Why the Nosferatu LOVE?

In response to the recent thread wondering why the Nos are receiving so much hate, here is my response, wondering why the Nosferatu are receiving so much love! #1. Out of EVERY clan and EVERY combination of groupings, the Nosferatu have the largest number of unique vampires available for a grouping. (30 unique vampires available in Group 3/4). Most of the other Camarilla clans have 27 or 28 vampires in Group 3/4 (Ventrue have 29, including their Storyline reward Advanced Reverend Adams). The Nosferatu got an extra Group 4 vampire in Kindred Most Wanted (Echo) and although they only have 15 new vampires in KoT, they do receive more Group 4 vampires than any other clan in that set. Similarly, the Nosferatu Antitribu got an extra Group 4 vampire in Sword of Caine (in fact, the only Group 4 vampire in that set), giving them a slightly larger Group 2/3 than most of the other Sabbat clans. Aside from the Assamites and !Gangrel, the !Nosferatu also have the most number of Black Hand vampires for a given grouping (4 compared to the typical 3 for most Sabbat clans). Why do the Nosferatu get such special treatment in terms of the number of crypt cards in groupings? #2. Why do the Nosferatu get such an amazing selection of small, mid- cap Princes? 5 - Caleros 7 - Murat 7 - Nikolaus 7 - Benjamin Rose 8 - Selma 9 - Casino 9 - Baron Dieudonne Look at the average capacity of Toreador and Tremere Princes, most of whom lack synergy with each other. Nos even have a better average Prince capacity than Ventrue and Malkavian. Why is it so easy for the Nos to field decks full of mid-cap Princes (which most of the other clans can't do well except maybe Ventrue and Brujah)? Plus, they also have Sheldon, the best Justicar in Group 1. And Petrodon, one of the best Justicars in Group 5. #3. Why do the Nosferatu get superior synergy when it comes to out-of- clan disciplines? Have you seen the sheer amount of Auspex, Dominate, and Fortitude available in their more recent groupings? Add in the ! Nos, and the results are jaw dropping: Group 3: Nos: AUS aus aus aus Nos: for for for for !Nos: AUS aus !Nos: DOM dom !Nos: for Group 4: Nos: aus aus Nos: DOM dom dom Nos: FOR for for !Nos: aus aus !Nos: DOM dom !Nos: FOR FOR for for for for Group 5: Nos: AUS AUS AUS aus Nos: DOM dom Nos: for I don't think any other clan even comes even close when it comes to synergy of out-of-clan disciplines. Have you ever looked at the out-of- clans for the Toreador? It's a complete mess! Why do the Nosferatu get such special, favored treatment, which lets them build really strong decks based on common out-of-clans? (And AUS or DOM takes care of the bleed defense issue). #4. When it comes to Keepers of Tradition: - Why do the Nos get an extra Group 4 vampire? - Ruxandra is so broken in stealth bleed decks, since she lets you discard all of your excess stealth each turn. - Gustaphe is sooo overpowered. He's like Beast, but so much better! ANI is more useful than OBF when it comes to combat. Gustaphe's DOM gives him bleed potential and bleed defense. Gustaphe can use action cards, have equipment, and have retainers. And he's titled which gives him access to cards and makes him immune to several effects. (Beast costs one less pool, can rush cross-table, and has +1 strength). But Gustaphe easily outclasses Beast overall, IMO. - Why is Zelios so much better than Bloody Mary and Allanzan Serata? (Hint: Free, useful special) - Yes, Josef sucks, but Petrodon is one of the best new Group 5 Justicars. Easily better than Gabrielle and Montecalme. I think only Mary Anne can compare. - Nosferatu also get the best clan card in this set (Warsaw Station). Works especially well with the Labyrinth. --> So it seems so clear that the Nosferatu *must* be one of LSJ's favorite clans, cause they're definitely getting sooooo much love! Why are so many of the other clans being left out? I tell you, it isn't fair!!! (Yes, there's a hint of sarcasm in this post, if you can't tell!).

On 18 Dez., 18:41, "echiang...@yahoo.com" <echiang...@yahoo.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] well , thats a pretty big hint of sarcasmn in there >Plus, they also have Sheldon, the best Justicar in Group 1. you have looked at Anneke right? > #3. Why do the Nosferatu get superior synergy when it comes to out-of- > clan disciplines? Have you seen the sheer amount of Auspex, Dominate, > and Fortitude available in their more recent groupings? Add in the ! > Nos, and the results are jaw dropping: and yet , theire in Clan disciplines are so poor , Compare Nikolas Vermeulen und Banjamin Rose to Guilbert Dane and Sir Walter Nash? > - Why is Zelios so much better than Bloody Mary and Allanzan Serata? > (Hint: Free, useful special) > alright , while you keep tapping the vampire youve invested eigth pool in im going to bleed you with ....lets say Gratiano? >Petrodon is one of the best new Group 5 > Justicars. Easily better than Gabrielle yea , because a bleed special that will matter very rarely easily outclasses a powerd up F. Villon. who wouldve not thougth that? > - Nosferatu also get the best clan card in this set (Warsaw Station). *Cough* New Carthage *Cough*

echia...@yahoo.com wrote: > #1. Out of EVERY clan and EVERY combination of groupings, the > Nosferatu have the largest number of unique vampires available for a > grouping. (30 unique vampires available in Group 3/4). Maybe this is merely miscounts and misprints. But seriously, look at the terrible art they get saddled with. I do not see how anyone with any LOVE for the Nosferatu could permit such a situation to continue, set after set after set. Now the problem with the Nosferatu is that they actually require the work of an artist, rather than a photo-shopped snapshot of a random citizen. So you could argue that the Nossies are really being neglected no worse than the other clans. But this only proves there is no particular Nosferatu hate -- there is certainly no love. It is with the Nossies that the neglect really shows: Calebros -- ok, he's got some kind of skin condition, but with a little makeup he should be fine. Christianus Lionel -- Why, this handsome young fellow is BALD -- what a hideous deformation!!! Josef -- this guy looks perfectly normal to me. Nigel -- he must be a nosferatu because he's wearing a Nosferatu T- Shirt Tommy -- Oh No! He's got FANGS -- what a hideous deformation. Alonzo Guillen -- good thing he's so fuzzy; otherwise his hideousness might give us nightmares. Amelia, the blood red tears -- Oh No! A NEGRO!! What a Hideous Deformation! Casino Reeds -- Oh No! He's got facial hair -- and its a bit unkempt. Clarissa Steinburgen -- ok, so she's got some kind of weird cheek ripples, like some kind of new Star Trek alien babe. Gemini: Christopher Shy's 3 year old son accidentally ruined this picture, so he decided it was a Nosferatu Ellison Humboldt: He's partially bald, he's got fangs, and he's fuzzy. Jara Drory: Another Christopher Shy fuzz fest. Her nose looks fine; you can't really see the rest. Khalid: A bald older dude. Krid: I'm not impressed by this trick; I can thrust my lower jaw forward too. Mouse: More fuzziness from Chris Shy. Tammy Walenski: Chris Shy again: she's bald, she's got fangs, and she's fuzzy. Smallpox Griet: Anther perfectly normal fellow with a mild skin condition. Tock: Normal face, and the misshapen limbs look like bad art masqerading as deformity. Baron Dieudonne: Is this some kind of joke? Petra: She smeared blood on her cheeks, and she rolled up her eyes, and she's a redhead. Shahid: A veil? Any excuse not to draw a nosferatu. (However, for the veil thing done right, see Rabbat the sewer goddess) Toby: A fat guy with a skin condition -- probably the artists' landlord. Topaz -- yes, but don't ALL vampires have fangs when they open their mouths? Yeah, okay -- she's bald too, and she's got pointy ears. Greensleeves: What? Her arms are green? That's her hideous deformity? Why not just wear a long-sleeved shirt? Lukas: What is this guy, a toreador reject that got dumped with the Nossies?

jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Maybe this is merely miscounts and misprints. But seriously, look at > the terrible art they get saddled with. I do not see how anyone with > any LOVE for the Nosferatu could permit such a situation to continue, > set after set after set. In fairness, I must add that, except for Baron Dieudonne, most of the Nossies I have seen from the new set are not too bad.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > Smallpox Griet: Anther perfectly normal fellow with a mild skin > condition. Smallpox isn't a fellow. She's a woman. > Lukas: What is this guy, a toreador reject that got dumped with the > Nossies? Yeah, it's terrible when attention is paid to the RPG canon in this game. Just revolting.

On Dec 19, 7:43 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Maybe this is merely miscounts and misprints. But seriously, look at > the terrible art they get saddled with. I do not see how anyone with > any LOVE for the Nosferatu could permit such a situation to continue, > set after set after set. Heh, I'm not sure if this is comedy or not. But for my money, the Nosferatu have pretty solid illustrations for the most part. > Calebros -- ok, he's got some kind of skin condition, but with a > little makeup he should be fine. That portrait is fantastic. One of my favorites. Why can't we railroad Van Fleet into more illustrations? > Christianus Lionel -- Why, this handsome young fellow is BALD -- what > a hideous deformation!!! Bald, and creepy! And under that bandage? An extra huge mouth! > Josef -- this guy looks perfectly normal to me. Eh, ya know, he's vampiric enough. > Nigel -- he must be a nosferatu because he's wearing a Nosferatu T- > Shirt Have you seen, ya know, Nosferatu? Either version? He fits right in! > Tommy -- Oh No! He's got FANGS -- what a hideous deformation. Hey, if I ran into him in a sewer, I'd be concerned. > Alonzo Guillen -- good thing he's so fuzzy; otherwise his hideousness > might give us nightmares. He has superior Obfuscate, ya know. > Amelia, the blood red tears -- Oh No! A NEGRO!! What a Hideous > Deformation! She has translucent skin. And will kick all our asses! > Casino Reeds -- Oh No! He's got facial hair -- and its a bit unkempt. Uh, hippie? I can think of nothing more horrifying. > Clarissa Steinburgen -- ok, so she's got some kind of weird cheek > ripples, like some kind of new Star Trek alien babe. Yeah, ok, I'm not wildly fond of her picture. And sadly, I tend to use her more often than Clarissa, who I love. Mmmmmm. Clarissa. > Gemini: Christopher Shy's 3 year old son accidentally ruined this > picture, so he decided it was a Nosferatu She's totally cute. And evil. > Ellison Humboldt: He's partially bald, he's got fangs, and he's > fuzzy. He looks like a vampire. > Jara Drory: Another Christopher Shy fuzz fest. Her nose looks fine; > you can't really see the rest. That's 'cause her missing face is obscured. By obfusctae. > Khalid: A bald older dude. And the eyes! What have you done to his eyes! > Krid: I'm not impressed by this trick; I can thrust my lower jaw > forward too. Yeah, another strike out for my money. > Mouse: More fuzziness from Chris Shy. But vampiric fuzziness. > Tammy Walenski: Chris Shy again: she's bald, she's got fangs, and > she's fuzzy. She is downright straight forward compared to a lot of his work. > Smallpox Griet: Anther perfectly normal fellow with a mild skin > condition. She's got, ya know, smallpox. > Tock: Normal face, and the misshapen limbs look like bad art > masqerading as deformity. 'Cause misshapen limbs aren't deformity? > Baron Dieudonne: Is this some kind of joke? Dude! His picture is awesome! He is like a creepy 1935 schoolboy. Who is going to eat you. > Petra: She smeared blood on her cheeks, and she rolled up her eyes, > and she's a redhead. Oh, don't even think about badmouthing Petra. > Shahid: A veil? Any excuse not to draw a nosferatu. (However, for > the veil thing done right, see Rabbat the sewer goddess) And the skin! The horrible, horrible skin! > Toby: A fat guy with a skin condition -- probably the artists' > landlord. Yeah, I'll give you this one. I find myself regularly not using Toby in decks where I should clearly be using Toby, just 'cause I hate his picture so much. > Topaz -- yes, but don't ALL vampires have fangs when they open their > mouths? Yeah, okay -- she's bald too, and she's got pointy ears. Fitting the mold as needed. > Greensleeves: What? Her arms are green? That's her hideous > deformity? Why not just wear a long-sleeved shirt? Those are tatoos. Her hideous deformity is the hotness. The hideous, hideous hotness. > Lukas: What is this guy, a toreador reject that got dumped with the > Nossies? Actually, yeah, I think that is exactly what he is. -Peter

Have you even read the rpg descriptions of most of these characters? //Alex

On Dec 19, 8:09 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Smallpox Griet: Anther perfectly normal fellow with a mild skin > > condition. > > Smallpox isn't a fellow. She's a woman. Whatever her sex, she's got perfectly normal features, with a few red specs photoshopped in. > > Lukas: What is this guy, a toreador reject that got dumped with the > > Nossies? > > Yeah, it's terrible when attention is paid to the RPG canon in this game. Just > revolting. Since I was criticising the art, I don't understand your sarcasm. If you are saying the art was taken directly from the RPG -- well, there's plenty of bad art in RPGs. If you are saying that it is a canon fact that Lukas looks like a perfectly normal dude -- well that may be so, but too many exceptions to a theme destroy that theme. Even if it were announced as a canon fact that 90% of nossies look like sexy young heart-throbs, I wouldn't have to like it, no matter how "canon" it might be. Problem is, there are just too many other Nosferatu who look like Lukas.

On Dec 19, 9:22 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > Have you even read the rpg descriptions of most of these characters? > //Alex To be fair, asking "have you even read" implies that most people *have* read the rpg descriptions of most of these characters. Which I don't think is necessarily the case. I certainly haven't. I suspect most of the people I play VTES with haven't. I mean, it is certainly possible that many people have, but I'm yet to meet them (i.e. I know very few VTES players who actually play VTM or whatever). -Peter

On Dec 19, 8:25 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > If you are saying that it is a > canon fact that Lukas looks like a perfectly normal dude -- well that > may be so, but too many exceptions to a theme destroy that theme. > Even if it were announced as a canon fact that 90% of nossies look > like sexy young heart-throbs, I wouldn't have to like it, no matter > how "canon" it might be. Problem is, there are just too many other > Nosferatu who look like Lukas. > Dude, look at that terrible jaundicy pallor he's got. You call that perfectly normal? Oh, the horrors, the horrors! Also, from the waist down, he looks like an octopus. It's hard to tell in the picture.

On Dec 19, 9:25 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Whatever her sex, she's got perfectly normal features, with a few red > specs photoshopped in. She looks like a creepy enough vampire. The Nosferatu are supposed to be hideous, sure, but they can't all look like Chester DuBois. And in real life, you get to look hideous pretty easily without being blue. > Since I was criticising the art, I don't understand your sarcasm. If > you are saying the art was taken directly from the RPG -- well, > there's plenty of bad art in RPGs. If you are saying that it is a > canon fact that Lukas looks like a perfectly normal dude -- well that > may be so, but too many exceptions to a theme destroy that theme. > Even if it were announced as a canon fact that 90% of nossies look > like sexy young heart-throbs, I wouldn't have to like it, no matter > how "canon" it might be. Problem is, there are just too many other > Nosferatu who look like Lukas. But there aren't, actually. Lukas looks like he does purposefully. Petrodon apparently does the same. Other than that, they mostly look creepy, deformed, and vampiric. No, they aren't all blue and bloated. But they certainly look monsterous one way or the other. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I can agree with what you're saying here. And sure, my post is pretty much a troll post :) I'm just allergic to posts that include strong opinions and where the author doesn't seem to have done the research. And for once I had the time for some NG posting that isn't related to tournament reports. //Alex

On Dec 19, 9:31 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:! > Also, from the waist down, he looks like an octopus. It's hard to > tell in the picture. You got me there.

On Dec 19, 9:36 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > I can agree with what you're saying here. And sure, my post is pretty > much a troll post :) > I'm just allergic to posts that include strong opinions and where the > author doesn't seem to have done the research. Heh. Well, see, in this instance, I don't really think that the research is that relevant--VTES and VTM are different games. It is nice, I suppose, that the VTES vampires are based on VTM characters, but mostly irrelevant. And heck, how would you even *do* this research? Go to the local university and try and get Schenectady By Night on interlibrary loan? -Peter

On Dec 19, 9:18 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > Calebros -- ok, he's got some kind of skin condition, but with a > > little makeup he should be fine. > > That portrait is fantastic. One of my favorites. Why can't we railroad > Van Fleet into more illustrations? Sorry. I agree on Calebros. I meant Calebos, not Calebros. > > Christianus Lionel -- Why, this handsome young fellow is BALD -- what > > a hideous deformation!!! > > Bald, and creepy! And under that bandage? An extra huge mouth! They should all look creepy, nosferatu or not. They are all vampires. They are all monsters. > > Josef -- this guy looks perfectly normal to me. > > Eh, ya know, he's vampiric enough. He's a vampire. > > Nigel -- he must be a nosferatu because he's wearing a Nosferatu T- > > Shirt > > Have you seen, ya know, Nosferatu? Either version? He fits right in! I'm fine with Nosferatu-film style vampires (Duck, Four-Eyes, etc). This is just a bald guy viewed from behind. Yes, I'm sure he looks scary from the front, but this is another cop-out. > > Tommy -- Oh No! He's got FANGS -- what a hideous deformation. > > Hey, if I ran into him in a sewer, I'd be concerned. He's a vampire. The nosferatu are not the only ones who are monsters. > > Gemini: Christopher Shy's 3 year old son accidentally ruined this > > picture, so he decided it was a Nosferatu > > She's totally cute. And evil. She's a vampire. > > Ellison Humboldt: He's partially bald, he's got fangs, and he's > > fuzzy. > > He looks like a vampire. I know. So does Barnabas Collins. > > Tock: Normal face, and the misshapen limbs look like bad art > > masqerading as deformity. > > 'Cause misshapen limbs aren't deformity? "Deformity" should not be an excuse for bad art. Make it convincing. Make it look real. > > Baron Dieudonne: Is this some kind of joke? > > Dude! His picture is awesome! He is like a creepy 1935 schoolboy. Who > is going to eat you. I'll give you this one. This is, at least, quality artwork and not a fuzzy cop-out. And his howdy doody appearance does vaguely suggest the stereotypical nosferatu deformities: Buck Teeth, Big Ears -- Like a Nosferatu using obfuscate, but still subtly suggesting his underlying monstrosity.

On Dec 19, 9:32 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > But there aren't, actually. There are in VTES. > Lukas looks like he does purposefully. > Petrodon apparently does the same. Uh oh. I have not seen Petrodon yet. More bad news? > Other than that, they mostly look > creepy, deformed, and vampiric. No, they aren't all blue and bloated. They don't have to be. Most of the Group 1 & 2 Nosferatu, for instance, are fine. The only bad one is Regilio.

