Domino Quartz's Delightfully Quaint Random Banter Thread #248

[Peelee]

Aah, okay. Like I said, that's not fundamentally something I can fix.

Same, but i still try to cut down my beef consumption. Just like i try to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Many ape strong and all that.

... man I want a hamburger now.

Same.

[LaZodiac]

Same, but i still try to cut down my beef consumption. Just like i try to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Many ape strong and all that.

Same.

I have a mixed diet as well don't worry.

Sadly I am stuck in the garbage pork and decent chicken zone for the forseeable future. August cannot come soon enough...

[Anonymouswizard]

Hello humans, I hope you all enjoyed your Eclipse today.

Don't worry, I was too far to the right!

You can live vicariously through me! I think I really captured the magic and majesty of the eclipse.

IMO a really low res picture would have been funnier.

Can they only affect trans people? :O

Technically yrles, although I think we really should broaden the definition.

So, Atom Eve is practically a Time Lord?

Spoiler: I'm guessing this should technically be spoiler tagged

Show

Taking this too seriously and putting on my Whovisn hat* for a second, Time Lord regeneration is a bit more complicated even beyond the built in limits. Notably it includes a number of defence mechanisms to reduce the risk of death to the same events, most obviously the Heightened strength and healing for a short time but also the rather radical personality shifts.

That's setting aside such things as them being time sensitives, resistant to timeline alteration, psychic, and that darned respiratory bypass system. Or any of the weird one off powers they've shown.

Heck some sources claim that regeneration isn't actually a Time Lord thing, but rather a Gallifreyan thing.

* it's the one that looks ridiculous.

[Peelee]

IMO a really low res picture would have been funnier.

Spoiler: Your wish is my command

Show

[Form]

That's how people in universe explain it, yeah! Given the fact that the setting takes place on a pangaeic continent, there's no one on the other side of the world to claim otherwise.

The reality is a bit more complicated a bit more spoiler-y... but it's a world building detail so I can share it without potentially pre-empting future plot stuff: the sun and the moon (and all the stars) aren't actually like, orbital bodies in space. They're magical [things] for lack of a better term, stitched up in the sky, and the sky rotates around the planet.

Now I want to know what's outside the Stitch-Sky!

[LaZodiac]

Now I want to know what's outside the Stitch-Sky!

Normal things

this is code for "follow my works and you'll see", hehehe

[Rynjin]

Lots of things. Videos on the YouTube channels "SciShow" and "Crash Course" among many other projects. He has a brother named John who is also involved in some things.

Neat, never heard of those.

His "brother named John" is the one you are much more likely to have heard of. He's the writer of several YA novels, and most notably wrote the quintessential example of the "sick girl is dying but makes some boy happy on the way out" subgenre, The Fault in Our Stars.

[enderlord99]

His "brother named John" is the one you are much more likely to have heard of

That's why I mentioned him, TBH.

[LaZodiac]

His "brother named John" is the one you are much more likely to have heard of. He's the writer of several YA novels, and most notably wrote the quintessential example of the "sick girl is dying but makes some boy happy on the way out" subgenre, The Fault in Our Stars.

I've vaguely heard of that book but not the person who produced it, but fair enough!

[Anonymouswizard]

He's the writer of several YA novels, and most notably wrote the quintessential example of the "sick girl is dying but makes some boy happy on the way out" subgenre, The Fault in Our Stars.

Is that the one everybody I know mocked as 'Twilight, but the vampires are cancer'?

[Rater202]

Is that the one everybody I know mocked as 'Twilight, but the vampires are cancer'?

1: I don't think that's a very charitable interpretation.

2: Considering that Twilight vampires are universally depicted as being so far beyond humans that they're untouchable and even the good ones are borderline sociopaths who think nothing of engaging in excessive consumption both economically and literally or causing collateral damage or loss of life in their wake I'm pretty sure that Twilight by itself is "Twilight but the vampires are cancer."

[Anonymouswizard]

1: I don't think that's a very charitable interpretation.

