appeal Joe Dirt has, now that I think about it.
Fred
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:uWh5f.17988$fE5.6331@fed1read06...
[ quoted text not captured ]
We've never met, Fred, but I certainly don't picture you in a mullet. (You
weren't the model for Dylan, were you?)
- Pat :)
> Another thing: does Eurocentrism includes USA, Canada, Mexico and
> Egypt?
>
Yes. The culture of the Americas is decidedly descended from that of
Europe. And anyone familiar with the dawn of Western Civilization knows
how intrinsically related Egypt's history is with Europe's.
"Pat" <patrick.l...@comcast.nyetspam.net> wrote in
messagenews:MJCdncZRNZN...@comcast.com...
> "Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message>>> Aw, cummon Fred! I love those threads!>>
>> Only because I look like more and more like a fruitloop as time goes
>> on. Sort of the same appeal Joe Dirt has, now that I think about it.>> We've never met, Fred, but I certainly don't picture you in a mullet.
> (You weren't the model for Dylan, were you?)
A mullet...hmmm....
If only I had the hair for that any more. :-P
I did once have the curly-hair poodle cut, way back in college, lo
those many years ago. It was a stupid thing to do with your hair
at the time - sort of a "middle-class mullet". Would that do?
Fred
"Frederick Scott" <nos...@no.spam.dot.com> wrote in message
news:R4i5f.17990$fE5.1404@fed1read06...
[ quoted text not captured ]
Hmm... that sounds like the Count Germaine Adv version of a mullet... ;)
- Pat
knows all about hair loss
[ quoted text not captured ]
Heck, I'm an African and even I think a little kitty for a discipline
symbol is stupid! ;-)
However, to say that the African culture isn't goth is a big mistake.
I can dig up pages of school-only history that describes some of the
abominations in Africa. Stories of blood-drinkers and Tokoloshe's are
whispered even today in Sangoma's huts and witchdoctors' abodes.
A big part of the population sleeps on bricks, in fear of demons that
carry people away at night.
And I still think African vampires, which is at least in our culture,
is more goth than "Blood-sucking gypsies"... or INSTUTOTIONALIZE from
V:tR...
But I must say, if there's any racism on this board it's hating
Ventrue, so no harm done. ;-)
Just a little humor on south-african culture:
http://www.madamandeve.co.za/cartoons/me001606.jpghttp://www.madamandeve.co.za/cartoons/me002072.gif
Screaming Vermillian wrote:
> Next up: Vampires Many Leagues beneath the sea.
>
> Featuring vampires that have adapted disciplines to survive the depths
> of the ocean, with a new society, sect, clans. Look for whale ghouls,
> and were sharks!
Ah, yes. The Gangrel Mariners from Blood Dimmed Tides and the Rokea.
Never heard of whale ghouls, though. If you provide a reference, I'll
see about working them in. :-)
--
That is my story, be it bitter or be it sweet.
Keep a little and let a little come back to me.
LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply)
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Chris Berger wrote:
> which would mean there'd be no
> particular need to go to group 4 in this set, not unless there were
> more than 8-10 for each clan),
Good, then we're in the ballpark (or at least in the parking lot).
[ quoted text not captured ]
James Coupe wrote:
> In message <1129655665.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, LSJ
> <vte...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>>>Chris Berger wrote:
>>>>>I know they start in group 3-4. But why aren't they all group 3? Is
>>>group 2-3 almost full?>>
>>As I said: If you want to investigate more deeply, try looking at the
>>DS/AH
>>Independents.>
>
> Is it just the DS/AH ones, or do we need to bear in mind the Final
> Nights ones too?
I meant DA/AH to mean Assamites, Ravnos, Giovanni, and Followers
of Set.
> If we can include them, then I can construct a line of reasoning
> involving far too many vampires having been put in Group 2 for them,
> meaning that Group 3 for them was very small.
>
> Having several Laibon in Group 3 and Group 4 means that you can then add
> several in Group 5, rather than the 6 then 1 then 6 and so on - giving
> more interesting crypt potential, possibly.
>
> The same "mistake" might have been made with Bloodlines - since it
> occurred pre-grouping, and so you may have preferred to have some of the
> Ahrimanes, Baali etc. in Group 2 and some in Group 3, if you were re-
> doing the sight with 20-20 hindsight.
>
> Anywhere close?
A very nice treatise, yes.
[ quoted text not captured ]
In message <Gyp5f.16891$QE1...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, LSJ
<vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> writes:
>Never heard of whale ghouls, though. If you provide a reference, I'll
>see about working them in. :-)
Did I ever tell you about a friend's Changeling roleplaying group? The
pooka changeling in the group could turn into a, uh, whale.
I believe it is our right as V:TES players to have pooka changeling
killer whales in the next set. If you don't print them, then... then...
I'll hold my breath and make myself go purple, then blue.
[ quoted text not captured ]
"LSJ" <vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com> wrote
>
> Never heard of whale ghouls, though. If you provide a reference, I'll
> see about working them in. :-)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire_watermelon
Since I have provided you with a reference, I insist that you provide us
with a card.
Cheers,
WES
[ quoted text not captured ]
Mind you, that's one reason why I was happy to see that none of these
clans got reworked in Requiem. No matter how much I loved them in the
oWoD.
OK, sorry for the digression... Back on topic.
best,
Fabio "Sooner" Macedo