On Dec 19, 12:06 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > There are in VTES. I'd disagree (clearly); they aren't all over the top monsterous, no, but most of them are a stylized, mostly believable kind of monsterous. > Uh oh. I have not seen Petrodon yet. More bad news? Yeah. He just kinda looks like a dude. As I understand it, there is a story there. > They don't have to be. Most of the Group 1 & 2 Nosferatu, for > instance, are fine. The only bad one is Regilio. And most of the rest don't look that much different than the G1 and G2 guys; I mean, clearly, you don't like Christopher Shy, which is reasonable, but I don't think the Christopher Shy vampires are any less Nosferatu-y than, say, Selma the Repugnant or Cailean. -Peter

On Dec 19, 1:43 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 12:06 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Uh oh. I have not seen Petrodon yet. More bad news? > > Yeah. He just kinda looks like a dude. As I understand it, there is a > story there. Well, I should wait til I see it, I guess. But in a card game, I think it is best to let the cards tell the story. In any event, I think caution should be exercized in adapting "canon" RPG material. Remember that V:tM supplements were merely intended as aids to the Game Master, who remains in charge and is the final arbiter of what goes in and stays out. Ultimately, it remains the Game Master's job to create a credible world, and resolve the various threads. It was also the Game Master's job (together with the players) to create characters. Richard Garfield's idea to just create his own characters was perfectly in keeping with the spirit of V:tM. If no discretion is exercized, then what one ultimately ends up with is too many cooks spoiling the broth, resulting in a formless mess. No sooner does one V:tM writer try to lay down a rule, than another V:tM writer comes along and decides it would be really creative to break that rule. > > They don't have to be. Most of the Group 1 & 2 Nosferatu, for > > instance, are fine. The only bad one is Regilio. > > And most of the rest don't look that much different than the G1 and G2 > guys; I mean, clearly, you don't like Christopher Shy, which is > reasonable, but I don't think the Christopher Shy vampires are any > less Nosferatu-y than, say, Selma the Repugnant or Cailean. I'm not a big fan of Cailean (he is not included in what I meant by the G1&2 Nosferatu -- I meant to exclude the antitribu). I like Selma better, but she is not my favorite of the G1&2 crowd. Of Shy's nossies, the best are the dark fuzzy ones that permit you to imagine the Nosferatu that they fail to depict -- but only because they are better than a perfectly clear picture of a perfectly normal dude.

<jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote: >Nigel -- he must be a nosferatu because he's wearing a Nosferatu T-Shirt >> Have you seen, ya know, Nosferatu? Either version? He fits right in! >I'm fine with Nosferatu-film style vampires (Duck, Four-Eyes, etc). >This is just a bald guy viewed from behind. Yes, I'm sure he looks >scary from the front, but this is another cop-out. i always assume nigel looked pretty good -- that's why he's shunned. y'know "unacceptable appearance" and all that. neil -- the shunned

On Dec 19, 5:02 pm, "ShunnedOne" <shun...@one.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I've had the same thought. Problem is, it would work better if "normal" looking Nossies really were the exception. There are too many others like him now. It is becoming the new norm.

I guess it comes down to definitions and perceptions of "normal". I think the Nossies with maybe like a handful of exceptions, look deformed and creepy compared to most of the vampires from other clans. Even Christopher Shy's Ellison Humboldt or Jara Drory or whatever could not pass as a normal person. How often do you see people that look like that? Not just vaguely, in the dark, with dirty glasses and an eye infection. Art is to state the obvious, subjective and dependent on personal taste. I personally hate the colourful cartoony Nosferatu... they look like something out of a bad 80s comic book. I personally wish they all looked like variants on a more archetypal Nosferatu ie. bald, sunken eyed, palid, essentially the reapers from Blade II (not the greatest movie I know) rather than a mixed bag of ugly candy. At any rate I'm glad they stick to the canon in ways they can. Petrodon for instance, or Lukas apparently. I didn't find that there's enough cases to say that ordinary non-Nossie looks are becoming the "norm". That carries with it, at least in my mind, an implication that the majority of them are beginning to look like that. There is still an overwhelming minority compared to whole that could even be debated as "normal." But that just goes back to definition.

On Dec 19, 6:07 pm, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > I guess it comes down to definitions and perceptions of "normal". I think they should be obviously monstrous -- not merely unhealthy looking people. They should really need obfuscate to preserve the masquerade. > I > think the Nossies with maybe like a handful of exceptions, look > deformed and creepy compared to most of the vampires from other clans. > Even Christopher Shy's Ellison Humboldt or Jara Drory or whatever > could not pass as a normal person. Probably not. But I'm not sure what they actually look like, so it is hard to say. This is fuzzy photoshopping -- a poor substitution for real artistry. > How often do you see people that > look like that? Not just vaguely, in the dark, with dirty glasses and > an eye infection. Art is to state the obvious, subjective and > dependent on personal taste. I personally hate the colourful cartoony > Nosferatu... they look like something out of a bad 80s comic book. By "bad" comic book, do you mean the kind that feature grotesquely deformed vaguely humanoid monsters? Hmmm. And I'm not sure what you have against the years between 1979 and 1990. > I > personally wish they all looked like variants on a more archetypal > Nosferatu ie. bald, sunken eyed, palid, essentially the reapers from > Blade II (not the greatest movie I know) rather than a mixed bag of > ugly candy. That seems rather boring, and not much fun. And it does not leave much room for artistic creativity.

On Dec 19, 4:28 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 19, 6:07 pm, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think they should be obviously monstrous -- not merely unhealthy > looking people. They should really need obfuscate to preserve the > masquerade. Again, unhealthy to me does not equate. That seems like underselling it. > > think the Nossies with maybe like a handful of exceptions, look > > deformed and creepy compared to most of the vampires from other clans. > > Even Christopher Shy's Ellison Humboldt or Jara Drory or whatever > > could not pass as a normal person. > > Probably not. But I'm not sure what they actually look like, so it is > hard to say. This is fuzzy photoshopping -- a poor substitution for > real artistry. Fair enough, we're dealing with a style issue. > > > How often do you see people that > > look like that? Not just vaguely, in the dark, with dirty glasses and > > an eye infection. Art is to state the obvious, subjective and > > dependent on personal taste. I personally hate the colourful cartoony > > Nosferatu... they look like something out of a bad 80s comic book. > > By "bad" comic book, do you mean the kind that feature grotesquely > deformed vaguely humanoid monsters? Hmmm. And I'm not sure what you > have against the years between 1979 and 1990. Sorry, you caught me. I actually meant cartoon here. Don't know why I said comic book, and I was thinking something like Toxic Avenger or various lame looking monsters from cartoons. I could probably find some more references but that's the general vibe I get. Also I have nothing against the years between 1979 and 1990. I don't know why you would think that since I said nothing disparaging about that decade as a whole, rather suggesting that there was such a thing as a bad 80s something (meaning there must be a good). Music was great in part, some awesome cult movies, and heck I grew up in the late 80s and 90s. But there were lame 80s pop culture stuff too... cool at the time and in itself, not so much if reminiscent in a new form. > > > I > > personally wish they all looked like variants on a more archetypal > > Nosferatu ie. bald, sunken eyed, palid, essentially the reapers from > > Blade II (not the greatest movie I know) rather than a mixed bag of > > ugly candy. > > That seems rather boring, and not much fun. And it does not leave > much room for artistic creativity. Again, to each his own. Most of the vampires in the game look like generic people. Much creativity? I don't think so but it doesn't prevent me from liking them. In fact the real creativity I would think would apply here as well. Trying to create memorable and different looking characters from the same starting template would be interesting and a challenge. But this really just boils down to personal taste which is an argument or discussion that no one can win, only compare opinion. I'm just throwing in my say along with anyone else to say that it's not a landslide community or consumer opinion that they all look too normal or the art sucks in such and such a way.

On Dec 19, 7:54 pm, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > Again, to each his own. Most of the vampires in the game look like > generic people. Not the Nosferatu. That's what's different about them. They look like the monsters they are, which is why other clans are so embarrassed by them. And if they are not going to be that way, I hardly see any point to them at all. > Much creativity? I don't think so but it doesn't > prevent me from liking them. Just curious about something. Which is your favorite clan? I'm guessing it is not the Nosferatu. > In fact the real creativity I would think > would apply here as well. Trying to create memorable and different > looking characters from the same starting template would be > interesting and a challenge. Personally, I am rather fond of the buck-toothed, pointy-eared template that appears so often. But I do want some variety. And regardless of the template used, I do not want it to be presented in some half-assed apologetic manner as though self-conscious and embarrassed that someone will realize that you still like scary monsters, just as you did when you were ten.

[ quoted text not captured ] Incidentally, still waiting for the Spongebob Nosferatu (from the Graveyard Shift - season 3 episode 13...) best - chris big fan of nossies

On Dec 19, 6:13 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 19, 7:54 pm, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > > Not the Nosferatu. That's what's different about them. They look > like the monsters they are, which is why other clans are so > embarrassed by them. And if they are not going to be that way, I > hardly see any point to them at all. I'll grant that the Nosferatu do have as a whole, more unique appearances than any other clan. If I describe the character art on a non-Nosferatu card like say, "male, brunette with short straight hair, wearing a t-shirt" or "middle-aged man with scruffy mustache and beard with closed mouth" it could describe a lot of characters. So if anything the point should be made that effort should be made on defining the other clans in terms of unique looking characters. But if that is their claim to fame, that they should be the only ones with really obviously different looking characters, then I understand. I always just figured that much the same way that the other clans look like varieties of people, the Nossies should have characters that look like the same "species" but variants. > > Just curious about something. Which is your favorite clan? I'm > guessing it is not the Nosferatu. Nope, it's not. It's Ventrue. If we're talking strategically. If we're talking thematically, I hate them, and like Toreador because I pretend to be a musician/artist and associate myself in a lame and nerdy way with them. I have nothing against the Nossies as a thematic clan, but don't like them in game because I don't really find that they can do anything better than another clan can. Ani, Obf, and Pot isn't exactly the greatest mix of in clan disciplines. But that's a whole other discussion that was touched upon in the origins of this thread. > > Personally, I am rather fond of the buck-toothed, pointy-eared > template that appears so often. But I do want some variety. And > regardless of the template used, I do not want it to be presented in > some half-assed apologetic manner as though self-conscious and > embarrassed that someone will realize that you still like scary > monsters, just as you did when you were ten. I agree that the art should be done well regardless of who it is. But my tastes prefer more serious and sinister deformity with a darker look than what most of the Nos or !Nos are. I personally wish that the Nossies looked like terrifying and creepy vampires that I, were I a vampire, would be at least a uneasy around, and not just the weirdo that no one wants to be friends with. But I suppose in the RPG and novels they really were more the latter than the former so I suppose my position is really based on a different idea.

> Petra: She smeared blood on her cheeks, and she rolled up her eyes, > and she's a redhead. To be fair, I consider that evidence enough that redheads are vampiric parasites, and should be purged from the population as soon as possible, to be honest. </obvious troll> :)

On Dec 20, 12:00 am, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: <snippage> > I always just figured that much the same way that the other > clans look like varieties of people, the Nossies should have > characters that look like the same "species" but variants. I googled around and looked at the Reapers you mentioned. They may look sinister and scary, in some sense, but they have perfectly normal features. I would even call them handsome. As far as I can tell from what you have said, you want Nosferatu "species characteristics" to be pale skin, hollow features, and baldness. Sounds to me like you want a Lord Byron type, but without the long black hair. Or to put it another way, you want a bald Toreador. You do not need the Nosferatu for that. If the Toreador are what you prefer, stick with the Toreador (or the Brujah, or the Ventrue). They can certainly be bald if you want them to be. Paleness is a vampiric characteristic -- look at the various cards -- especially the early crypt cards -- around half the vampires are white as sheets (a sign, perhaps that they have not fed recently). Baldness is a human characteristic -- embrace a bald human, and the result is a bald vampire. If you think pale, hollow faced, bald persons are somehow artistically and aesthetically pleasing -- well, aesthetic concerns are a Toreador characteristic. > > Just curious about something. Which is your favorite > > clan? I'm guessing it is not the Nosferatu. > > Nope, it's not. It's Ventrue. If we're talking strategically. Of course we are talking Thematically. > If we're > talking thematically, I hate them, and like Toreador because > I pretend to be a musician/artist and associate myself in a > lame and nerdy way with them. Wow! When I asked what you're favorite clan was, I did not dare ask if it was Toreador. That just fits too perfectly. Toreador are the opposite of the Nossies, to some extent the enemies of the Nossies. Toreador dislike the Nossies for reasons very similar to your dislike of them. They are grotesque, uncool, "cartoonish". Do you see my point? You want to change my favorite clan to make it more like your favorite clan. Would it not be better to stick with yours and leave me mine? I believe you stated that you don't even have much strategic use for their discipline mix. > I agree that the art should be done well regardless of who it > is. But my tastes prefer more serious and sinister deformity > with a darker look than what most of the Nos or !Nos are. > I personally wish that the Nossies looked like terrifying and > creepy vampires that I, were I a vampire, would be at least a > uneasy around, and not just the weirdo that no one wants > to be friends with. As far as I can tell from the Reaper example you provided, this means that you want them to look sinister and scary, without actually looking ugly. > But I suppose in the RPG and > novels they really were more the latter than the former so I > suppose my position is really based on a different idea. Very different. I think you want a cool, scary, bald Toreador.

On 21 joulu, 09:34, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Toreador are the opposite of the Nossies, to some extent the enemies > of the Nossies. Toreador dislike the Nossies for reasons very similar > to your dislike of them. They are grotesque, uncool, "cartoonish". So you like the g1 Nosferatu, cool, that's your opinion. To me and several others they look like Gacy's clown paintings. Calling yourself a Nosferatu fan doesn't give your opinion any special validity so I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that there are people with equally valid but different tastes.

On Dec 21, 12:34 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 20, 12:00 am, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > <snippage> > I googled around and looked at the Reapers you mentioned. They may > look sinister and scary, in some sense, but they have perfectly normal > features. I would even call them handsome. As far as I can tell from > what you have said, you want Nosferatu "species characteristics" to be > pale skin, hollow features, and baldness. Sounds to me like you want > a Lord Byron type, but without the long black hair. Or to put it > another way, you want a bald Toreador. Yeah looks like a bald toreador to me. I suppose again it comes down to different definitions of "handsome". Every pot has its lid though. http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q217/Taliesin_ttlg/blade%202/blade2_reaper.jpg > > You do not need the Nosferatu for that. If the Toreador are what you > prefer, stick with the Toreador (or the Brujah, or the Ventrue). They > can certainly be bald if you want them to be. This is odd. I never claimed I wanted the clans to all be the same clan, nor did I express a preference for baldness as a whole which is a weird assumption. My preference for baldness for the Nosferatu however stems from the original Nosferatu being bald, in pre-VtM origins. > > Paleness is a vampiric characteristic -- look at the various cards -- > especially the early crypt cards -- around half the vampires are white > as sheets (a sign, perhaps that they have not fed recently). Baldness > is a human characteristic -- embrace a bald human, and the result is a > bald vampire. If you think pale, hollow faced, bald persons are > somehow artistically and aesthetically pleasing -- well, aesthetic > concerns are a Toreador characteristic. Firstly, these are all aesthetic concerns. Your preference for artwork, "ugly" or "not", is aesthetic. Again, you're also making it sound like your dumbed-down description of your interpretation of my preference for Nossies is somehow pleasing. I never said I thought the reapers were attractive. Those are your words, not mine. I think they're ugly and freaky, hence my personal preference or idea. I don't want them to look like them because I think they're "hot." It is because I think they're ugly and creepy. Your misunderstanding "apparently" of what I said. > > > > Just curious about something. Which is your favorite > > > clan? I'm guessing it is not the Nosferatu. > > Wow! When I asked what you're favorite clan was, I did not dare ask > if it was Toreador. That just fits too perfectly. And yet the Toreadors have perfectly crappy artwork as well as many generic looking people. Was your point that I want Nossies to be beautiful too? Again, we have a different idea of what's "beautiful" because I don't want them to be. I also don't know where you live that my reaper template, which to the imagination could be made uglier by anyone's standards, is something that could be perceived as normal or even handsome. It doesn't look like someone like that could pass without drawing attention. > Toreador are the opposite of the Nossies, to some extent the enemies > of the Nossies. Toreador dislike the Nossies for reasons very similar > to your dislike of them. They are grotesque, uncool, "cartoonish". > > Do you see my point? You want to change my favorite clan to make it > more like your favorite clan. Would it not be better to stick with > yours and leave me mine? I didn't say I disliked the Nossies. I said I disliked their art. Once more, a suggestion that I want the Nossies to all look like "bald Toreador". I do stick with "my" clan. I was under the impression however that I was entitled to an opinion of art regardless since I still buy the cards and look at them. I have made Nos decks before... a crappy weeniew animalism and also played a Casino Reeds/Echo Trophy deck that was terrible but fun for me. Quotation marks. > > As far as I can tell from the Reaper example you provided, this means > that you want them to look sinister and scary, without actually > looking ugly. Again to each his/her own. The reapers aren't exactly my thing. > > But I suppose in the RPG and > > novels they really were more the latter than the former so I > > suppose my position is really based on a different idea. > > Very different. I think you want a cool, scary, bald Toreador. I don't. But please, misinterpret my tastes and preferences some more. Really, the post preceding mine says it best I feel... equally valid but different tastes. That's all I really intend with this. I didn't say "LSJ! Change the art director! Do what I say!", it's just that's my personal ideal for the art. I also, and please quote and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't say your opinion was wrong and everyone who thinks that is stupid. I even admitted that my preference is based on a more inaccurate depiction of the Nosferatu from the canon material.

suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 21 joulu, 09:34, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Toreador are the opposite of the Nossies, to some extent the enemies > > of the Nossies. �Toreador dislike the Nossies for reasons very similar > > to your dislike of them. �They are grotesque, uncool, "cartoonish". > > So you like the g1 Nosferatu, cool, that's your opinion. To me and > several others they look like Gacy's clown paintings. They were done by many different artists, in many different styles. I am inclined to suspect, therefore, that your hostility is to the underlying concept the artists all intended to depict. Yes, they all do look freakish, bizarre, inhuman, monstrous -- that was the idea. > Calling yourself > a Nosferatu fan doesn't give your opinion any special validity [...] Actually, I think you are wrong. V:tM invented the various clans to appeal to a variety of different tastes, so they could pull in the greatest variety of players and fans. If this remains the goal in V:tES, then the opinion of a Nosferatu fan, who likes the idea of the Nosferatu and wants them to be as Nosferatu as possible, is more relevant, as regard to the Nosferatu, than the opinion of a Toreador fan who wants to make the Nosferatu more like the Toreador to suit his tastes, but who, in all probability, will still prefer the Toreador when he has done neutering the Nossies. Tastes of Nossie fans will differ. I believe Peter Bakija is a Nossie fan, but our tastes did differ to some extent. But I note you did not say you were a Nossie fan. > [...] so I'm > afraid you're going to have to accept that there are people with > equally valid but different tastes. I'm not sure why you think I have trouble accepting this. But I am glad, at least, that you accept that my opinions are just as valid as yours, and am gratified to know that you have no objection whatsoever to my continuing to express them.

> > I'm not sure why you think I have trouble accepting this. But I am > glad, at least, that you accept that my opinions are just as valid as > yours, and am gratified to know that you have no objection whatsoever > to my continuing to express them. I'm sorry, but you actually made me chuckle in reality at this point. Should this be read before or after the paragraph where you say your opinions are more valid, due to being a 'Nosferatu fan'?

On 21 joulu, 21:38, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > So you like the g1 Nosferatu, cool, that's your opinion. To me and > > several others they look like Gacy's clown paintings. > > They were done by many different artists, in many different styles. I > am inclined to suspect, therefore, that your hostility is to the > underlying concept the artists all intended to depict. I assumed it was clear enough that I was talking about Chester Dubois etc. > > Calling yourself > > a Nosferatu fan doesn't give your opinion any special validity [...] > > Actually, I think you are wrong. V:tM invented the various clans to > appeal to a variety of different tastes, so they could pull in the > greatest variety of players and fans. If this remains the goal in > V:tES, then the opinion of a Nosferatu fan, who likes the idea of the > Nosferatu and wants them to be as Nosferatu as possible, is more > relevant, as regard to the Nosferatu, than the opinion of a Toreador > fan who wants to make the Nosferatu more like the Toreador to suit his > tastes, but who, in all probability, will still prefer the Toreador > when he has done neutering the Nossies. > > Tastes of Nossie fans will differ. I believe Peter Bakija is a Nossie > fan, but our tastes did differ to some extent. But I note you did not > say you were a Nossie fan. I'm a V:TES fan and I guess that includes Nossies. Not that it has any relevance to this discussion. > > [...] so I'm > > afraid you're going to have to accept that there are people with > > equally valid but different tastes. > > I'm not sure why you think I have trouble accepting this. Because you keep implying that the opinions Original Nosferatu Gangstas are more relevant.