2: Considering that Twilight vampires are universally depicted as being so far beyond humans that they're untouchable and even the good ones are borderline sociopaths who think nothing of engaging in excessive consumption both economically and literally or causing collateral damage or loss of life in their wake I'm pretty sure that Twilight by itself is "Twilight but the vampires are cancer."

1) hence 'mocked'. We did not understand the vampire snogging books.

2) the vampires in Twilight are less cancer, more [REDACTED]. Although what you describe is... pretty much your standard Masquerade vamp anyway.

[Rater202]

2) the vampires in Twilight are less cancer, more [REDACTED]. Although what you describe is... pretty much your standard Masquerade vamp anyway.

I don't recall many masquerade vamps racing down the freeway in broad daylight with no regard to the other drivers, running out of gas, getting out, carjacking someone, and then tossing the old car into oncoming traffic before speeding off again in their stolen car which, according to Midnight Sun, the "Twilight but from Edward's perspective," book is how the Cullens got to Bella in time to rescue her.

I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing that would make the local Prince give a Masquerade vamp the choice between getting run feet first through a wood chipper or tossed off the top of Sears Tower at dawn.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't recall many masquerade vamps racing down the freeway in broad daylight with no regard to the other drivers, running out of gas, getting out, carjacking someone, and then tossing the old car into oncoming traffic before speeding off again in their stolen car which, according to Midnight Sun, the "Twilight but from Edward's perspective," book is how the Cullens got to Bella in time to rescue her.

I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing that would make the local Prince give a Masquerade vamp the choice between getting run feet first through a wood chipper or tossed off the top of Sears Tower at dawn.

That's not what you said. Honestly I'm not sure how the Volturi compare to the Camarilla or Invictus, but apart from the word 'daylight' the main difference compared to Vampire PCs I've run for is insufficient ranks in Potence/Vigor.

He k, the war with the Sabbat led to Masquerade breaches that make that look subtle, ****ing Tzimisce.

[Rater202]

That's not what you said.

I believe it's covered under "causing collateral damage or loss of life in their wake "

The Culles do two things.

Excessive consumption: IE blows money on pointless luxuries and hunt endangered animals and the like, thus wasting resources.

2: Show callous disregard for the lives or property of non-vampires, sometimes actively causing the destruction, via their actions and those they permit of their allies.

And these are the good ones. The bad ones are much, much worse.

Much the same way that malignant cells consume resources from the body in excess and whose actions(in this case unchecked growth) cause damage to other cells and structures.

Metaphorically speaking, the vampires in Twilight are a cancer.

[LaZodiac]

I say this with all the love in my heart.

They're overly destructive, wasteful to the point of excess, and their only method of survival is the desolation of other beings, something that they generally do not think much about if at all?

You mean to tell me, you MEAN to tell ME, that VAMPIRES... are parasites?

A pox you say, inconceivable. I'd have never have considered that the leech-like landlords of antiquity could be considered cancerous to the body of society they exist within.

[Rater202]

I say this with all the love in my heart.

They're overly destructive, wasteful to the point of excess, and their only method of survival is the desolation of other beings, something that they generally do not think much about if at all?

You mean to tell me, you MEAN to tell ME, that VAMPIRES... are parasites?

A pox you say, inconceivable. I'd have never have considered that the leech-like landlords of antiquity could be considered cancerous to the body of society they exist within.

It's theoretically possible for vampires as depicted in some works to be benign or even a net good within a society.

Vampires as depicted in Twilight are not within that theoretical framework.

Like, they don't outright say that being turned makes you a total sociopath, but it pretty clearly makes you a total sociopath.

[LaZodiac]

It's theoretically possible for vampires as depicted in some works to be benign or even a net good within a society.

Vampires as depicted in Twilight are not within that theoretical framework.

Like, they don't outright say that being turned makes you a total sociopath, but it pretty clearly makes you a total sociopath.

Oh absolutely, it's just amusing to me that there's this idea that vampires being a literal blood-sucking drain on society is... NOT the anticipated norm. The only vampires I even know of that AREN'T this are like... Ella? And she's not even really a vampire, is she?

[HalfTangible]

It's theoretically possible for vampires as depicted in some works to be benign or even a net good within a society.

Vampires as depicted in Twilight are not within that theoretical framework.

Like, they don't outright say that being turned makes you a total sociopath, but it pretty clearly makes you a total sociopath.

'Net good'? Vampire survive by drinking blood >.> At best, you're losing a major portion of your donated blood supply and/or have a lot of people wandering around with anemia for no clear reason.

Honestly if a vampire doesn't turn into a selfish sociopath that sees no value in human life beyond being a walking blood bag they probably don't last very long.

I prefer the WoD interpretation wherein vampires are a disease. At absolute best (excluding golconda) you will forever be unable to see the sun or taste food again, will have to consume the blood of others just to survive and struggle against the Beast for the rest of your existence. At worst, you lose touch with your humanity, go insane and start devouring everything around you in a horrific frenzy. This may or may not include friends and family. That's without even getting into the specific clans and their curses. You could be stark raving mad (Malkavian), locked into a mind control pyramid scheme (Tremere), or be so ugly when you throw boomerangs they don't come back (Nosferatu).

But hey, you get to live forever now! And if you're an Assamite you have an excuse to dress like Blade. Complete with sunglasses at night.

[Rater202]

'Net good'? Vampire survive by drinking blood >.> At best, you're losing a major portion of your donated blood supply and/or have a lot of people wandering around with anemia for no clear reason.

Some works depict vampires as requiring very little blood and/or being able to subsist off of animals or reserved blood that is no longer viable for transfusion without issue.

Beyond that, depending on the dietary needs of the vampire in question compared to their average power level and the temperament, desires, and goals thereof it's possible that a given vampire could do more good overall than the harm they do.

For an arbitrary example, I pulled out of my ass just now, if a given vampire only needs to kill one human every couple of years and thus has thus luxury to only target serial killers and the like and do proper investigation to make sure that they get the right guy.

[Anonymouswizard]

Some works depict vampires as requiring very little blood and/or being able to subsist off of animals or reserved blood that is no longer viable for transfusion without issue.

Beyond that, depending on the dietary needs of the vampire in question compared to their average power level and the temperament, desires, and goals thereof it's possible that a given vampire could do more good overall than the harm they do.

For an arbitrary example, I pulled out of my ass just now, if a given vampire only needs to kill one human every couple of years and thus has thus luxury to only target serial killers and the like and do proper investigation to make sure that they get the right guy.

And now you're ignoring the point of using vampires. Heck, Masquerade got this spot on and Requiem doubled down on it: even though kindred can survive by feeding once a week (although the trail of corpses would be good hunter bait) there's many reasons why they'd want to do so far more regularly.

Because if you're using vampires* they're a metaphor for something dangerous, something parasitic, or both. Hell Dracula is both the aristocracy and STIs. There's a reason that as times have moved on vampires have gone from lurking in castles to surveying dance floors, and it's not because it makes them less harmless. The Cullen's are, loosely, a bunch of upper class recovering addicts getting a sense of superiority from both those factors and Edward is clearly a partner driven toxic by their privilege. Even at their most benign they still deal with addiction, due to the fact that they conflate feeding and ****ing

Also frankly your example assumes that killing serial killers isn't reprehensible, and that's probably the least of the issues with Batvamp. Is it better than the vamps who commit serial date rape? That's probably not board appropriate.

* outside of comedic contexts.

[halfeye]

Some authors like "nice" vampires. Malivette in The gods are Bastards is one, Count Skingrad in ES4 Oblivion is another.

[Anonymouswizard]

Some authors like "nice" vampires. Malivette in The gods are Bastards is one, Count Skingrad in ES4 Oblivion is another.

Bleh, down with nice vampires, authors should write more good vampires!

[Peelee]

Because if you're using vampires they're a metaphor for something dangerous, something parasitic, or both.

Theory: some monster stories and myths can be largely taken from rabies.

Vampires: bite people, can't cross running water, sensitive to light? Rabies.
Zombies: bite people, drool, agressive, disoriented? Rabies.

Obviously not 1:1 here, but different cultures could have different takeaways when forming the myths.

[Rater202]

zombies: bite people, drool, agressive, disoriented? Rabies.