[ quoted text not captured ] That should be 'opinions of'.

[ quoted text not captured ] I think the statement, which I do not feel is quite accurately quoted, should be read and understood in its context, where I explain what I meant by it. Certainly, being a Nosferatu fan SHOULD give one's opinions more weight, when it comes to Nosferatu, just as a V:tES fan's preferences should have greater weight when it comes to V:tES. An M:tG fan's preference may be "equally valid", but if he is going to play M:tG anyway, why change V:tES to suit him? Similarly, why change the Nosferatu to suit those who prefer Toreador? But if you are trying to convict me of actually preferring my own opinions, on some level, you are liable to succeed. "Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view." (GK Chesterton, on "The Suicide of Thought"). To suggest that a man may not believe his own opinion is any way preferable to someone else's opposing is really the ultimate in intolerance, because the suggestion essentially seeks to ban all opinions.. But in this context, I have said nothing to suggest that those who prefer vampires that are more normal looking, more subtly vampiric, more subtly monstrous, should not get exactly what they want. If they prefer Toreador, or Brujah, or Malkavians, or Ventrue, of Gangrel, they should get those clans. I said nothing to imply their opinion is less valid. What I objected to was having those who prefer other clans effectively ban the Nosferatu from the game by turning the Nosferatu into the sort of vampires they prefer. Their opinions may be "equally valid" in some sense, but there are over 2 dozen other clans in the game through which they may explore their "equally valid" preferences. The Nosferatu may be a minority preference, but they were never meant to be anything else -- they constitute only one out of the original seven clans. Other vampires are already prone to pallor; they already have scary fangs when they choose to bare them; they are already prone to the drives of the Beast, that tend to turn them into monsters. Look at Yorik, from the first Sabbat set. His features seem normal enough, but he seems to be in the grip of the Beast, and his mouth is wide open in a fanged snarl. He is a Malkavian Antitribu, which works fine for this sort of vampire. The Nosferatu are not needed to fill this Niche, or to indulge this "equally valid" preference. Look at Roland Bishop, from the original set. His pale wrinkled face ain't pretty, but if he draws in his fangs and wipes the blood off his chin, he should have no trouble walking into a convenience store to buy some smokes. He is Malkavian (though I suspect the artist may have intended Gangrel). I could give other examples from earlier sets that might arguably be used as Nosferatu if used today (Rake, Yuri the Talon, Ricki van Dempsi, Brazil, Dan Murdock, Melek, Franciscus, Petru Sipos, Salbatore Bokkengro, Cameron, Horatio, Frederick the Weak, Hugo, Jacko, Jacob Bragg, Luther, Rex). Judging by some cards, current standards deem so forgiving that I could probably list many more. By using these sort of portraits to represent the Nosferatu, we are not gaining anything we did not have before. We are simply losing the original conception of the Nosferatu.

On Dec 18, 6:52 pm, Felix <felix_vicent...@gmx.net> wrote: > >Plus, they also have Sheldon, the best Justicar in Group 1. > > you have looked at Anneke right? Anneke's great, but she's so one-dimensional. 98% of the time I see her, she's in some sort of intercept wall deck (usually with Assault Rifles) or in an Alexandra/Anneke/Anson/maybe Francois deck. Sheldon is much more flexible, showing up in Nos Royalty decks, and his Fortitude and Auspex can also make the good basis of a deck. I've even seen Sheldon intercept wall decks as well. Anneke has just two things going for her: A ridiculously good special, and her Toreador clan affiliation (letting her use toys like TGB). But she pays too much for + bleed (not that great since she has PRE) plus she has a rather weak selection of disciplines. Which is why Sheldon is more bang for the buck in terms of overall efficiency. > > #3. Why do the Nosferatu get superior synergy when it comes to out-of- > > clan disciplines? Have you seen the sheer amount of Auspex, Dominate, > > and Fortitude available in their more recent groupings? Add in the ! > > Nos, and the results are jaw dropping: > > and yet , theire in Clan disciplines are so poor , Compare Nikolas > Vermeulen und Banjamin Rose to Guilbert Dane and Sir Walter Nash? Um, Gilbert, Sir Walter, and Benjamin all have 6 points in disciplines. Gilbert and Sir Water have three superiors (all in-clan), but Benjamin has two superiors and two inferiors, which isn't necessarily that much worse. And his AUS gives him access to bleed bounce. The only other argument is that Gilbert and Sir Walter have DOM, but that gets into a more complicated issue regarding the balance between different disciplines. Benjamin has the same number of points as Gilbert and Sir Walter, *plus* he also has a nifty special as well. So how is he that bad? Nikolaus has one superior and three inferiors. Fortitude is quite useful for him. And although he has one less point than Gilbert/ Walter, he does have a really good special that lets you #1. Regain your pool investment and #2. Bring out more minions quickly. Nikolaus is really awesome! Do you really think he's terrible? > > - Why is Zelios so much better than Bloody Mary and Allanzan Serata? > > (Hint: Free, useful special) > > alright , while you keep tapping the vampire youve invested eigth pool > in im going to bleed you with ....lets say Gratiano? And then I untap and block with Zelios using his Animalism. Guard Dogs + Sense the Savage Way + Instinctive Reaction. If I'm a dedicated intercept deck I can even use Falcon's Eye and Speak with Spirits. And if you do stealth past me, I can Touch of Pain you! > >Petrodon is one of the best new Group 5 > > Justicars. Easily better than Gabrielle > > yea , because a bleed special that will matter very rarely easily > outclasses a powerd up F. Villon. who wouldve not thougth that? Petrodon has Fortitude for multi-acting. He has superior OBF (vs Francois' inferior) so he can get actions through better. And Justicar > Prince. Plus he has an extra discipline point over Francois. Petrodon's Thaumaturgy isn't that useful. But Francois' Chimerstry and Potence are pretty weak. Francois has a very good special (but limited multi-acting capacity). The only other major advantage he has is that he's a Toreador and he has really good synergy with his Group 1/2 clanmates. Do you really think Francois is so much better than Petrodon? > > - Nosferatu also get the best clan card in this set (Warsaw Station). > > *Cough* New Carthage *Cough* 3 pool is pricey, and there's enough anti-location cards around that it just makes you a big juicy target. No, I'd still rather have Warsaw Station than New Carthage. Warsaw gives you an extra minion action each turn. And in a pinch, it can save your key minion from getting diablerized by getting an automatic rescue.

In article <980ec66c-7231-46c9...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > Certainly, being a Nosferatu fan SHOULD give one's > opinions more weight, when it comes to Nosferatu, just as a V:tES > fan's preferences should have greater weight when it comes to V:tES. Fair enough. I'm certainly a Nosferatu fan. And I think that the vast majority of Nosferatu portraits in VTES are totally reasonable, if not excellent, both aesthetically and thematically. There are a few portraits I really don't like: -Regilio, as I think it is a piss poor illustration. -Krid, as I think it is a slightly less piss poor illustration. -Allonzo Petrodon, as while it is a very well done illustration, he is just another normal looking guy, and while I'm totally ok with Lukas being a totally normal looking guy for apparent back story reasons, having two of them doing the same thing seems silly. But that being said, it is still a perfectly solid picture. -Josef Von Bauren, as I just think he is both not particularly scary looking and he looks really un-Inner Circle like. -Daliyah Mk II, as I like Daliyah Mk I, and the new picture strikes me as simply less good. That's pretty much it. Some I like more than others (I'm very partial to Selma, KoKo, Duck, Sammy, Daliyah, Shannon Price, Agatha, Calebros, Petra, Nikolaus Mk II, Beetleman, Fredrico, and Baron Dioudonne from the new set), and some are pretty much totally reasonable throw aways. But for the most part, they are all totally reasonable. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

I should point that Petrodon DOES have a canon picture in the books. (I think War of the Ages? I forget which one but it's the one featuring anarchs obviously.) It looks way better than the current VTES version.

On Dec 19, 6:28 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 19, 6:07 pm, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I guess it comes down to definitions and perceptions of "normal". > > I think they should be obviously monstrous -- not merely unhealthy > looking people. They should really need obfuscate to preserve the > masquerade. And yet, the idea that they might be doing so *in the portrait* strikes you as totally out of the realm of acceptability? - D.J.

Meej wrote: > On Dec 19, 6:28�pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think they should be obviously monstrous -- not merely unhealthy > > looking people. �They should really need obfuscate to preserve the > > masquerade. > > And yet, the idea that they might be doing so *in the portrait* > strikes you as totally out of the realm of acceptability? Those are your words, not mine. I'd rather just say I don't like the idea. The key word here, I think, is "portrait". The idea is to depict the vampire -- or at least it used to be. And if I am going to rate the portraits as portraits (which is what I have been doing) then I am going to take off points from those that are unsuccessful in depicting their subject. I like the idea that the portraits represent the vampires, and other cards represent the powers that they use. This is achieved, for instance, when Smudge bleeds, and then Lucretia masks the bleed -- everyone gets the thematic idea that Lucretia was using her obfuscate powers to look like Smudge. This does not mean it would be a clever idea to use Smudge's portrait for a Nosferatu crypt card. At least I don't think so. One could design a card called "Jakob the Elusive" and for its "portrait" depict an empty night-time street. I might get the joke -- I might even find it preferable to a picture of a normal dude (since it allows me to imagine the Nosferatu it fails to depict). But as a picture of a Nosferatu, it should get pretty low marks, to say the least. There is also value in consistency. It was established early on, with the Group 1 Nossies, that the portrait represents the unmasked vampire -- as he actually is -- as ancient powerful Methuselahs (the Players) could perceive him. Breaking this rule only creates thematic confusion.

On 22 dec, 22:04, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > The key word here, I think, is "portrait". The idea is to > depict the vampire -- or at least it used to be. And if I am going to > rate the portraits as portraits (which is what I have been doing) then > I am going to take off points from those that are unsuccessful in > depicting their subject. > > I like the idea that the portraits represent the vampires, and other > cards represent the powers that they use. This is achieved, for > instance, when Smudge bleeds, and then Lucretia masks the bleed -- > everyone gets the thematic idea that Lucretia was using her obfuscate > powers to look like Smudge. This does not mean it would be a clever > idea to use Smudge's portrait for a Nosferatu crypt card. At least I > don't think so. > I couldn't agree more.

Peter D Bakija wrote: > And I think that the vast > majority of Nosferatu portraits in VTES are totally reasonable, if not > excellent, both aesthetically and thematically. My tastes certainly seem to be pickier than yours. But we do seem to jibe on a number of particulars > There are a few > portraits I really don't like: > > -Regilio, as I think it is a piss poor illustration. I'm actual more-or-less ok with Regilio. He does not look like a "real" Nosferatu, but that kinda fits with his atypical disciplines. He looks like an outcast vampire, that somehow got accepted by the Nosferatu clan (perhaps weak blooded with a Nosferatu sire), and that's what I always took him to be. But Regilio does not look at all scary. Perhaps that is your beef. > -Krid, as I think it is a slightly less piss poor illustration. > > -Allonzo Petrodon, as while it is a very well done illustration, he is > just another normal looking guy, and while I'm totally ok with Lukas > being a totally normal looking guy for apparent back story reasons, > having two of them doing the same thing seems silly. But that being > said, it is still a perfectly solid picture. If this sort of thing is happening, then I would say the design team is digging too deep in search of back story. The cards should tell the story. If, in the course of the game, we have a Nosferatu clan impersonate a Toreador, or vice versa, then this is perfectly fine. > -Josef Von Bauren, as I just think he is both not particularly scary > looking and he looks really un-Inner Circle like. He's not my favorite, but I have no particular hostility to him. > -Daliyah Mk II, as I like Daliyah Mk I, and the new picture strikes me > as simply less good. I agree. But, of course, I have the other picture to choose, so this isn't a problem. It is more a problem where I might want to use the abilities and disciplines, but hate the picture. > That's pretty much it. I think you also agreed with me on Toby, IIRC. > Some I like more than others (I'm very partial to > Selma, KoKo, Duck, Sammy, Daliyah, Shannon Price, Agatha, Calebros, > Petra, Nikolaus Mk II, Beetleman, Fredrico, and Baron Dioudonne from the > new set), [...] I would also count Shannon, Duck, Sammy, Dalyah and Calebros among my favorites, and am happy with all the others except Petra & Dieudonne (I don't think I have Fredrico). I prefer the first Nikolaus. > [...] and some are pretty much totally reasonable throw aways. But > for the most part, they are all totally reasonable. You are no doubt a more reasonable person than I am. I still cannot bring myself to play Group 3 Nossies (it is, I suppose, completely unreasonable of me to be this affected by artwork in what is essentially, a game of strategy) But here's how I rate the various Groups. My list is incomplete because my collection is incomplete: *** (3 stars): I really like this picture. ** (2 stars): I am happy with this picture * (1 star ): I can live with it. X (no star): Sorry, it’s just not a Nosferatu; or if it is, I hate the picture anyway NOSFERATU: GROUP 1 *** Chester, Duck, Ebanezer, Grendel, Lucretia, Marty, Sammy, Sebastian, Tiberius ** Agrippina, Dimple, Koko, Selma, Sheldon, Tusk * Tusk-A (1) Average Rating: 2.5 stars (2.6, excluding Tusk-A). NOSFERATU GROUP 2 *** Calebros, Dalya-v1, Harrod, Nikolaus-v1, ** Amadeo, Judah, Laurent, Murat * Regilio Average Rating: 2.33 stars NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 2 *** Shannon ** Agatha, Beast, Dani, Kendrick, Olivia, YongSun, YongSun-A * Cailean, Calebos, Cicatriz, Nigel, Ox, Tommy X Christianus, Josef Average Rating: 1.44 stars NOSFERATU GROUP 3 *** [ -- ] ** Cock, Kurt, Sundown * AlonzoG, Casino, Darva, Ellison, Gerard, Jara, Mouse, Wolfgang X Amelia, Clarissa, Gemini, Khalid, Krid, Tammy Average Rating: 0.82 stars NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 3 *** [ -- ] ** Aeron, Ingram, Julio, Mateusz, Teresita * [ -- ] X Smallpox, Tock Average Rating: 1.43 stars NOSFERATU GROUP 4 *** Foureyes, Rabbat ** Beetleman, Echo, Gustaphe, JosefVanB * Jeremy, Shahid, Topaz X Dieudonne, Petra, Toby Average Rating: 1.42 NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 4 *** JosephC, Skidmark ** Black-Annis, Nails, Ysador * Aaron, Blister, Frank, Humo, Icarus, Old Ned, Servius, Stick X Greensleeves, Lukas Average Rating: 1.33 NOSFERATU GROUP 5 *** [ -- ] ** Benjamin, Ruxandra, Sergei, Slag * Zelios X [ -- ] Average Rating: 1.80 NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 5 *** (3 stars): ** (2 stars): Lubomira * (1 star ): (no star): Average Rating: 2.00

In article <43ccca92-6739-4711...@c36g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > But Regilio does not look at all > scary. Perhaps that is your beef. Nah--I just think it is a poorly rendered, poorly conceived illustration. And I have a lot of leeway for bad rendering. Regardless of the content of the picture, his is one that I just think was done very badly. > If this sort of thing is happening, then I would say the design team > is digging too deep in search of back story. The cards should tell > the story. Sure, but this is an instance of them throwing a bone to the people who are invested in the RPG I guess. Again, the picture is fine, but on this instance, I'm with you on the thematic front; as noted, I was cool with Lukas getting the picture he got due to back story. Petrodon seems like just another of the same. But I'm not like, gonna not use him in a deck or anything (I completely irrationally refuse to use Regilio in decks just 'cause I dislike his picture--the only reason Sammy ever gets any play in my decks is simply 'cause I can't bring myself to use Regilio). > He's not my favorite, but I have no particular hostility to him. Yeah, the picture is ok, I guess, in a design sense. But in a thematic sense, he looks like he should be a 2 cap and not the King of the Nosferatu. > I think you also agreed with me on Toby, IIRC. Oh, yeah, I hate his picture too. But again, not for thematic reasons, but 'cause I think it is a crappily painted picture. > I would also count Shannon, Duck, Sammy, Dalyah and Calebros among my > favorites, and am happy with all the others except Petra & Dieudonne > (I don't think I have Fredrico). I prefer the first Nikolaus. I kind find Nikolaus I to be kinda more cartoony (although I'm not particularly opposed to cartoony illustrations if they are good; I like a lot of Becky Jolsten?'s pictures) than it needs to be--a little extra goofy, where Nikolaus II is kinda creepy and better rendered for my money. But I never kicked Nikolaus I out of bed or anything. > You are no doubt a more reasonable person than I am. I still cannot > bring myself to play Group 3 Nossies (it is, I suppose, completely > unreasonable of me to be this affected by artwork in what is > essentially, a game of strategy) Yeah, see, if you don't like Christopher Shy, then you aren't going to like the G3 Nosferatu (as he did, like, over half of them for whatever reason). I like Christopher Shy's work in general, so am perfectly happy with the G3 guys. > NOSFERATU: GROUP 1 > *** Chester, Duck, Ebanezer, Grendel, Lucretia, Marty, Sammy, > Sebastian, Tiberius > ** Agrippina, Dimple, Koko, Selma, Sheldon, Tusk > * Tusk-A (1) Ah, see, I'm totally fond of Agrippina, Dimple, KoKo, and Selma. I find Sheldon reasonable, but he isn't my favorite. I really dislike Tusk the original (due to being kinda crappy looking, in a rendering sense). I'm happier with Tusk Advanced than not. > NOSFERATU GROUP 2 > *** Calebros, Dalya-v1, Harrod, Nikolaus-v1, > ** Amadeo, Judah, Laurent, Murat > * Regilio I really like Laurent and Judah, image wise. Murat I can take or leave. Harrod I'm not real fond of, but I like his picture better than Josef Von Bauren. Regilio is pretty much the only vampire in the game I won't use due to his horrible picture. > NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 2 > *** Shannon > ** Agatha, Beast, Dani, Kendrick, Olivia, YongSun, YongSun-A > * Cailean, Calebos, Cicatriz, Nigel, Ox, Tommy > X Christianus, Josef > Average Rating: 1.44 stars I love Shannon, Agatha, Beast, and Nigel, image wise. Cicatriz and Josef are both totally good for my money. Ox and Yong Sun Advanced are both kinda lame. > NOSFERATU GROUP 3 > *** [ -- ] > ** Cock, Kurt, Sundown > * AlonzoG, Casino, Darva, Ellison, Gerard, Jara, Mouse, Wolfgang > X Amelia, Clarissa, Gemini, Khalid, Krid, Tammy > Average Rating: 0.82 stars Ah, see, I really like Sundown, Alonzo, Ellison, Gerrard, Jara, Amelia, and Gemini. I find Krid and Wolfgang problematic for being kinda crappy illustrations. > NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 3 > *** [ -- ] > ** Aeron, Ingram, Julio, Mateusz, Teresita > * [ -- ] > X Smallpox, Tock I'm very pro Mateusz, Teresita, and Tock. Not a huge fan of Ingram or Aeron. > NOSFERATU GROUP 4 > *** Foureyes, Rabbat > ** Beetleman, Echo, Gustaphe, JosefVanB > * Jeremy, Shahid, Topaz > X Dieudonne, Petra, Toby Ah, see, Petra is one of my favorite illustrations in the set. Very well rendered. Totally reasonable, thematically. Kinda hot, in a creepy way. I like Beetleman a lot, 'cause he is funny. Dieudonne strikes me as fantastically entertaining--very well rendered and incredibly creepy, in a non obvious way. Toby I'm totally with you on, but primarily 'cause it is just a badly rendered image. > NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 4 > *** JosephC, Skidmark > ** Black-Annis, Nails, Ysador > * Aaron, Blister, Frank, Humo, Icarus, Old Ned, Servius, Stick > X Greensleeves, Lukas I think Green Sleeves and Lukas are both excellent pictures. I like Old Ned, Stick, Nails, Joseph, and Skidmark a lot. Black Annis is kinda crappy. Blister isn't great, but kinda funny so it grew on me. > NOSFERATU GROUP 5 > *** [ -- ] > ** Benjamin, Ruxandra, Sergei, Slag > * Zelios I like Zelios a lot. Benjamin is pretty good. Ruxandra is kinda gold, Sergei and Slag are both pretty good. > NOSFERATU ANTITRIBU GROUP 5 > *** (3 stars): > ** (2 stars): Lubomira I love Lubomira's picture. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 19 Dec, 15:52, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 9:36 am, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > > > I can agree with what you're saying here. And sure, my post is pretty > > much a troll post :) > > I'm just allergic to posts that include strong opinions and where the > > author doesn't seem to have done the research. > > Heh. Well, see, in this instance, I don't really think that the > research is that relevant--VTES and VTM are different games. It is > nice, I suppose, that the VTES vampires are based on VTM characters, > but mostly irrelevant. And heck, how would you even *do* this > research? Go to the local university and try and get Schenectady By > Night on interlibrary loan? > > -Peter Well, that was kinda my point. If you haven't done the research you shouldn't have strong opinions about things and you shouldn't post a long rant post about it. Instead you should make a post saying that you dislike the art of the Nosferatu and !Nosferatu vampires and ask if anyone knows what's up with it. Why do these monsters look like regular people on their pictures? But never mind. My first post wasn't really important. It was just a spontaneous reacion to newsgroup ranting. Regards and merry X-mas //Alex

In article <cb5a48f6-19c8-45f5...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, _angst_ <a...@student.chalmers.se> wrote: > But never mind. My first post wasn't really important. It was just a > spontaneous reacion to newsgroup ranting. Ah, fair enough :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

_angst_ wrote: > Well, that was kinda my point. If you haven't done the research you > shouldn't have strong opinions about things and you shouldn't post a > long rant post about it. This is silly. Background research into individual fictional characters from sourcebooks and novels is not required (nor should it be required) to appreciate and enjoy V:tM, much less V:tES. Anyone with some appreciation of horror fiction should be able to appreciate the themes of this card game. As in V:tM, the story should develop through the play of the game. If my opinion does not matter because I have not done the necessary research into out-of-print novels and sourcebooks, then perhaps White Wolf does not want my money either. > Instead you should make a post saying that > you dislike the art of the Nosferatu and !Nosferatu vampires [...] That's what I did. That is what you are saying I should not have done. Make up your mind. > [...] and ask > if anyone knows what's up with it. Why do these monsters look like > regular people on their pictures? If you have such information, you are certainly welcome to share it.

On Dec 22, 6:46 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > [...] and ask > > if anyone knows what's up with it. Why do these monsters look like > > regular people on their pictures? > > If you have such information, you are certainly welcome to share it. > The Nosferatu look like Nosferatu. If anything, most of them are a bit over the top. Is there any chance that this thread will just die anytime soon?

I would liek to chime in that Ruxandra is an excellent rendition of nosferatu using obfuscate IMO. of course, there's something to be said about originality now if the rest were to follow suit. >.<

Peter D Bakija wrote: > jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > > But Regilio does not look at all > > scary. Perhaps that is your beef. > > Nah--I just think it is a poorly rendered, poorly conceived > illustration. And I have a lot of leeway for bad rendering. Regardless > of the content of the picture, his is one that I just think was done > very badly. I'm surprised. I would have thought that the one thing anyone would have to admit about Regilio is that the picture is well-rendered. I particularly love that night-time backdrop. Surely if there is any objection to the picture, it must be Regilio himself. > > If this sort of thing is happening, then I would say the design team > > is digging too deep in search of back story. The cards should tell > > the story. > > Sure, but this is an instance of them throwing a bone to the people who > are invested in the RPG I guess. Again, the picture is fine, but on this > instance, I'm with you on the thematic front; as noted, I was cool with > Lukas getting the picture he got due to back story. Petrodon seems like > just another of the same. I think that, if one wanted to get the best Nosferatu out of one's artists, the thing to do would be simply to throw canon out the window, and give those artists who feel so inclined free reign to paint whatever kind of Nossies they pleased. They are the artists. They are the experts on what will look most weirdly and effectively grotesque. Just because (for instance) some hack word-smith had an idea that a guy named "Cock Robin" with a beak would be a neat idea for a Nosferatu Justicar does not mean that assigning an artist to render this concept will produce the most impressive results. > But I'm not like, gonna not use him in a deck > or anything (I completely irrationally refuse to use Regilio in decks > just 'cause I dislike his picture--the only reason Sammy ever gets any > play in my decks is simply 'cause I can't bring myself to use Regilio). > > > He's not my favorite, but I have no particular hostility to him. > > Yeah, the picture is ok, I guess, in a design sense. But in a thematic > sense, he looks like he should be a 2 cap and not the King of the > Nosferatu. I see what you mean. But I've made Dimple the Nosferatu Justicar many times, so I'm not bothered by the incongruity. > > I would also count Shannon, Duck, Sammy, Dalyah and Calebros among my > > favorites, and am happy with all the others except Petra & Dieudonne > > (I don't think I have Fredrico). I prefer the first Nikolaus. > > I kind find Nikolaus I to be kinda more cartoony (although I'm not > particularly opposed to cartoony illustrations if they are good; I like > a lot of Becky Jolsten?'s pictures) than it needs to be--a little extra > goofy, where Nikolaus II is kinda creepy and better rendered for my > money. But I never kicked Nikolaus I out of bed or anything. Nikolaus-v1 seems to have more personality. The eyes, in particular, are more expressive. I don't know if this is related to the "cartoony" aspect you noted. > > You are no doubt a more reasonable person than I am. I still cannot > > bring myself to play Group 3 Nossies (it is, I suppose, completely > > unreasonable of me to be this affected by artwork in what is > > essentially, a game of strategy) > > Yeah, see, if you don't like Christopher Shy, then you aren't going to > like the G3 Nosferatu (as he did, like, over half of them for whatever > reason). I like Christopher Shy's work in general, so am perfectly happy > with the G3 guys. I'm not overwhelmingly opposed to Shy's work. He does not stop me, for instance, from playing Group-2 Salubri. I understand that he is able to produce alot of portraits cheaply, making an expansion more economically feasible than it might be otherwise. I'd just like him kept away from the Nossies. <snippage> > Ah, see, Petra is one of my favorite illustrations in the set. Very well > rendered. Totally reasonable, thematically. Kinda hot, in a creepy way. I agree that it's a great picture. I just don't think it's a Nosferatu. She could be Malkavian, for instance. Other clans deserve scary vampires too. > > NOSFERATU GROUP 5 > > *** [ -- ] > > ** Benjamin, Ruxandra, Sergei, Slag > > * Zelios > > I like Zelios a lot. [...] While googling around, I discovered that Zelios is also based on some canon source somewhere. Apparently, he looks almost completely normal, except that he appears to be made of stone.

Chris Berger wrote: > Is there any chance that this thread will just die > anytime soon? Sure, if people stop responding to it.

Drace wrote: > I would liek to chime in that Ruxandra is an excellent rendition of > nosferatu using obfuscate IMO. It's a nice picture. I just hope they're not trying to set a precedent for the idea that the portrait may represent an illusion -- a masked vampire.

On 23 dec, 01:46, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > _angst_ wrote: > > Well, that was kinda my point. If you haven't done the research you > > shouldn't have strong opinions about things and you shouldn't post a > > long rant post about it. > > This is silly. Background research into individual fictional > characters from sourcebooks and novels is not required (nor should it > be required) to appreciate and enjoy V:tM, much less V:tES. Sure, it's not *required* at all. Heck, the game would be played 100% the same if there weren't any art at all, just text. But I personally find the fact that VTES is (mostly) based on novels/ RPG characters/etc, to be adding a whole lot of fun. I've never played VTM and never will (because I don't like the way an RPG plays), but I've read novels, stuff on the net, things mentioned here, etc about the background and I like to share that info with the people I play with. It's a dimension to this game that's partially responsible for me liking it so much, I don't consider it irrelevant at all. Anyone > with some appreciation of horror fiction should be able to appreciate > the themes of this card game. As in V:tM, the story should develop > through the play of the game. If my opinion does not matter because I > have not done the necessary research into out-of-print novels and > sourcebooks, then perhaps White Wolf does not want my money either. > Of course your opinion matters just as much as anyone else's. But Angst's post was more about the fact that even though you might dislike a picture a whole lot because you think it doesn't look "right", you might want to check with the backstory first before going all-out complaining about it. Because the artist might actually have it spot on. Then your beef really is more with the VTM backstory than the VTES art. I have no idea what you mean by WW not wanting your money.

On Dec 22, 4:04 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > Meej wrote: > > On Dec 19, 6:28 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I think they should be obviously monstrous -- not merely unhealthy > > > looking people. They should really need obfuscate to preserve the > > > masquerade. > > > And yet, the idea that they might be doing so *in the portrait* > > strikes you as totally out of the realm of acceptability? > > Those are your words, not mine. I'd rather just say I don't like the > idea. OK... then: [ quoted text not captured ] The precedent you're concerned about not setting is already set. It's the one you weren't willing to say you found unacceptable already. And given that, in V:tM Canon, a vampire can't be photographed (see Camera Phone), I don't know how the portrait on the card should be seen as anything *but* a portrait - how the vampire chooses to be seen. The fact that Nosferatu are monstrously ugly much of the time, and are walking Masquerade breaches, and use Obfuscate to hide their monstrousness when they have to, doesn't mean most of them don't let that Obfuscate down around other Kindred. But it certainly also shouldn't be taken to mean they all do.

On Dec 23, 1:10 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > The precedent you're concerned about not setting is already set. It's > the one you weren't willing to say you found unacceptable already. I don't know any portrait that is clearly intended to represent a masked vampire INSTEAD of the true vampire. Baron Dieudonne MAY be intended as such an example, but I am not happy with Baron Dieudonne -- as I stated. > And given that, in V:tM Canon, a vampire can't be photographed (see > Camera Phone), I don't know how the portrait on the card should be > seen as anything *but* a portrait - how the vampire chooses to be > seen. Illogical. "Portrait" and "photograph" are not synonyms. "Cannot be photographed" does not mean the same thing as "cannot be accurately viewed and depicted" (by a painter, for instance). > The fact that Nosferatu are monstrously ugly much of the time, > and are walking Masquerade breaches, and use Obfuscate to hide their > monstrousness when they have to, doesn't mean most of them don't let > that Obfuscate down around other Kindred. But it certainly also > shouldn't be taken to mean they all do. Even if they maintain their illusion constantly, a Methuselah should be capable of perceiving their true appearance most of the time.

On Dec 23, 12:52 pm, Teeka <zoramu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 dec, 01:46, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > _angst_ wrote: > > > Well, that was kinda my point. If you haven't done the research you > > > shouldn't have strong opinions about things and you shouldn't post a > > > long rant post about it. > > > This is silly. Background research into individual fictional > > characters from sourcebooks and novels is not required (nor should it > > be required) to appreciate and enjoy V:tM, much less V:tES. > > Sure, it's not *required* at all. Heck, the game would be played 100% > the same if there weren't any art at all, just text. That's not what I am getting at at all. I think thematics is extremely important. For some reason (and I don't understand why), alot of people seem to think that if a person thinks thematics is important, he must have unquestioned loyalty to each and every V:tM related novel and V:tM related sourcebook ever released. > But I personally find the fact that VTES is (mostly) based on novels/ > RPG characters/etc, to be adding a whole lot of fun. I think the general themes, lore, and background mythology of V:tM adds a whole lot of fun. I think incorporating specific individual characters from specific novels or sourcebooks is largely irrelevant to that fun. (In V:tM players and storytellers generally create their own characters, and rarely buy all the sourcebooks). Card design can be inspired by some novel, sure, but the setup should be for the game to tell its own story. > Of course your opinion matters just as much as anyone else's. But > Angst's post was more about the fact that even though you might > dislike a picture a whole lot because you think it doesn't look > "right", you might want to check with the backstory first before going > all-out complaining about it. Angst was wrong. The game should be designed to appeal to people who have not read any novel or sourcebook, but who merely have a general appreciation of the themes. Otherwise, WW is limiting their customer base too much. > Because the artist might actually have > it spot on. Then your beef really is more with the VTM backstory than > the VTES art. Since I have a right to my beef regardless, this is irrelevant. Even V:tM fans don't have to like every novel or sourcebook White Wolf ever released, nor should they be required to read them in order to have opinions. Hopefully, the game will have a broader appeal than die- hard V:tM trivia buffs. Indeed, the game shoud appeal to those who are not V:tM fans at all, but merely horror fans. > I have no idea what you mean by WW not wanting your money. I thought the point was fairly simple. If WW goal is only to appeal to die-hard V:tM trivia buffs, then they aiming at a base that is far too narrow, in which case V:tES is doomed.

In message <1c20a20a-a8f6-4539...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroup s.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> writes: >And given that, in V:tM Canon, a vampire can't be photographed (see >Camera Phone), I don't know how the portrait on the card should be >seen as anything *but* a portrait - how the vampire chooses to be >seen. Lasombra and certain other vampires (with a particular Merit/Flaw thingy) couldn't. I don't recall it being a generic vampiric trait. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On 23 dec, 22:30, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 23, 12:52 pm, Teeka <zoramu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 23 dec, 01:46, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > _angst_ wrote: > > > > Well, that was kinda my point. If you haven't done the research you > > > > shouldn't have strong opinions about things and you shouldn't post a > > > > long rant post about it. > > > > This is silly. Background research into individual fictional > > > characters from sourcebooks and novels is not required (nor should it > > > be required) to appreciate and enjoy V:tM, much less V:tES. > > > Sure, it's not *required* at all. Heck, the game would be played 100% > > the same if there weren't any art at all, just text. > > That's not what I am getting at at all. I think thematics is > extremely important. For some reason (and I don't understand why), > alot of people seem to think that if a person thinks thematics is > important, he must have unquestioned loyalty to each and every V:tM > related novel and V:tM related sourcebook ever released. > But if a character gets used, the art of that character should be correctly based on the source material IMO. So in a sense, the art design needs to have a certain amount of loyalty. > > But I personally find the fact that VTES is (mostly) based on novels/ > > RPG characters/etc, to be adding a whole lot of fun. > > I think the general themes, lore, and background mythology of V:tM > adds a whole lot of fun. I think incorporating specific individual > characters from specific novels or sourcebooks is largely irrelevant > to that fun. (In V:tM players and storytellers generally create their > own characters, and rarely buy all the sourcebooks). Card design can > be inspired by some novel, sure, but the setup should be for the game > to tell its own story. > > > Of course your opinion matters just as much as anyone else's. But > > Angst's post was more about the fact that even though you might > > dislike a picture a whole lot because you think it doesn't look > > "right", you might want to check with the backstory first before going > > all-out complaining about it. > > Angst was wrong. The game should be designed to appeal to people who > have not read any novel or sourcebook, but who merely have a general > appreciation of the themes. Otherwise, WW is limiting their customer > base too much. > Nah, you're taking this way too far. We're talking *some* vampires of *one* clan here. That's hardly any case for saying WW is limiting their customer base. > > Because the artist might actually have > > it spot on. Then your beef really is more with the VTM backstory than > > the VTES art. > > Since I have a right to my beef regardless, this is irrelevant. Even > V:tM fans don't have to like every novel or sourcebook White Wolf ever > released, nor should they be required to read them in order to have > opinions. Hopefully, the game will have a broader appeal than die- > hard V:tM trivia buffs. Indeed, the game shoud appeal to those who > are not V:tM fans at all, but merely horror fans. > > > I have no idea what you mean by WW not wanting your money. > > I thought the point was fairly simple. If WW goal is only to appeal > to die-hard V:tM trivia buffs, then they aiming at a base that is far > too narrow, in which case V:tES is doomed. Again, you're blowing things way out of proportion. No-one will stop buying VTES just because some of the Nosferatu don't look right, dude.

On Dec 23, 5:23 pm, Teeka <zoramu...@gmail.com> wrote: > But if a character gets used, the art of that character should be > correctly based on the source material IMO. So in a sense, the art > design needs to have a certain amount of loyalty. If thematic objections can be answered only by reference to some obscure and unavailable backstory, then it would be better if that particular character were not adapted at all. <snip> > Nah, you're taking this way too far. We're talking *some* vampires of > *one* clan here. That's hardly any case for saying WW is limiting > their customer base. I never suggested that WW was limiting their customer base. Angst did, by suggesting that only die-hard V:tM trivia buffs are qualified to have opinions related to game thematics. I merely pointed out his error.

On Dec 23, 4:34 pm, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: > In message <1c20a20a-a8f6-4539-8357-1f1c6a7db...@v38g2000yqb.googlegroup > > s.com>, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> writes: > >And given that, in V:tM Canon, a vampire can't be photographed (see > >Camera Phone), I don't know how the portrait on the card should be > >seen as anything *but* a portrait - how the vampire chooses to be > >seen. > > Lasombra and certain other vampires (with a particular Merit/Flaw > thingy) couldn't. I don't recall it being a generic vampiric trait. Hmm. Might be confusing my vampire paradigms, then. In any case, not a major part of my point.

[ quoted text not captured ] you probably confuse it with Vampire: Requiem. In the setting vampire image start to fade.

On 23 dec, 23:32, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 23, 5:23 pm, Teeka <zoramu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > But if a character gets used, the art of that character should be > > correctly based on the source material IMO. So in a sense, the art > > design needs to have a certain amount of loyalty. > > If thematic objections can be answered only by reference to some > obscure and unavailable backstory, then it would be better if that > particular character were not adapted at all. > Got a point there. But as sets get released, LSJ gets less and less options (especially when we're talking special cases like IC's, Justicars etc). > <snip> > > > Nah, you're taking this way too far. We're talking *some* vampires of > > *one* clan here. That's hardly any case for saying WW is limiting > > their customer base. > > I never suggested that WW was limiting their customer base. Angst > did, by suggesting that only die-hard V:tM trivia buffs are qualified > to have opinions related to game thematics. I merely pointed out his > error. I don't think he did. I think he just pointed out that rants aren't that useful when the ranter isn't aware of the reasons behind the things he rants about (but could be, by doing a little research). Plus, I think that die hard buffs, as you call it, are experts at the backstory which is used. And expert opinions are always very useful and meaningful. I don't think being very loyal to backstory automatically means limiting the customer base. What, 'the rest of us non-buffs' will suddenly find ourselves not interested in this game anymore... just because the art on some cards differ a bit from what we *thought* was the standard? It's not that easy to scare people away, unless they were having serious doubts about liking the game already.