While you can totally do that, modern zombie stories tend to be metaphors for more abstract issues. Faceless hoards, mindless consumerism, spreading pandemics...

honestly, vampires-as-antagonist and modern zombies hit a lot of the same themes in different ways

But if you're going with "mythologically accurate zombies" then zombies are pretty clearly an allegory for chattel slavery.

Like, stepping lightly a classic type zombie is someone who is poisoned to death or near death by an evil sorcerer who then steals their body and revives them in a fugue state in order to use them as a source of manual labor. The slavery parallels are obvious even before you consider the social and historical context.

...Of course, this is all based on real things. Puffer fix neurotoxin mixed with some psychoactive herbs is the main ingredient in the powder used to "kill" someone in preparation of making them a zombie which both puts the subject into a deathlike state and renders them mentally suggestible. There are people in living memory who've been allegedly subjected to this process. So it's probably less of an allegory and ore people just talking about **** that actually happened.

Though interestingly enough, most cultures do have some conception of an animate corpse that preys on the living. The history I've seen that I like is that in prehistoric society there were incidents of bodies being buried in shallow graves and then later people would find a hand sticking out of the ground, rendered into a clawing or grasping pose by rigor mortis, because of wind erosion or a scavenger trying and failing to dig up the corpse and their imaginations running wild and the idea stuck and was permuted over the millennia as stories changed hands.

Like, think about it: you see the image of a hand bursting out of the ground without context and you immediately know what's up. It's iconic, burned into the collective subconscious

[LaZodiac]

And now you're ignoring the point of using vampires. Heck, Masquerade got this spot on and Requiem doubled down on it: even though kindred can survive by feeding once a week (although the trail of corpses would be good hunter bait) there's many reasons why they'd want to do so far more regularly.

Because if you're using vampires* they're a metaphor for something dangerous, something parasitic, or both. Hell Dracula is both the aristocracy and STIs. There's a reason that as times have moved on vampires have gone from lurking in castles to surveying dance floors, and it's not because it makes them less harmless. The Cullen's are, loosely, a bunch of upper class recovering addicts getting a sense of superiority from both those factors and Edward is clearly a partner driven toxic by their privilege. Even at their most benign they still deal with addiction, due to the fact that they conflate feeding and ****ing

Also frankly your example assumes that killing serial killers isn't reprehensible, and that's probably the least of the issues with Batvamp. Is it better than the vamps who commit serial date rape? That's probably not board appropriate.

* outside of comedic contexts.

My opinion on weather ethical vampires can exist aside (there are plenty of hyper-wealthy people who have a lot of blood and not a lot of use in society...) this is basically what I meant. Unless you go very abstract or alter the setting enough that it works (like all the vampire-yuri series out there that I completely forgot about, that have concepts such as "buying blood bags on the dark web") vampires are kind of too entrenched in their own symbolism. A lot of work has to be done to make vampires not implicitly kind of scummy, so it is often better to lean into that.

And this is why I prefer werewolves, to be quite honest.

[Peelee]

But if you're going with "mythologically accurate zombies" then zombies are pretty clearly an allegory

for nothing. Origination for monsters like this were not allegorical, modern stories about them are. Dracula was allegorical, vampires were superstition, for example. Zombies did not spring up as allegory. They were folklore.

[Anonymouswizard]

And this is why I prefer werewolves, to be quite honest.

I like the fair folk, at least until they return my kid

Plus they put on amazing opera. People claim the ballet is amazing, but it pales before the opera.

[LaZodiac]

I like the fair folk, at least until they return my kid

Plus they put on amazing opera. People claim the ballet is amazing, but it pales before the opera.

The fey are always a good choice, yeah. But they've got some implicit aesthetic stuff to them that can at times make them feel a bit generic- you've seen one flower-dressed court of dandies demanding proper etiquette, you've seen'em all, you know?

[Batcathat]

The fey are always a good choice, yeah. But they've got some implicit aesthetic stuff to them that can at times make them feel a bit generic- you've seen one flower-dressed court of dandies demanding proper etiquette, you've seen'em all, you know?

To be fair, every fey doesn't have to be like that anymore than every vampire has to look like Dracula. Personally, I'm fond of the fey that really lean into surreal weirdness.