On Dec 23, 4:10 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 23, 1:10 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > The precedent you're concerned about not setting is already set. It's > > the one you weren't willing to say you found unacceptable already. > > I don't know any portrait that is clearly intended to represent a > masked vampire INSTEAD of the true vampire. Baron Dieudonne MAY be > intended as such an example, but I am not happy with Baron Dieudonne > -- as I stated. *sigh* Nevermind. It's becoming clear to me that either we just can't communicate on this, or you're being deliberately obstinate and argumentative to the point of trolling. So I'm done with this discussion, except for one followup point that relates to just how poor the communication is being here. > > And given that, in V:tM Canon, a vampire can't be photographed (see > > Camera Phone), I don't know how the portrait on the card should be > > seen as anything *but* a portrait - how the vampire chooses to be > > seen. > > Illogical. "Portrait" and "photograph" are not synonyms. "Cannot be > photographed" does not mean the same thing as "cannot be accurately > viewed and depicted" (by a painter, for instance). That's exactly the point I was making - portrait and photograph are not synonyms. Photography is one form of portraiture, but if (as I may have misremembered, James points out, but let's go with it for a moment) a vampire can't be photographed, the portrait must be some other form of viewing and depicting. Like, say, by a painter. Who, potentially, doesn't have auspex. And it's potentially a "portrait" that the vampire in question chose his appearance for. Which means, given that we're talking about supernaturally powerful creatures, that "accurately" isn't necessarily the case at all. > Even if they maintain their illusion constantly, a Methuselah should > be capable of perceiving their true appearance most of the time. And? What about your theoretical painter? - D.J.

On Dec 23, 6:04 pm, Teeka <zoramu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23 dec, 23:32, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > If thematic objections can be answered only by reference to some > > obscure and unavailable backstory, then it would be better if that > > particular character were not adapted at all. > > Got a point there. But as sets get released, LSJ gets less and less > options (especially when we're talking special cases like IC's, > Justicars etc). LSJ has all the options in the world, just as Richard Garfield did. He can print 100 different Nosferatu justicars in 100 different even numbered groups. > I don't think he did. I think he just pointed out that rants aren't > that useful when the ranter isn't aware of the reasons behind the > things he rants about (but could be, by doing a little research). I don't think it is useful, of constructive, to dismiss my opinions by calling them a "rant". It is merely insulting. > Plus, I think that die hard buffs, as you call it, are experts at the > backstory which is used. And expert opinions are always very useful > and meaningful. Not necessarily. The backstory, from some bottom of the barrel sourcebook, may not have not worth adapting anyway. That the Nosferatu are hideous is one of the game's central themes. > I don't think being very loyal to backstory automatically means > limiting the customer base. What, 'the rest of us non-buffs' will > suddenly find ourselves not interested in this game anymore... just > because the art on some cards differ a bit from what we *thought* was > the standard? Without some creative consistency, soon there will be no theme at all. Good art sticks to its own rules. In an RPG, what you often have is too many authors creating inconsistency. That is why it can be damaging to go to bottom-of-the-barrel sourcebooks for one's inspiration. > It's not that easy to scare people away, unless they > were having serious doubts about liking the game already. I never said it was easy to scare people away.

On Dec 23, 6:41 pm, Meej <dj...@comcast.net> wrote: > That's exactly the point I was making - portrait and photograph are > not synonyms. Photography is one form of portraiture, but if (as I > may have misremembered, James points out, but let's go with it for a > moment) a vampire can't be photographed, the portrait must be some > other form of viewing and depicting. Like, say, by a painter. Who, > potentially, doesn't have auspex. And it's potentially a "portrait" > that the vampire in question chose his appearance for. Which means, > given that we're talking about supernaturally powerful creatures, that > "accurately" isn't necessarily the case at all. The relevant viewers of the cards are the Methuselahs who play them. > > Even if they maintain their illusion constantly, a Methuselah should > > be capable of perceiving their true appearance most of the time. > > And? What about your theoretical painter? He's a Methuselah, or someone with enough Auspex to create an accurate painting for a Methuselah. These pictures are for Methuselahs. This is getting far too nihilistic for my taste. I see no point to the portraits at all if we, the Methuselahs, are not even allowed to believe they actually represent anything meaningful.

In article <843f6783-9a50-4a79...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm surprised. I would have thought that the one thing anyone would > have to admit about Regilio is that the picture is well-rendered. Bah. It is a crap fest. Stupid amorphous cloak? What is up with the random dreadlocks? Horribly drawn face? Bad. Bad picture. > I see what you mean. But I've made Dimple the Nosferatu Justicar many > times, so I'm not bothered by the incongruity. Well, sure. But Dimple doesn't start out as Justicar. One assumes that if one is the Inner Circle member (i.e. the most powerful member of a clan), one would look the part. Dimple can be made Justicar, but he is still Dimple. And is being Justicar 'cause it is useful for someone. And is funny. > I agree that it's a great picture. I just don't think it's a > Nosferatu. She could be Malkavian, for instance. Other clans deserve > scary vampires too. How is she not Nosferatu? She is covered with creepy red veins all over her arms? She is pallid and has sunken eyes. Nosferatu-tackular. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 23, 6:50 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <843f6783-9a50-4a79-8126-a378cf25a...@q26g2000prq.googlegroups.com>, > > jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > I'm surprised. I would have thought that the one thing anyone would > > have to admit about Regilio is that the picture is well-rendered. > > Bah. It is a crap fest. Stupid amorphous cloak? He's not wearing nice clothes. He is dressed in rags. > What is up with the random dreadlocks? Those Medusa-like strands are the only arguable suggestion of Nosferatu heritage > Horribly drawn face? There is nothing wrong with the face, realism wise. It is just a homely face -- neither beautiful, nor scary. Looks kinda like a lost soul.

On Dec 23, 6:56 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > There is nothing wrong with the face, realism wise. It is just a > homely face -- neither beautiful, nor scary. Looks kinda like a lost > soul. Like a crappy lost soul. -Peter

Meej wrote: > *sigh* Nevermind. It's becoming clear to me that either we just > can't communicate on this, or you're being deliberately obstinate and > argumentative to the point of trolling. I don't want you to think I am trolling you, so I am going to have a go at explaining how I understood our exchange. I think the portraits of the Vampires should be accurate portraits. You then argued, or I understood you to argue, that an "accurate" picture of a vampire was a meaningless concept, because vampires could not be photographed (James Coupe has since pointed out that most vampires can be photographed). I disagreed. I believe the concept of an "accurate" picture can be meaningful, even if it is impossible through photography. I further stated, or meant to state, that a person who accurately perceives a vampire can paint what he sees, even if he cannot photograph it. My hypothetical painter is also an accurate perceiver. It was irrelevant to me that one can also hypothesize a painter who is not an accurate perceiver. I know that such paintings are possible. What I am saying is that I don't want that kind of painting for the vampire portraits I believe that ancient powerful Methuselahs (the players) are capable of accurately perceiving their minions. I believe the vampire portraits should represent the Methuselah's accurate perspective.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > I believe that ancient powerful Methuselahs (the players) are capable > of accurately perceiving their minions. I believe the vampire > portraits should represent the Methuselah's accurate perspective. Methuselahs can probably tell that Marcus isn't a Ventrue.

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, I'm not particularly fond of this sort of thing. But in this case, the players can also figure out that Marcus is not a Ventrue, without necessarily having reference to the clan novels, or wherever this subplot is from. Marcus' disciplines, plus his special ability granting benefits to the Sabbat, plus the fact that his advanced version is Lasombra, pretty much tells the story. Moreover, a player's clan symbol does not so much represent the perceptions of Methuselahs as it represents the perceptions of peers. It is the perception of other Ventrue, not the perceptions of Methuselahs, that determines whether Marcus can participate in the Ventrue Directorate Assembly. But the art on the cards has no game significance. If it is not for the players (the Methuselahs), then who is it for?

Considering the game is based on the source material it seems odd to insinuate that the game should not rely on source characters and utilize traits that appeal to players familiar with the source. Petrodon looking as he does should not affect a player using it for pure strategy since the picture does nothing to affect the mechanics. Players playing and enjoying the "feel" should acknowledge that the game is based on an existing source and the ideas are drawn from there. VTES is not a stand alone concoction and would not exist in its state without prior written sources. Pretending otherwise seems selectively ignorant. I don't feel the game should exclusively appeal only to players with no prior knowledge of story, nor should it only appeal to those that do. Apparently for every criticism someone on here has regarding the suitability of certain portraits, someone else thinks that art is perfectly suitable or better than the other person's suggestions. So presuming everybody is paying money for these cards with varying familiarity to backstory then really no one on here is right nor wrong, because there's enough people on here who may appreciate that, and those that don't probably wouldn't quit because a couple cards don't make sense. If that was the quitting criteria, or simply hating certain pictures, no one would be playing. For the record I should observe that I do understand and appreciate the argument that the obfuscate ability shouldn't necessarily factor into the Nos artwork as it is an ability that while depicted detracts from the truth. While I have no problem with Petrodon for example, it may be because I understand the background which doesn't leave me scratching my head. Then again, I don't know Enkidu's backstory but it doesn't bother me in the slightest that he looks like a gargoyle dragon or wondering how Jesus Alcala can protect himself from some degree of sunlight by wearing a sombrero. I'm more bothered by the artwork that just looks lame, but reading some of these posts, the very artwork I think is the most kindergarten, is liked by some. So really, to each their own, and whatever the design team is approving or commissioning looks better and better to me.

vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > Considering the game is based on the source material it seems odd to > insinuate that the game should not rely on source characters and > utilize traits that appeal to players familiar with the source. There are many sources for "the game." They are not all necessarily good, nor internally consistent. Even if they are worth adapting, they should adapted in a way that permits the players of the card game to appreciate them. For instance, if Lukas is a disguised Settite (for instance - I don't know what his issue is, and no-one seems to want to tell me) this certainly should be clear to the Methuselah controlling him. In other words, it should be clear to me. Otherwise, you have merely drawn a bad picture of a Nosferatu. > Petrodon looking as he does should not affect a player using it for > pure strategy since the picture does nothing to affect the mechanics. You enjoy stating the obvious. Still, I think art matters, and this discussion is about the art. If you are not interested in the subject, please don't participate. > Players playing and enjoying the "feel" should acknowledge that the > game is based on an existing source and the ideas are drawn from > there. Which source material? I am familiar with the existing source material, which is precisely why I think it destroys a theme when too many Nosferatu look like regular people. Thematic loyalty to one source will necessarily prevent thematic loyalty to another source, if they are inconsistent. Primary loyalty should be to the core materials. Perhaps they are not inconsistent, but if so, the later source needs to be adapted in a way that makes this clear. > VTES is not a stand alone concoction and would not exist in its > state without prior written sources. Nobody says it is. > Pretending otherwise seems selectively ignorant. Pretending I have pretended otherwise is called "arguing with a straw man". > Apparently for every criticism someone on here has regarding the > suitability of certain portraits, someone else thinks that art is > perfectly suitable or better than the other person's suggestions. Not true. My discussion with Peter, for instance, has had agreement as well as disagreement. > For the record I should observe that I do understand and appreciate > the argument that the obfuscate ability shouldn't necessarily factor > into the Nos artwork as it is an ability that while depicted detracts > from the truth. Great. > While I have no problem with Petrodon for example, it > may be because I understand the background which doesn't leave me > scratching my head. Then why not share the information. > Then again, I don't know Enkidu's backstory but it > doesn't bother me in the slightest that he looks like a gargoyle > dragon [...] Gangrel, or Gangrel antitribu, getting gradually more inhuman, is a fairly consistent theme. See Gangrel Atavism.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > But in this case, the players can also figure out that Marcus is not a > Ventrue, without necessarily having reference to the clan novels, or > wherever this subplot is from. Marcus' disciplines, plus his special > ability granting benefits to the Sabbat, plus the fact that his > advanced version is Lasombra, pretty much tells the story. Players can "figure out" that a pretty Nosferatu is using Obfuscate. Or that a scarred Toreador has a scar. Or that a pretty Nosferatu has been deeply scarred by some supernatural force. These figurings may not match the RPG backstory (other than acknowledging that the backstory includes some concept of the Nosferatu's clan weakness), but then again, the RPG backstory doesn't matter to those players (other than the general clan weakness nod), so it's OK. > Moreover, a player's clan symbol does not so much represent the > perceptions of Methuselahs as it represents the perceptions of peers. Another distinction with no difference. It can just as equally be asserted that the card art does not represent the perceptions of Methuselahs as it represents the perceptions of peers. > It is the perception of other Ventrue, not the perceptions of > Methuselahs, that determines whether Marcus can participate in the > Ventrue Directorate Assembly. > > But the art on the cards has no game significance. If it is not for > the players (the Methuselahs), then who is it for? It's for the players (the players). Just like the icons, blood drop, pool symbol, card skins, and game name.

On Dec 24, 8:12 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Players can "figure out" that a pretty Nosferatu is using Obfuscate. > Or that a scarred Toreador has a scar. Or that a pretty Nosferatu has been > deeply scarred by some supernatural force. They can see the scar. As for the two competing explanations for the pretty Nosferatu, that sounds like an admission that they CAN'T figure it out. In any event, too much of this sort of thing means that eventually players will decide it is all bullcrap and stop figuring. Would it be a terrible tragedy game-wise? Perhaps not. But it would still be bad artistry. > > Moreover, a player's clan symbol does not so much represent the > > perceptions of Methuselahs as it represents the perceptions of peers. > > Another distinction with no difference. > It can just as equally be asserted that the card art does not represent the > perceptions of Methuselahs as it represents the perceptions of peers. If you say so. In that case, I would prefer the information on the cards to be accurate, including the clan information, at least to the extent that the Methuselah himself is not deceived. Whether there can be a "true" clan, independent of kindred perceptions, seems to me a tricky question. But I do think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between true appearance and illusion, and I believe the game draws such distinctions. In any event, we, the Methuselahs, should know the truth about our minions.

jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 24, 8:12 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Players can "figure out" that a pretty Nosferatu is using Obfuscate. >> Or that a scarred Toreador has a scar. Or that a pretty Nosferatu has been >> deeply scarred by some supernatural force. > > They can see the scar. As for the two competing explanations for the > pretty Nosferatu, that sounds like an admission that they CAN'T figure > it out. Heh. No, that's exactly the point. Players concerned about the backstory can indeed figure it out to the degree necessary. As you noted, it isn't necessary to "know". Just to "figure out" a plausible explanation. Indeed, even players who read RPG source books never really "know" these things, either -- various source books are written as if by (and through the limited knowledge of) various persona in the RPG world. > In any event, too much of this sort of thing means that > eventually players will decide it is all bullcrap and stop figuring. > Would it be a terrible tragedy game-wise? Perhaps not. But it would > still be bad artistry. Sure. Too much would indeed, by definition, be bad. >>> Moreover, a player's clan symbol does not so much represent the >>> perceptions of Methuselahs as it represents the perceptions of peers. >> Another distinction with no difference. >> It can just as equally be asserted that the card art does not represent the >> perceptions of Methuselahs as it represents the perceptions of peers. > > If you say so. In that case, I would prefer the information on the > cards to be accurate, including the clan information, at least to the > extent that the Methuselah himself is not deceived. To each his own. > Whether there can be a "true" clan, independent of kindred > perceptions, seems to me a tricky question. But I do think a > meaningful distinction can be drawn between true appearance and > illusion, and I believe the game draws such distinctions. In any > event, we, the Methuselahs, should know the truth about our minions. That's one way of approaching it, sure. You are welcome to "know" the "truth" as far as you like (whatever degree of truthiness suits you), whether that truth is reflected a particular way in card art/text/icons or in some other way in card/text/icons.

On Dec 24, 5:58 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > There are many sources for "the game." They are not all necessarily > good, nor internally consistent. Even if they are worth adapting, > they should adapted in a way that permits the players of the card game > to appreciate them. For instance, if Lukas is a disguised Settite > (for instance - I don't know what his issue is, and no-one seems to > want to tell me) this certainly should be clear to the Methuselah > controlling him. In other words, it should be clear to me. > Otherwise, you have merely drawn a bad picture of a Nosferatu. Other than VtM, what are the primary sources? Aside from traditional vampiric lore which was already integrated into VtM, or other references like the real world, guns, cars, etc. I'm not sure. Perhaps I should have used "brand" instead of source. > > > Petrodon looking as he does should not affect a player using it for > > pure strategy since the picture does nothing to affect the mechanics. > > You enjoy stating the obvious. Still, I think art matters, and this > discussion is about the art. If you are not interested in the > subject, please don't participate. Yeah I've been talking about art. This is supplementary as a contrast for how art still doesn't actually affect any mechanics so Nos in disguise isn't the end of everything. You say that incorporating specific individual characters from source is largely irrelevant to that fun. So if it's irrelevant, neither detracting nor adding to the fun, than why is it negative to include it for those that do appreciate or even derive an extra sense of enjoyment because they are familiar with it? > Which source material? I am familiar with the existing source > material, which is precisely why I think it destroys a theme when too > many Nosferatu look like regular people. Thematic loyalty to one > source will necessarily prevent thematic loyalty to another source, if > they are inconsistent. Primary loyalty should be to the core > materials. Perhaps they are not inconsistent, but if so, the later > source needs to be adapted in a way that makes this clear. Yeah but we're talking again about your opinion that it destroys consistency. I'm sure a lot of people believe it is consistent. It's your perception that it does. Stating the obvious again I know, but whatever. Also you're saying that thematic loyalty to one source prevents thematic loyalty to another source. What are you talking about? Vtes isn't a source for anything else in this discussion. Or do you mean the game is based on another source that conflicts with VtM? > > > Pretending otherwise seems selectively ignorant. > > Pretending I have pretended otherwise is called "arguing with a straw > man". Thanks for the tip. Fair enough but attempting to dismiss it for the sake of people who don't know the background is still ignorant. And this as everything else is opinion. > > > Apparently for every criticism someone on here has regarding the > > suitability of certain portraits, someone else thinks that art is > > perfectly suitable or better than the other person's suggestions. > > Not true. My discussion with Peter, for instance, has had agreement > as well as disagreement. What the hell? But someone still probably disagrees on whatever the two of you agree on, and you disagree on the rest. How is that "not true"? Also you've got a knack for proclaiming people's thoughts, opinions, and subjective observations incorrect if it opposes your own. Stating someone's opinions are wrong somehow and not accepting their validity or trying to downplay it as you did much earlier in these posts, as well as twist my words on occasion subject to your discretion, is really awesome. (for example: "Angst was wrong.") Really? Good job. > > > While I have no problem with Petrodon for example, it > > may be because I understand the background which doesn't leave me > > scratching my head. > > Then why not share the information. Sure, in the novels Petrodon is portrayed as being a vain man. He has a commission done of him, a sculpture I believe, but always poses in masked form because he clings to his humanity in that way. > > > Then again, I don't know Enkidu's backstory but it > > doesn't bother me in the slightest that he looks like a gargoyle > > dragon [...] > > Gangrel, or Gangrel antitribu, getting gradually more inhuman, is a > fairly consistent theme. See Gangrel Atavism. Thanks. If I cared enough that I felt it was affecting my enjoyment of the game, I would have gone digging for the info myself. Or asked. Also since you didn't ask, there's enough sources on the net to track down some info on the characters I was interested in.

On Dec 24, 12:00 pm, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > Other than VtM, what are the primary sources? I was referring to VtM sources. I was saying that there are many of them; that some are more central than others; and inevitably not all of them are consistent; or good; or worth adapting. > You say that incorporating > specific individual characters from source is largely irrelevant to > that fun. So if it's irrelevant, neither detracting nor adding to the > fun, than why is it negative to include it for those that do > appreciate or even derive an extra sense of enjoyment because they are > familiar with it? I do NOT oppose adapting such characters in a manner that "neither adds nor detracts" from the fun of those unfamiliar. > Yeah but we're talking again about your opinion that it destroys > consistency. I'm sure a lot of people believe it is consistent. It's > your perception that it does. Stating the obvious again I know, but > whatever. Totally. All you have to say is that my opinion is just my opinion and others might disagree. You don't even bother to disagree yourself. You are boring me to death. > Also you're saying that thematic loyalty to one source > prevents thematic loyalty to another source. What are you talking > about? The inevitable inconsistencies that arise in multiple RPG source materials. > > > Apparently for every criticism someone on here has regarding the > > > suitability of certain portraits, someone else thinks that art is > > > perfectly suitable or better than the other person's suggestions. > > > Not true. My discussion with Peter, for instance, has had agreement > > as well as disagreement. > > What the hell? But someone still probably disagrees on whatever the > two of you agree on, and you disagree on the rest. How is that "not > true"? Why should I speculate on opinions that no-one has expressed? You are just being a nihilist, and saying that no-one should be allowed to express opinions about artwork. > Also you've got a knack for proclaiming people's thoughts, > opinions, and subjective observations incorrect if it opposes your > own. Stating someone's opinions are wrong somehow and not accepting > their validity or trying to downplay it as you did much earlier in > these posts, as well as twist my words on occasion subject to your > discretion, is really awesome. (for example: "Angst was wrong.") > Really? Good job. I had fun talking to Peter, disagreements and all, because he actually expressed an opinion. All you have to say here is that no-one is allowed to express an actual opinion because it might upset those who disagree. > > Then why not share the information. > > Sure, in the novels Petrodon is portrayed as being a vain man. He has > a commission done of him, a sculpture I believe, but always poses in > masked form because he clings to his humanity in that way. I think a picture of the real Petrodon, with his sculpture in the background, might have been more effective at conveying this theme.

[ quoted text not captured ] Now that I mention it, I actually have a vague memory that I saw such a picture in a sourcebook once.

On Dec 24, 10:39 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 24, 12:00 pm, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > > I was referring to VtM sources. I was saying that there are many of > them; that some are more central than others; and inevitably not all > of them are consistent; or good; or worth adapting. Who cares? Once the ccg adapts one point of reference they won't bother needing a second remake that contradicts it. > > I do NOT oppose adapting such characters in a manner that "neither > adds nor detracts" from the fun of those unfamiliar. You just oppose it seemingly because you believe it was somehow bad but the game still exists to this point and is well. > > > Yeah but we're talking again about your opinion that it destroys > > consistency. I'm sure a lot of people believe it is consistent. It's > > your perception that it does. Stating the obvious again I know, but > > whatever. > > Totally. All you have to say is that my opinion is just my opinion > and others might disagree. You don't even bother to disagree > yourself. You are boring me to death. Dude, you bored me to death a long time ago so I guess we're even now. I disagreed with you from the onset. The only thing I found amusing is how you twist words and proclaim your bs like it's matter of fact then tell other people that they're wrong. > > > > > Apparently for every criticism someone on here has regarding the > > > > suitability of certain portraits, someone else thinks that art is > > > > perfectly suitable or better than the other person's suggestions. > > Why should I speculate on opinions that no-one has expressed? You are > just being a nihilist, and saying that no-one should be allowed to > express opinions about artwork. Except that people did express opinions which is why you had contrary opinions. I never said that. In fact I've been supporting the equality of all opinions one way or the other. But again, another thing you don't get. My arguments on here have been in support of opinions which you're good at shooting down while heralding your own know-it-all-ism. > > > Also you've got a knack for proclaiming people's thoughts, > > opinions, and subjective observations incorrect if it opposes your > > own. Stating someone's opinions are wrong somehow and not accepting > > their validity or trying to downplay it as you did much earlier in > > these posts, as well as twist my words on occasion subject to your > > discretion, is really awesome. (for example: "Angst was wrong.") > > Really? Good job. > > I had fun talking to Peter, disagreements and all, because he actually > expressed an opinion. All you have to say here is that no-one is > allowed to express an actual opinion because it might upset those who > disagree. Nope. I did express a lot of my opinions. Again, deriving a false meaning from my words. The whole point is it shouldn't "upset" anyone. We should be allowed to say what we want without you retorting by telling us that what we said perspectively is wrong. > > > > Then why not share the information. > > > Sure, in the novels Petrodon is portrayed as being a vain man. He has > > a commission done of him, a sculpture I believe, but always poses in > > masked form because he clings to his humanity in that way. > > I think a picture of the real Petrodon, with his sculpture in the > background, might have been more effective at conveying this theme. Anyway what I should have said from the beginning rather than be objective was that your preferences for art suck. The characters you like from any of those groups are exactly the kindergartenish and gaudy pieces that made the game's artwork lame in the early stages. You may as well make a game based on My Pet Monster and color your own doodles with crayolas if that's the kind of art that appeals. Regilio is garbage. The fact that you defended that piece says a lot. I'm glad that they've been phasing out that tripe and that the design team steered away hopefully with the same idea, and think that the Nosferatu as they are have been getting equal share of attention to that of the other clans. Big, dorky monsters are teh lamezors. They should look cool in their creepiness and ugliness, not like muppets on crack. But yeah, Merry Christmas. Keep it real! Hope the next set has more crappy looking vampires for you.

On Dec 25, 12:32 am, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 24, 10:39 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > I had fun talking to Peter, disagreements and all, because he actually > > expressed an opinion. All you have to say here is that no-one is > > allowed to express an actual opinion because it might upset those who > > disagree. > > Nope. I did express a lot of my opinions. Again, deriving a false > meaning from my words. The whole point is it shouldn't "upset" anyone. Who's upset? > We should be allowed to say what we want without you retorting by > telling us that what we said perspectively is wrong. But saying that I think those who oppose my views are wrong, is a natural and necessary correllary to saying I think my views are right. And if I do not say I think I am correct, I am not expressing an opinion at all. > Anyway what I should have said from the beginning rather than be > objective was that your preferences for art suck. YES!!! That is EXACTLY what you should have said! It would have been INFINITELY better than this no-one-dare-express-an-opinion bullcrap. > The characters you > like from any of those groups are exactly the kindergartenish and > gaudy pieces that made the game's artwork lame in the early stages. > You may as well make a game based on My Pet Monster and color your own > doodles with crayolas if that's the kind of art that appeals. Regilio > is garbage. The fact that you defended that piece says a lot. I'm glad > that they've been phasing out that tripe and that the design team > steered away hopefully with the same idea, and think that the > Nosferatu as they are have been getting equal share of attention to > that of the other clans. Big, dorky monsters are teh lamezors. They > should look cool in their creepiness and ugliness, not like muppets on > crack. You know, this is a big improvement. You are totally wrong, of course. Extreme bad taste. Self-conscious terror that others will think you childish masquerading as sopthistication. But at least you are actually saying what you think. > But yeah, Merry Christmas. Keep it real! AND A MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU!!! > Hope the next set has > more crappy looking vampires for you. May LSJ, in his considerable wisdom and mercy, hear and honor your kind wishes.

On 25 dec, 08:13, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 25, 12:32 am, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Dec 24, 10:39 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I had fun talking to Peter, disagreements and all, because he actually > > > expressed an opinion. All you have to say here is that no-one is > > > allowed to express an actual opinion because it might upset those who > > > disagree. > > > Nope. I did express a lot of my opinions. Again, deriving a false > > meaning from my words. The whole point is it shouldn't "upset" anyone. > > Who's upset? > See, that's the kind of responses you make that irritate people so much. You write something, someone responds and refers directly to *your specific* words, even quoting your text, and then you act like they're totally weird for using the referenced words. Please stop doing that. > > We should be allowed to say what we want without you retorting by > > telling us that what we said perspectively is wrong. > > But saying that I think those who oppose my views are wrong, is a > natural and necessary correllary to saying I think my views are > right. And if I do not say I think I am correct, I am not expressing > an opinion at all. > Rigggggght... except it's perfectly ok to have a an opinion but to leave plenty of space for others to, maybe, change your mind. That's thinking with an open mind. What you describe here is just pig- headedness. > > Anyway what I should have said from the beginning rather than be > > objective was that your preferences for art suck. > > YES!!! That is EXACTLY what you should have said! It would have been > INFINITELY better than this no-one-dare-express-an-opinion bullcrap. > Sigh.. people have expressed opinions here many many times. But is is clear to me now, that unless someone states their opinion combined with an attitude of total unwillingness to ever change that opnion, you don't see it as an opinion at all. What you want is not a discussion. You want people to just exchange views and nothing more, to say stuff along the lines of "I think this sucks/rocks/whatever and that's final. If you don't agree, you are wrong and you can stop talking, because I will not listen to any of your arguments." Which is completely pointless, it's the kind of attitude that makes any kind of discussion impossible: either you agree with the other, or you both think the other is wrong and that's that. Why you even post on a forum, I really really wonder. > > The characters you > > like from any of those groups are exactly the kindergartenish and > > gaudy pieces that made the game's artwork lame in the early stages. > > You may as well make a game based on My Pet Monster and color your own > > doodles with crayolas if that's the kind of art that appeals. Regilio > > is garbage. The fact that you defended that piece says a lot. I'm glad > > that they've been phasing out that tripe and that the design team > > steered away hopefully with the same idea, and think that the > > Nosferatu as they are have been getting equal share of attention to > > that of the other clans. Big, dorky monsters are teh lamezors. They > > should look cool in their creepiness and ugliness, not like muppets on > > crack. > > You know, this is a big improvement. You are totally wrong, of > course. Oh yes. OF COURSE he is wrong. Because he doesn't agree with you. And since you are always right OF COURSE, he must be wrong OF COURSE. Yes OF COURSE. Why didn't we realize this sooner? sigh.

LSJ wrote: > jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote: > > They can see the scar. As for the two competing explanations for the > > pretty Nosferatu, that sounds like an admission that they CAN'T figure > > it out. > > Heh. No, that's exactly the point. Players concerned about the backstory can > indeed figure it out to the degree necessary. As you noted, it isn't necessary > to "know". Just to "figure out" a plausible explanation. Hmmm, yes. But if we carry that just a little further, then they don't really need pictures on the cards at all. That way, they can just imagine the sorts of individuals that suit them. I'm not sure where you are headed with this, but be careful that you do not end up proving too much. I do think the art matters. The picture on the cards does not really communicate much about the Vampire -- and I actually think it is best that way. Using the picture as inspiration, the player can imagine any sort of character he pleases. But if the only way a player can reconcile himself to the picture is to hypothesize that the picture is an illusion and a lie, then the artwork has failed on a very fundamental level. It is not an aid and an inspiration to his imaginings, but an obstacle to be overcome. > Indeed, even players who read RPG source books never really "know" these > things, either -- various source books are written as if by (and through the limited > knowledge of) various persona in the RPG world. It's really just a standard RPG setup. The PLAYERS are not supposed to know much. The STORYTELLER is the one who knows the Truth, and he gets to decide what the Truth is. The "Truth is Out There" but it is for the Storyteller to know and the Players to find out. It does not necessarily mean the game designers are espousing nihilism -- such would in fact be very boring, for it would mean, in the final analysis, that there were no mysteries for Players to solve. But, in any event, V:tES is NOT meant to be a game experienced from the perspective of a typical V:tM player. The player's perspective -- that of a powerful, ancient , 4th Generation Vampire -- is far closer to the perspective of the Storyteller. We are the guys who know what's going on. > > In any event, too much of this sort of thing means that > > eventually players will decide it is all bullcrap and stop figuring. > > Would it be a terrible tragedy game-wise? Perhaps not. But it would > > still be bad artistry. > > Sure. Too much would indeed, by definition, be bad. It was not my intent to mouth tautologies. I was not saying that too much of a good thing is bad, but rather that too much of a bad thing is less likely to be salvaged by a player's imaginative attempts to compensate. The better the artist's work (whether the art be a picture or the game as a whole), the more the player or fan will be inspired to participate. > > Whether there can be a "true" clan, independent of kindred > > perceptions, seems to me a tricky question. But I do think a > > meaningful distinction can be drawn between true appearance and > > illusion, and I believe the game draws such distinctions. In any > > event, we, the Methuselahs, should know the truth about our minions. > > That's one way of approaching it, sure. > > You are welcome to "know" the "truth" as far as you like (whatever degree of > truthiness suits you), whether that truth is reflected a particular way in card > art/text/icons or in some other way in card/text/icons. Well yes, I suppose. But again, this can reach a level where it proves too much. I can, for instance, decide that half the group 3 Nosferatu portraits are illusions generated by obfuscate, and then obtain pictures that represent what I imagine to be their true appearance, and paste these pictures over the original oval portraits. But if I do that, it is certainly no complement to the original artwork. The theme of the Nosferatu is that they are hideously ugly and deformed monstrosities. To present a normal person as a Nosferatu, on the excuse that he is using obfuscate, is to waste a theme. It may mollify those who are embarrassed by the Nosferatu, and wish they did not exist (such as the "monsters are for kiddies" crowd, who presumably prefer to think of idolize vampires as beautiful and sexy immortals). But it will hardly do much for those who appreciate the clan to begin with. I mean, we could also use pictures of Toadstools to represent the next batch of Ravnos. I mean, they could all be using Chimeristry, right?

zoramu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 25 dec, 08:13, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Dec 25, 12:32 am, vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Dec 24, 10:39 am, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > I had fun talking to Peter, disagreements and all, because he actually > > > > expressed an opinion. �All you have to say here is that no-one is > > > > allowed to express an actual opinion because it might upset those who > > > > disagree. > > > > > Nope. I did express a lot of my opinions. Again, deriving a false > > > meaning from my words. The whole point is it shouldn't "upset" anyone. > > > > Who's upset? > > See, that's the kind of responses you make that irritate people so > much. You write something, someone responds and refers directly to > *your specific* words, even quoting your text, and then you act like > they're totally weird for using the referenced words. Please stop > doing that. I knew he was referencing my words, but did not understand his point and asked for clarification. > > > We should be allowed to say what we want without you retorting by > > > telling us that what we said perspectively is wrong. > > > > But saying that I think those who oppose my views are wrong, is a > > natural and necessary correllary to saying I think my views are > > right. �And if I do not say I think I am correct, I am not expressing > > an opinion at all. > > Rigggggght... except it's perfectly ok to have a an opinion but to > leave plenty of space for others to, maybe, change your mind. That's > thinking with an open mind. What you describe here is just pig- > headedness. That is not required. I have never claimed to be infallible, and, of course, I reserve the right to change my mind. But I am under no obligation to promise to change my opinions before even engaging in discussion. I am under no obligation to say "I may be wrong" as a precedent to any opinion I express. Those who think I am wrong are certainly welcome to say so, and to try to convince me of my error. What might be inappropriate is insulting one's opponent by calling him "pigheaded", especially when the only basis for the insult is a refusal to promise to surrender one's opinions. Of course, it is also best to avoid ad-hominem attacks, even if more politely expressed. This entire post of yours is one long ad-hominem attack against me. > > > Anyway what I should have said from the beginning rather than be > > > objective was that your preferences for art suck. > > > > YES!!! That is EXACTLY what you should have said! �It would have been > > INFINITELY better than this no-one-dare-express-an-opinion bullcrap. > > Sigh.. people have expressed opinions here many many times. But is is > clear to me now, that unless someone states their opinion combined > with an attitude of total unwillingness to ever change that opnion, > you don't see it as an opinion at all. No. That's not what I said. You are accusing me of being unwilling to change my mind. The only way to prove you wrong is to change my mind. This is a cheap and cowardly way to try to win an argument. > What you want is not a discussion. You want people to just exchange > views and nothing more, to say stuff along the lines of "I think this > sucks/rocks/whatever and that's final. If you don't agree, you are > wrong and you can stop talking, because I will not listen to any of > your arguments." No. That's exactly what I don't want. I want real discussion, where real opinions are expressed, and participants actually try to convince each other. To the best of my knowledge, I have said and done nothing to form any basis for this accusation. > Which is completely pointless, it's the kind of attitude that makes > any kind of discussion impossible: either you agree with the other, or > you both think the other is wrong and that's that. Why you even post > on a forum, I really really wonder. I'm a bit confused as to why you are posting to this thread. You don't actually have any ideas to express. You are only interested in attacking me. > > > The characters you > > > like from any of those groups are exactly the kindergartenish and > > > gaudy pieces that made the game's artwork lame in the early stages. > > > You may as well make a game based on My Pet Monster and color your own > > > doodles with crayolas if that's the kind of art that appeals. Regilio > > > is garbage. The fact that you defended that piece says a lot. I'm glad > > > that they've been phasing out that tripe and that the design team > > > steered away hopefully with the same idea, and think that the > > > Nosferatu as they are have been getting equal share of attention to > > > that of the other clans. Big, dorky monsters are teh lamezors. They > > > should look cool in their creepiness and ugliness, not like muppets on > > > crack. > > > > You know, this is a big improvement. �You are totally wrong, of > > course. � > > Oh yes. OF COURSE he is wrong. Because he doesn't agree with you. And > since you are always right OF COURSE, he must be wrong OF COURSE. Yes > OF COURSE. Why didn't we realize this sooner? The OP just insulted my taste in art by calling it childish, and by implication by calling me a child. There was no real attempt at a discussion here. He meant to insult me. What did you want me to say? "Yes, you are right -- I promise to start growing up right away." In contrast, I thought the exchange between Peter and myself was interesting and productive, disagreements and all.

vladcho...@gmail.com wrote: > Anyway what I should have said from the beginning rather than be > objective was that your preferences for art suck. I suspect this is merely an attempt to be insulting. However, Teeka (I believe that's who it was) has just accused me of not giving your opinion the respect it deserves. So here is a more thoughtful response to your ideas. > The characters you > like from any of those groups are exactly the kindergartenish and > gaudy pieces that made the game's artwork lame in the early stages. > You may as well make a game based on My Pet Monster and color your own > doodles with crayolas if that's the kind of art that appeals. The central idea here seems to be that if art is accessible, in any way, to children, it is therefore bad art. I have no sympathy for this assumption. In any event, even if I am childish and immature, for appreciating a good monster picture, it might be good business to give me what I want. After all, I can hardly be the only customer who is this "immature". Meanwhile, there are plenty of other clans for those allegedly more-sophisticated players, who either prefer their vampires to be more subtly monstrous, or who prefer not to think of vampires as monsters at all. The theme of the Nosferatu is that they are obviously monstrous in appearance. If this is childish, then so be it. It is a clan for those of us with "childish" tastes. There are plenty of other clans for all you sophisticated adults out there. > Regilio is garbage. The fact that you defended that piece says a lot. I'm not sure what you think it says. Regilio is actually my LEAST favorite of the Group 1+2 Nosferatu, largely because he is the least monstrous. I said so. I did defend him to a limited extent. > I'm glad > that they've been phasing out that tripe and that the design team > steered away hopefully with the same idea, and think that the > Nosferatu as they are have been getting equal share of attention to > that of the other clans. Big, dorky monsters are teh lamezors. I'm guessing that the Nosferatu are not your favorite clan, and that, fundamentally, is the issue here. > They > should look cool in their creepiness and ugliness, not like muppets on > crack. I'm not sure what you mean by "cool". I suspect it means that you want them to look scary in a way that inspires respect, rather than a way that inspires revulsion. But I do not consider the former to be true ugliness. Nor do I have any interest in idolizing vampires. They don't look like "muppets" to me, but depending on what that means, I might not mind if they did. Having a huge mouth, for instance, seems like a perfectly reasonable deformity for a Nossie to have.

On 26 dec, 05:09, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Who's upset? > > > See, that's the kind of responses you make that irritate people so > > much. You write something, someone responds and refers directly to > > *your specific* words, even quoting your text, and then you act like > > they're totally weird for using the referenced words. Please stop > > doing that. > > I knew he was referencing my words, but did not understand his point > and asked for clarification. > Then (IMO) you should've said so in a clearer manner. -snip- > What might be inappropriate is insulting one's opponent by calling him > "pigheaded", especially when the only basis for the insult is a > refusal to promise to surrender one's opinions. Of course, it is also > best to avoid ad-hominem attacks, even if more politely expressed. > This entire post of yours is one long ad-hominem attack against me. > True. This post was, indeed, solely intended to let you know how annoyed I get at your attitude and the way you post. But I don't mean to attack you on any other things. If you re-read this thread (and others), you'll see that I actually agree with a lot of your opnions when it comes to art. -snip- > You are accusing me of being unwilling to change my mind. The only > way to prove you wrong is to change my mind. This is a cheap and > cowardly way to try to win an argument. > I don't need to prove you wrong. Because I am not trying to/interested in 'winning' any argument here. We're not having an electorial debate y'know. But I get very annoyed at statements like "Angst was wrong" and "you are wrong, of course" which leave no room for discussion. -snip- > I'm a bit confused as to why you are posting to this thread. You > don't actually have any ideas to express. You are only interested in > attacking me. > I have already expressed my thoughts in this, and other, threads. But I see Google ate my nickname and signature in that last post, so sorry if it wasn't clear that it was me posting. -snip- > > > You know, this is a big improvement. You are totally wrong, of > > > course. > > > Oh yes. OF COURSE he is wrong. Because he doesn't agree with you. And > > since you are always right OF COURSE, he must be wrong OF COURSE. Yes > > OF COURSE. Why didn't we realize this sooner? > > The OP just insulted my taste in art by calling it childish, and by > implication by calling me a child. Noooo.... He called *the art you like* kindergartenish, he never said that about *you personally*. You're once again twisting people's words to fit your needs. He did say your art preferences suck, though. There was no real attempt at a > discussion here. He meant to insult me. He was, like me, fed up with trying to have a normal discussion with you. And so he posted his thoughts in a blunt manner, not trying anymore to add any nuances or be polite. And when he did, you even replied with "this is a big improvement". But now, all of a sudden you feel *he's* the one leaving no room for discussion? Jeez. What did you want me to > say? "Yes, you are right -- I promise to start growing up right > away." > Come on. That's nonsense and you know it. -Teeka

On Dec 26, 1:02 pm, zoramu...@gmail.com wrote: > -Teeka Why you no longer listed as Teeka when you post bro? (This entire discussion is boring me to tears, so I am gonna threadjack on purpose...)

On 26 dec, 13:02, zoramu...@gmail.com wrote: > He was, like me, fed up with trying to have a normal discussion with > you. I take this bit back. It was uncalled for. My apologies. - Teeka

[ quoted text not captured ] Ever since I got a gmail account, Google groups refuses to show my hotmail address (even though it's still in my profile) and periodically eats my nickname as well. No idea why. - Teeka

[ quoted text not captured ] All part of Google's plan to take over the world... ;)

On Dec 26, 7:02 am, zoramu...@gmail.com wrote: > > You are accusing me of being unwilling to change my mind. The only > > way to prove you wrong is to change my mind. This is a cheap and > > cowardly way to try to win an argument. > > I don't need to prove you wrong. Because I am not trying to/interested > in 'winning' any argument here. I might prefer it if you were. But my point stands. I don't agree with the idea that I have any obligation to promise opponents that I may change my mind. > We're not having an electorial debate y'know. > But I get very annoyed at statements like "Angst was wrong" and "you > are wrong, of course" which leave no room for discussion. I don't agree that it is a sin to say that I am right, and that others are wrong. Nor do I agree that expressing real opinions (that you actually believe are correct) has the effect of leaving no room for discussion. In fact I believe that the reverse is true. If all opinions are equally correct (the OP actually said this) then discussion is pointless. Note that I also understand the difference between an expression of real opinion, and a mere expression of personal taste. I understand that a squirrel’s preference for acorns is just as valid as a horse’s preference for grass. So please don’t go nuts explaining that to me. When I disagreed with Angst, I had adopted certain propositions, that I did not believe in, solely for purposes of argument. Someone then jumped in and accused me of actually believing such propositions. I said "Angst was wrong" to make doubly clear that I disagreed with Angst, and therefore did not actually believe the propositions under discussion. Apparently this context had been overlooked the first time, when I said it less bluntly. The OP then jumped in. Horrors! I had said Angst was WRONG. This is contrary to the precepts of the Great Universal Religion of Postmodernism, Relativism and Nihilism, in which it is a Cardinal Sin to believe that any views may be correct or incorrect. As far as I could tell, he neither knew nor cared what it was Angst had said that I had disagreed with. I was forced to explain to the OP that I did not share his philosophy, and that although this offense may have been a sin under his moral philosophy, it was not a sin under mine. And to make this point doubly clear, I told him I thought HE was wrong, as well. > > I'm a bit confused as to why you are posting to this thread. You > > don't actually have any ideas to express. You are only interested in > > attacking me. > > I have already expressed my thoughts in this, and other, threads. But > I see Google ate my nickname and signature in that last post, so sorry > if it wasn't clear that it was me posting. > > -snip- > > > > > You know, this is a big improvement. You are totally wrong, of > > > > course. > > > > Oh yes. OF COURSE he is wrong. Because he doesn't agree with you. And > > > since you are always right OF COURSE, he must be wrong OF COURSE. Yes > > > OF COURSE. Why didn't we realize this sooner? > > > The OP just insulted my taste in art by calling it childish, and by > > implication by calling me a child. > > Noooo.... He called *the art you like* kindergartenish, he never said > that about *you personally*. You're once again twisting people's words > to fit your needs. I read between the lines. In any event, I think it is wrong to have contempt for child-accessible art. It implies contempt for children. > He did say your art preferences suck, though. Yes. That suggested an intent to be insulting. I interpreted his kindergarten references accordingly. > > There was no real attempt at a > > discussion here. He meant to insult me. > > He was, like me, fed up with trying to have a normal discussion with > you. And so he posted his thoughts in a blunt manner, not trying > anymore to add any nuances or be polite. And when he did, you even > replied with "this is a big improvement". I meant it. It was a big improvement. Insults and all. > But now, all of a sudden you > feel *he's* the one leaving no room for discussion? Jeez. Just because I prefer his honest insults to his postmodern philosophy does not mean I necessarily must see much point to continuing the discussion. I believe real discussion requires real disagreement, or at least real interest in the possibility that some opinions are more valid than others. But it does not follow that every real disagreement makes further discussion mandatory. (Blooded Sand certainly does not seem to think so -- he keeps hinting we should shut up). In any event, I have since posted another response, which attempts to address his views more seriously. I’m not sure if you will find it an improvement. After all, I still think he is wrong.

On 26 dec, 18:39, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > I don't need to prove you wrong. Because I am not trying to/interested > > in 'winning' any argument here. > > I might prefer it if you were. But my point stands. I don't agree > with the idea that I have any obligation to promise opponents that I > may change my mind. > Ah. There we have a fundamental difference between me and you. I like to have discussions in which all participants try to broaden the other's perspective as much as possible, where all are totally willing to (perhaps) change their minds. I.e. no one starts out thinking they're "right", just that they have a current view of what's right, which may be wrong. You on the other hand see a discussion as a contest, something that needs to be 'won'. I understand now you and I will therefor never be really able to have a normal discussion together. Oh well. > > We're not having an electorial debate y'know. > > But I get very annoyed at statements like "Angst was wrong" and "you > > are wrong, of course" which leave no room for discussion. > > I don't agree that it is a sin to say that I am right, and that others > are wrong. Nor do I agree that expressing real opinions (that you > actually believe are correct) has the effect of leaving no room for > discussion. In fact I believe that the reverse is true. If all > opinions are equally correct (the OP actually said this) then > discussion is pointless. > I fully disagree with that. If there is no actual fact, i.e. no possible scientific proof of one 'truth' or the other, than I believe all opinions are, inherently, equally correct. And because no-one can ever be proven as holding the 'truth', it's easily possible to change one's mind from one opinion to another. Thinking in terms of right/ correct and wrong/incorrect kills that kind of thinking. -snip- > When I disagreed with Angst, I had adopted certain propositions, that > I did not believe in, solely for purposes of argument. Someone then > jumped in and accused me of actually believing such propositions. I > said "Angst was wrong" to make doubly clear that I disagreed with > Angst, and therefore did not actually believe the propositions under > discussion. Apparently this context had been overlooked the first > time, when I said it less bluntly. > I feel sorry for you that the first time, your intended context was misunderstood. It sucks when that happens. But "I disagree" and "You are wrong" are very different, not just in terms of 'bluntness'. -snip- > > Noooo.... He called *the art you like* kindergartenish, he never said > > that about *you personally*. You're once again twisting people's words > > to fit your needs. > > I read between the lines. In any event, I think it is wrong to have > contempt for child-accessible art. It implies contempt for > children. > You read between the lines an awful lot, dude. And I really think you systematically see hidden meanings that aren't there. > > He did say your art preferences suck, though. > > Yes. That suggested an intent to be insulting. I interpreted his > kindergarten references accordingly. > Even though there was no real reason to do so. Don't read so much into what people write on newsgroups like this. It is my experience that when you ask someone to clarify their meaning before you react to it, you'll find that lots of times things weren't meant as bad as they might be received. Language problems and all that. > > > There was no real attempt at a > > > discussion here. He meant to insult me. > > > He was, like me, fed up with trying to have a normal discussion with > > you. And so he posted his thoughts in a blunt manner, not trying > > anymore to add any nuances or be polite. And when he did, you even > > replied with "this is a big improvement". > > I meant it. It was a big improvement. Insults and all. > You like being insulted? I don't get it. > > But now, all of a sudden you > > feel *he's* the one leaving no room for discussion? Jeez. > > Just because I prefer his honest insults to his postmodern philosophy > does not mean I necessarily must see much point to continuing the > discussion. I believe real discussion requires real disagreement, or > at least real interest in the possibility that some opinions are more > valid than others. Again, this is where we differ greatly, you and I. But it does not follow that every real > disagreement makes further discussion mandatory. (Blooded Sand > certainly does not seem to think so -- he keeps hinting we should shut > up). > Did he? I didn't see that. As far as I can see he only wondered where my nickname had gone. Perhaps he said it inbetween the lines, which you can read and I can't.* Maybe if I get another newsreader? ** * sarcasm intended ** bad joke intended > In any event, I have since posted another response, which attempts to > address his views more seriously. I’m not sure if you will find it an > improvement. But I do. Thanks for taking time to do so (and I mean that). > After all, I still think he is wrong. sigh... -Teeka

On Dec 26, 3:25 pm, zoramu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 26 dec, 18:39, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > I don't need to prove you wrong. Because I am not trying to/interested > > > in 'winning' any argument here. > > > I might prefer it if you were. But my point stands. I don't agree > > with the idea that I have any obligation to promise opponents that I > > may change my mind. > > Ah. There we have a fundamental difference between me and you. > I like to have discussions in which all participants try to broaden > the other's perspective as much as possible, where all are totally > willing to (perhaps) change their minds. I.e. no one starts out > thinking they're "right", just that they have a current view of what's > right, which may be wrong. I already told you that I do not consider myself infallible, and reserve for myself the right, but do not acknowledge the obligation, to change my mind. I'm not sure why this is insufficient for you. > You on the other hand see a discussion as a contest, something that > needs to be 'won'. Hmm. To some extent, yes -- But more fundamentally, I regard a discussion as a process for obtaining the truth. It is for this reason that I to some extent regard discussions as contests worth winning, and, sometimes, as contests worth losing. > > I don't agree that it is a sin to say that I am right, and that others > > are wrong. Nor do I agree that expressing real opinions (that you > > actually believe are correct) has the effect of leaving no room for > > discussion. In fact I believe that the reverse is true. If all > > opinions are equally correct (the OP actually said this) then > > discussion is pointless. > > I fully disagree with that. If there is no actual fact, i.e. no > possible scientific proof of one 'truth' or the other, than I believe > all opinions are, inherently, equally correct. All fact, including scientific fact, is inherently unprovable, until and unless certain starting assumptions are taken on faith. Even a scientist must assume that there is some validity to human observation, before the scientific method may be applied. Similarly, starting moral assumptions are required for all moral beliefs and moral reasoning. This does not mean that meaningful belief is impossible. It is not impossible to take certain starting assumptions on faith. > And because no-one can > ever be proven as holding the 'truth', it's easily possible to change > one's mind from one opinion to another. Thinking in terms of right/ > correct and wrong/incorrect kills that kind of thinking. Not at all. A person who believes he is right today, can easily believe he was wrong yesterday ... or two minutes ago. On the other hand, a person who disbelieves in the possibility of truth is truly in chains. He is incapable of believing anything at all -- until or unless he throws aside his nihilistic philosophy. There is nothing about belief in the possiblity of Truth that prevents humility. > > I read between the lines. In any event, I think it is wrong to have > > contempt for child-accessible art. It implies contempt for > > children. > > You read between the lines an awful lot, dude. And I really think you > systematically see hidden meanings that aren't there. I did not see contempt for children as a "hidden meaning". I was explaining why contempt for child-accessible art is wrong. In the long run, one cannot love children and hate child-accessible art, merely because it is child accessible. I don't REALLY think the OP hates children. In his defense, I am more inclined to suspect he was just trying to insult me. > > > He did say your art preferences suck, though. > > > Yes. That suggested an intent to be insulting. I interpreted his > > kindergarten references accordingly. > > Even though there was no real reason to do so. I thought there was real reason to do so. > > > He was, like me, fed up with trying to have a normal discussion with > > > you. And so he posted his thoughts in a blunt manner, not trying > > > anymore to add any nuances or be polite. And when he did, you even > > > replied with "this is a big improvement". > > > I meant it. It was a big improvement. Insults and all. > > You like being insulted? I don't get it. As I explained, I prefer honest insults to postmodern sophistry. I really dislike postmodern sophistry. I'd much rather be insulted. > But it does not follow that every real > > disagreement makes further discussion mandatory. (Blooded Sand > > certainly does not seem to think so -- he keeps hinting we should shut > > up). > > Did he? I didn't see that. I may be confusing him with someone else who posted earlier.

On 26 joulu, 23:26, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > You on the other hand see a discussion as a contest, something that > > needs to be 'won'. > > Hmm. To some extent, yes -- But more fundamentally, I regard a > discussion as a process for obtaining the truth. It is for this > reason that I to some extent regard discussions as contests worth > winning, and, sometimes, as contests worth losing. How's that working for you? Do you believe that an unambiguous result that both contestants will approve can be reached in a contest with an ambiguous set of rules and infinite room for interpretation?

On Dec 26, 4:49 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 26 joulu, 23:26, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > You on the other hand see a discussion as a contest, something that > > > needs to be 'won'. > > > Hmm. To some extent, yes -- But more fundamentally, I regard a > > discussion as a process for obtaining the truth. It is for this > > reason that I to some extent regard discussions as contests worth > > winning, and, sometimes, as contests worth losing. > > How's that working for you? Works great for me. I often use discussions to prove myself wrong. > Do you believe that an unambiguous result > that both contestants will approve can be reached in a contest with an > ambiguous set of rules and infinite room for interpretation? I don't even know what that means. Do I believe that it is possible that one or both participants in a discussion will get closer to the truth than they were before? Yes I do. Do I assume that such a result is guaranteed? Obviously not.

On 26 joulu, 23:58, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 26, 4:49 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 26 joulu, 23:26, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > You on the other hand see a discussion as a contest, something that > > > > needs to be 'won'. > > > > Hmm. To some extent, yes -- But more fundamentally, I regard a > > > discussion as a process for obtaining the truth. It is for this > > > reason that I to some extent regard discussions as contests worth > > > winning, and, sometimes, as contests worth losing. > > > How's that working for you? > > Works great for me. I often use discussions to prove myself wrong. > > > Do you believe that an unambiguous result > > that both contestants will approve can be reached in a contest with an > > ambiguous set of rules and infinite room for interpretation? > > I don't even know what that means. I think you got the gist of it. > Do I believe that it is possible > that one or both participants in a discussion will get closer to the > truth than they were before? Yes I do. Do I assume that such a > result is guaranteed? Obviously not. Do you also believe that turning the discussion into a contest makes it easier to exchange thoughts? Or would you agree with me that pitting the contestants against each other makes them more reluctant to accept new ideas?

On Dec 26, 5:28 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > Do you also believe that turning the discussion into a contest makes > it easier to exchange thoughts? This contest aspect of discussion can facilitate the exchange of thoughts, yes. > Or would you agree with me that > pitting the contestants against each other makes them more reluctant > to accept new ideas? It can do that too, yes. But you forget. I did not say I regarded discussion as being fundamentally a contest. I said I regarded it, most fundamentally, as a process for obtaining truth. I never advocated turning discussions into contests. Discussions often have many of the aspects of a contest, and this is true whether I like it or not. Some of the results of this aspect are good; others are, as you note, not so good.

On 27 joulu, 00:55, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 26, 5:28 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Do you also believe that turning the discussion into a contest makes > > it easier to exchange thoughts? > > This contest aspect of discussion can facilitate the exchange of > thoughts, yes. What I wanted to know is which do you prefer, a contest or a discussion? Up to this point it has been my impression that you would prefer a contest, is this incorrect? > > Or would you agree with me that > > pitting the contestants against each other makes them more reluctant > > to accept new ideas? > > It can do that too, yes. > > But you forget. I did not say I regarded discussion as being > fundamentally a contest. I said I regarded it, most fundamentally, as > a process for obtaining truth. > > I never advocated turning discussions into contests. Discussions > often have many of the aspects of a contest, and this is true whether > I like it or not. I have to disagree. You, as a participant, can affect the nature of the discussion through your own actions. >Some of the results of this aspect are good; others > are, as you note, not so good. I can't think of any aspects that are positive for both participants.

suolir...@gmail.com wrote: > On 27 joulu, 00:55, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Dec 26, 5:28 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Do you also believe that turning the discussion into a contest makes >>> it easier to exchange thoughts? >> This contest aspect of discussion can facilitate the exchange of >> thoughts, yes. > > What I wanted to know is which do you prefer, a contest or a > discussion? Up to this point it has been my impression that you would > prefer a contest, is this incorrect? Forgive the observation, but this line of inquiry sounds more like a contest than a discussion.

On 27 joulu, 02:29, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] True. The subject has thus far been unreceptive to other forms of communication so I feel this is the correct approach in this case. ;)

suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 27 joulu, 00:55, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Dec 26, 5:28�pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Do you also believe that turning the discussion into a contest makes > > > it easier to exchange thoughts? > > > > This contest aspect of discussion can facilitate the exchange of > > thoughts, yes. > > What I wanted to know is which do you prefer, a contest or a > discussion? Up to this point it has been my impression that you would > prefer a contest, is this incorrect? Impossible to answer, since "Contest" and "discussion" are not mutually exclusive categories. I regard truth-seeking as the fundamental purpose of discussion. Ideally, truth-seeking should take precedence over any desire to "win" a discussion. Conversely, truth- seeking should generally take precedence over the desire to avoid contest-aspects of discussion, if any. > > > Or would you agree with me that > > > pitting the contestants against each other makes them more reluctant > > > to accept new ideas? > > > > It can do that too, yes. > > > > But you forget. �I did not say I regarded discussion as being > > fundamentally a contest. �I said I regarded it, most fundamentally, as > > a process for obtaining truth. > > > > I never advocated turning discussions into contests. �Discussions > > often have many of the aspects of a contest, and this is true whether > > I like it or not. > > I have to disagree. You, as a participant, can affect the nature of > the discussion through your own actions. Maybe. But I have nothing against contests. "Thou shalt not participate in a contest" is not a commandment of my religion. Which is good, because otherwise I might have trouble playing Jyhad. > >Some of the results of this aspect are good; others > > are, as you note, not so good. > > I can't think of any aspects that are positive for both participants. Strange. I keep mentioning the truth-seeking aspects of discussion. Might not that be of value to both participants?

On 27 joulu, 05:05, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 27 joulu, 00:55, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Dec 26, 5:28 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Do you also believe that turning the discussion into a contest makes > > > > it easier to exchange thoughts? > > > > This contest aspect of discussion can facilitate the exchange of > > > thoughts, yes. > > > What I wanted to know is which do you prefer, a contest or a > > discussion? Up to this point it has been my impression that you would > > prefer a contest, is this incorrect? > > Impossible to answer, since "Contest" and "discussion" are not > mutually exclusive categories. I regard truth-seeking as the > fundamental purpose of discussion. Ideally, truth-seeking should take > precedence over any desire to "win" a discussion. Conversely, truth- > seeking should generally take precedence over the desire to avoid > contest-aspects of discussion, if any. Okay. Do you prefer contest over no contest? If yes, what are the advantages of having a contest-aspect in a discussion? > > > > Or would you agree with me that > > > > pitting the contestants against each other makes them more reluctant > > > > to accept new ideas? > > > > It can do that too, yes. > > > > But you forget. I did not say I regarded discussion as being > > > fundamentally a contest. I said I regarded it, most fundamentally, as > > > a process for obtaining truth. > > > > I never advocated turning discussions into contests. Discussions > > > often have many of the aspects of a contest, and this is true whether > > > I like it or not. > > > I have to disagree. You, as a participant, can affect the nature of > > the discussion through your own actions. > > Maybe. But I have nothing against contests. "Thou shalt not > participate in a contest" is not a commandment of my religion. Which > is good, because otherwise I might have trouble playing Jyhad. > > > >Some of the results of this aspect are good; others > > > are, as you note, not so good. > > > I can't think of any aspects that are positive for both participants. > > Strange. I keep mentioning the truth-seeking aspects of discussion. > Might not that be of value to both participants? Yes it is. Could you describe how the contest-aspect helps the truth- seeking? I hope you don't view this as an attack. I would just like to understand the way you think.

suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 27 joulu, 05:05, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > Strange. I keep mentioning the truth-seeking aspects of discussion. > > Might not that be of value to both participants? > > Yes it is. Could you describe how the contest-aspect helps the truth- > seeking? It energizes both adversaries, resulting in a more thorough exploration of the many aspects of the problem than is likely to have otherwise occurred. For instance, common-law countries, such as the United States and Britain, have an adversary system of justice, which is based on the theory that the best way to achieve truth is to get together a pair of committed and zealous, and totally biased, advocates for two sides of an issue, and put them together in a courtroom to have an bitterly contested argument in front of a unbiased factfinder (a judge or a jury), who makes a decision after hearing all arguments. But on a more basic level, if we assume that truth has value, then being defeated may be of value to the "loser" of any argument. I believe, for instance, that you just explained to LSJ that you had elected to engage me in a contest-type discussion, because I had proved unsusceptible to other forms of communication. I'm not sure what this is about, but would it be fair to guess that you were hinting that you were trying to teach me something worth learning? But, as the advocate & jury example proves, it is not necessary for the participates themselves to benefit, or to change their minds. Value may be derived regardless.

On 27 joulu, 06:49, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 27 joulu, 05:05, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Strange. I keep mentioning the truth-seeking aspects of discussion. > > > Might not that be of value to both participants? > > > Yes it is. Could you describe how the contest-aspect helps the truth- > > seeking? > > It energizes both adversaries, resulting in a more thorough > exploration of the many aspects of the problem than is likely to have > otherwise occurred. In my experience contestants tend to get stuck on trivial issues instead of looking for the truth. > For instance, common-law countries, such as the United States and > Britain, have an adversary system of justice, which is based on the > theory that the best way to achieve truth is to get together a pair of > committed and zealous, and totally biased, advocates for two sides of > an issue, and put them together in a courtroom to have an bitterly > contested argument in front of a unbiased factfinder (a judge or a > jury), who makes a decision after hearing all arguments. The problem is that newsgroup debates don't have moderators. Both contestants can have their own unknown definition of a victory condition that can change as needed. > But on a more basic level, if we assume that truth has value, then > being defeated may be of value to the "loser" of any argument. Do you mean that accepting a new idea through defeat in a contest has a positive value that could not be gained from accepting a new idea voluntarily in a non-contest? > I > believe, for instance, that you just explained to LSJ that you had > elected to engage me in a contest-type discussion, because I had > proved unsusceptible to other forms of communication. I'm not sure > what this is about, but would it be fair to guess that you were > hinting that you were trying to teach me something worth learning? I don't think I can teach you anything that you don't honestly know. I might try to force you to acknowledge something. > But, as the advocate & jury example proves, it is not necessary for > the participates themselves to benefit, or to change their minds. > Value may be derived regardless. For a spectator, sure. But I don't believe a contest has any added value to the participants that a discussion wouldn't.

suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 27 joulu, 06:49, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 27 joulu, 05:05, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Strange. I keep mentioning the truth-seeking aspects of discussion. > > > > Might not that be of value to both participants? > > > > > Yes it is. Could you describe how the contest-aspect helps the truth- > > > seeking? > > > > It energizes both adversaries, resulting in a more thorough > > exploration of the many aspects of the problem than is likely to have > > otherwise occurred. > > In my experience contestants tend to get stuck on trivial issues > instead of looking for the truth. As I already said, I believe the purpose of discussion should be on obtaining the truth. I believe any discussion where two people care deeply about the truth is likely to take on some aspect of a contest. But caring about the truth and being seriously ego-invested are two different things. > > For instance, common-law countries, such as the United States and > > Britain, have an adversary system of justice, which is based on the > > theory that the best way to achieve truth is to get together a pair of > > committed and zealous, and totally biased, advocates for two sides of > > an issue, and put them together in a courtroom to have an bitterly > > contested argument in front of a unbiased factfinder (a judge or a > > jury), who makes a decision after hearing all arguments. > > The problem is that newsgroup debates don't have moderators. Both > contestants can have their own unknown definition of a victory > condition that can change as needed. That doesn't seem like such a problem to me. I know that I learn things from the debates I engage in. What the other guy chooses to learn is his own business. > > But on a more basic level, if we assume that truth has value, then > > being defeated may be of value to the "loser" of any argument. � > > Do you mean that accepting a new idea through defeat in a contest has > a positive value that could not be gained from accepting a new idea > voluntarily in a non-contest? No. As explained, a contest often involves a far deeper commitment of the faculties to an exploration of the problem. These explorations often result in shifts in position, sometimes subtle, sometimes gradual. Clear "defeats" are rare, but of course, no-one has to be defeated until he chooses to surrender. Your distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary acceptance is a false one. Nobody is talking about torture sessions. > > But, as the advocate & jury example proves, it is not necessary for > > the participates themselves to benefit, or to change their minds. > > Value may be derived regardless. > > For a spectator, sure. But I don't believe a contest has any added > value to the participants that a discussion wouldn't. I believe that most discussions, involving disparate views, where the participants care about the truth will take on some aspect of a contest. These are, however, much more likely to be civil and constructive than discussions where the focus is on the egos of the participants. But I don't know what your definition of "discussion" is, or your definition of "contest". Perhaps your definition of "contest" excludes such constructive discussions. But I do not advocate "contests" instead of "discussions". I merely advocate that the focus of discussions should be obtaining truth, and contest aspect of discussion should be employed only to the extent that it serves that end. You seem very eager to cast me in the role of advocate for "contests" and yourself in the more reasonable role of advocate for "discussions".

On 27 joulu, 08:49, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > I believe that most discussions, involving disparate views, where the > participants care about the truth will take on some aspect of a > contest. These are, however, much more likely to be civil and > constructive than discussions where the focus is on the egos of the > participants. I have contrary experiences. It seems to me that the contest-aspect more often than not causes the discussion to devolve rather than explore new depths. I also believe that the contest-aspect is avoidable and that it is in the interests of the participants to do so. > But I don't know what your definition of "discussion" > is, or your definition of "contest". Perhaps your definition of > "contest" excludes such constructive discussions. But I do not > advocate "contests" instead of "discussions". I merely advocate that > the focus of discussions should be obtaining truth, and contest aspect > of discussion should be employed only to the extent that it serves > that end. The thing is I don't think it serves a purpose at all. > You seem very eager to cast me in the role of advocate for "contests" > and yourself in the more reasonable role of advocate for > "discussions". I don't like what you're implying. I have been very careful not to make any assumptions about your position. My posts tend to be concise and I might skip formalities but please try to take them at face value.

suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > The thing is I don't think it serves a purpose at all. Well, you have already conceded you intended this discussion as a contest, so perhaps you are just trolling me. But even that qualifies, on some level, as a purpose. If you ever overcome your aversion to contests, I know a great game you might want to try.

On 27 joulu, 17:39, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > The thing is I don't think it serves a purpose at all. > > Well, you have already conceded you intended this discussion as a > contest, so perhaps you are just trolling me. But even that > qualifies, on some level, as a purpose. Let me clarify: I don't think a contest has any value over a non- contest. I would have greatly preferred a non-contest discussion but I doubt that you would have been up for it. > If you ever overcome your aversion to contests, I know a great game > you might want to try. Oh please.

[ quoted text not captured ] That was me, by the way.

A discussion, as in the context of what is being discussed here, is 2 opposite ideas being debated between 2 persons. There is a certain level of contestation inherent in this A contest, in its purest form, does not allow discussion as it is a direct confrontation between diametrically opposed view points. Frankly, the argumentation has been interesting, enlightening and thought provoking. The opposition of the nihilistic thought patter of "There is no truth" being juxtaposed with that of "I have my own truth" is certainly interesting. However you seem to be arguing past each other at oblique angles, as the discussion is not progressing, but meandering. Frankly, I do not see what this has to do, even vaguely with the original thesis and antithesis of "Nossies are not ugly enough anymore" vs "Yes they are." Kindly stop blowing smoke, gentlemen, and get back on point please? ;) PS I did not hint that the discussion was getting too much. I said, and I quote myself, "It is boring me to tears"

[ quoted text not captured ] Exactly. I have nothing against two consenting adults engaging in a debate in the privacy of their homes or dedicated forums but jumping into the middle of a civilized discussion and baiting unsuspecting victims into an argument is way out of order. ;)

suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > Exactly. I have nothing against two consenting adults engaging in a > debate in the privacy of their homes or dedicated forums but jumping > into the middle of a civilized discussion and baiting unsuspecting > victims into an argument is way out of order. Then why did you do it?

[ quoted text not captured ] Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote that? -Teeka

[ quoted text not captured ] The pot may still ask earnest questions of the kettle, you know?

[ quoted text not captured ] I believe I already answered that question. You seem unwilling to have a proper discussion so I used another method to make my point.

[ quoted text not captured ] I honestly feel you are being disingenuous by attempting to completely seperate the concepts of discussion and conflict. The only thing that makes a civilized discussion civilized is the fact that blades are not drawn, and the teeth are set in a smile, not a snarl...

On 29 joulu, 01:42, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 4:10 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On 28 joulu, 05:29, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Exactly. I have nothing against two consenting adults engaging in a > > > > debate in the privacy of their homes or dedicated forums but jumping > > > > into the middle of a civilized discussion and baiting unsuspecting > > > > victims into an argument is way out of order. > > > > Then why did you do it? > > > I believe I already answered that question. You seem unwilling to have > > a proper discussion so I used another method to make my point. > > I honestly feel you are being disingenuous by attempting to completely > seperate the concepts of discussion and conflict. I thought about this and I'm not sure what you mean. Discussions might have an element of conflict but I don't think it's necessary or constructive. Could you elaborate? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Dec 29, 1:15 am, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > On 29 joulu, 01:42, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 28, 4:10 pm, suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On 28 joulu, 05:29, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > suoliruse...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Exactly. I have nothing against two consenting adults engaging in a > > > > > debate in the privacy of their homes or dedicated forums but jumping > > > > > into the middle of a civilized discussion and baiting unsuspecting > > > > > victims into an argument is way out of order. > > > > > Then why did you do it? > > > > I believe I already answered that question. You seem unwilling to have > > > a proper discussion so I used another method to make my point. > > > I honestly feel you are being disingenuous by attempting to completely > > seperate the concepts of discussion and conflict. > > I thought about this and I'm not sure what you mean. Discussions might > have an element of conflict but I don't think it's necessary or > constructive. Could you elaborate? There are usually at least 2 points of view in a discussion. Those points do not agree, as else there would be no discussion. There is thus disagreement, which by its very nature is a conflict of ideas.

[ quoted text not captured ] Looks like we're talking about two separate things here. I didn't mean to imply that two people with conflicting views can't have an open minded discussion. When I say contest I am referring to a conflict between the participants, not just their ideas. Does this make any sense to you?

[ quoted text not captured ] Yes, however does the concept that there is conflict and competition innate to all discussions in which the participants do not have identical viewpoints carry weight with you?

[ quoted text not captured ] > thus disagreement, which by its very nature is a conflict of ideas.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - [note] Ok, I think the language barrier is playing a bad part in all this, so I might be trying to say the exact same thing as you. But provided I understand what you mean: I don't think disagreement is a conflict of ideas in and of itself. It merely is a difference in viewpoint/preference/belief. For instance, I say green is the prettiest colour and you say blue is, is there a conflict? Not at all. But if we're discussing what colour paint a fence should get, then we have a conflict. Because there is something that needs to come out of the discussion, for which some sort of agreement has to be reached. In other words, conflict only arises (or at least should, IMO) when something is actually at stake. So, I think that if I have a view on something that differs from yours while nothing is at stake (nothing depends on the discussion), we can still have a discussion that's fruitful and interesting, but with 0% conflict. I will explain my view thouroughly. I won't actively try to persuade you, or try to 'win' the discussion. I won't be bothered in the slightest that you disagree. I will only actively counter your arguments if I think you've got some fact/assumption wrong. At all other times I might follow up on things you say, but only to make a point of my own, not to say you're 'wrong' in any way. You will do all of that too. Somewhere along the line, one of us may say "I never thought of that", "what you said made me think..." or the like. One of us may change their mind completely (without, again, the other ever actually trying to actively prove them 'wrong'). Or not. But we'll still be having an interesting conversation. It won't matter if nothing comes of it, because that was never our intention (as opposed to my simplified painted fence example). We might even reach a whole new standpoint together, based on the exchange of views/ideas. - Teeka

[ quoted text not captured ] I have found Cayenne pepper, or perhaps a smidgeon of sweet cane sugar goes very well with my popcorn... best - chris

[ quoted text not captured ] I tried to suggest to you earlier that we were using language differently. In an attempt to resolve the matter, I drew a distinction between a truth-oriented contest (in other words, a conflict between ideas) and an ego-oriented contest (in other words, a conflict between persons).

[ quoted text not captured ] No. Teeka's last post describes my view pretty accurately so I won't repeat it. I would like to go one step further though. While two people discussing the best color to paint a fence with might have a conflict of interests I believe that they can, at least theoretically, have an open discussion and leave ulterior motives out of it. Of course, the honesty of each participant would be a matter of their conscience which is less then ideal.

[ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure whether you're being defensive or aggressive here but you don't have to be. I got what I wanted and don't really care if I won or lost our contest.

zoramu...@gmail.com wrote: > On 29 dec, 10:25, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think disagreement is a conflict of ideas in and of itself. It > merely is a difference in viewpoint/preference/belief. > For instance, I say green is the prettiest colour and you say blue is, > is there a conflict? Not at all. There is no disagreement either. Such statements are generally intended merely as an expression of personal taste. There is no contradiction between "I personally prefer green" and "you personally prefer blue." There is no contradiction between "squirrels prefer acorns" and "horses prefer grass". If they actually mean their statements to express a Truth which is external to themselves, then there is in fact a disagreement, and a conflict. > But if we're discussing what colour > paint a fence should get, then we have a conflict. Because there is > something that needs to come out of the discussion, for which some > sort of agreement has to be reached. No. That is not why. It is completely unnecessary that agreement be reached. Very often, the exploration of issues will be of aid to a single decision-maker without any agreement being reached between any two persons. Two lawyers may argue in front of a judge; two boys may argue in front of their father. Sometimes, no-one with decisionmaking power will be present, but the discutants will nonetheless feel that the ideas and principles involved matter, and have some hope of convincing each other. > In other words, conflict only arises (or at least should, IMO) when > something is actually at stake. I have never known conflict to arise otherwise. > So, I think that if I have a view on something that differs from yours > while nothing is at stake (nothing depends on the discussion), we can > still have a discussion that's fruitful and interesting, but with 0% > conflict. A discussion cannot be "fruitful" is nothing depends on the discussion, because "fruit" is something. A discussion cannot be interesting if nothing depends on the discussion, because "nothing" is not something one can be interested in. But there can be 0% conflict, if the discutants never disagree.

[ quoted text not captured ] You asked me questions. I have tried to answer them.

On Dec 29, 6:47 pm, jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote: -snip > "nothing" is > not something one can be interested in Ah, grasshopper, the first thing the wise man learns to know is nothing......

On Dec 30, 3:44 am, Blooded Sand <sandm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ah, grasshopper, the first thing the wise man learns to know is > nothing...... What's the second thing he learns?

[ quoted text not captured ] That nothing is far more than he knows....

[ quoted text not captured ] He must be in Hell.

[ quoted text not captured ] No, for if you truly understand nothing, you understand everything.

[ quoted text not captured ] A wise man may seek to get his head into the heavens. But if he seeks to get the heavens into his head, he will fail; and his head may split.

[ quoted text not captured ] If his spirit precedes him though, he will be buoyed up and float above...

[ quoted text not captured ] where his mind shall float easily upon an infinite sea ....

[ quoted text not captured ] And conflict turns to contentment ;)

[ quoted text not captured ] as he rejoices in the crashing of the waves.

[ quoted text not captured ] See, fun had by all! Woohoo! happy new year one and all. Remember, the 1st of January is the sacred day of Bilious, god of hangovers. Give him his due tomorrow please?

jwjbw...@gmail.com writes: [ quoted text not captured ] Prison of the Mind [SoC:R] Cardtype: Action Cost: 3 blood Discipline: Dementation [dem] +1 stealth action. (D) Burn an ally or retainer. [DEM] (D) Put this card on a vampire. This vampire has -1 stealth and -2 intercept. Any vampire(s) can burn this card with three +1 stealth actions. A vampire can have only one Prison of the Mind. HG

[ quoted text not captured ] > hangovers. Give him his due tomorrow please?- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven - Not the god, but the Oh-god of hangovers! (know your classics!) :-))))) Did you know they made a movie out of that one? -Teeka

[ quoted text not captured ] Out of Colour of Magic? Yeah, got the HD of it....

[ quoted text not captured ] > Out of Colour of Magic? Yeah, got the HD of it....- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven - > Yeah, that one too, but I meant Hogfather. Featuring Billious. And one of my favourite charcters, Susan Sto Helit. And Nigel Planer's in it as well, as a bumbling wizard! It's a BBC made-for-tv movie though. - Teeka