Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question about the Bronze Faction's feelings about unaffiliated Lunars.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Stephen Lea Sheppard View Post
    That is a really cool NPC.
    I’m still eager to see the Evocations Isator comes up with for his Malfean brass Daiklave.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by nalak42 View Post
      "Did you know about the anathema that replaced your relative?"
      "No."
      "Nothing suspicious about their behavior."
      "Well at first when they started being competent, and an asset to the House, and not a completely rancid pile of demon excrement, but they kept going and we never saw the ulterior motive come up. I'm sorry actually actually doing your duty as part of a Great House was never taught to me as sign of demonic replacement."
      Of couse the ulterior motive might have been to become an indespensible asset to the Great House until they were in a position to assassinate the matriarch.


      Onyx Path Forum Moderator
      Please spare a thought for updating the Exalted wiki.

      Comment


      • #33
        Oh. All of the notes I wrote down to keep my thoughts on a response to this fresh while waiting for a go-ahead have vanished.

        That's frustrating.

        Ah well, I'm pretty sure I remember the gist of it, and they were only talking points rather than actual composition, so I'm at least not losing nuances as I would if I had written something outright.

        Oh Jesus, every other thing that I was keeping saved for later in the text box of an RPG.Net thread is probably gone as well. Ohhhh that's going to fuck around with my head at some point. There is not enough space in the world for me to jot down things like stray observations, reflections and webpages or shows that I want to check out at some point.

        Well, I'm entering this subject with an angrier energy than I had anticipated. I shall endeavour to not let it show.

        Originally posted by JohnDoe244
        Which is utterly meaningless because those Dynasts "started it" by Usurping the Solars and hunting down every Lunar who Exalts as Anathema.

        Doing bad things to a horrific enemy is not remotely the same thing as doing bad things to innocent people.

        Raksi as a baby eating monster can be used to justify the Bronze Faction. Raksi being mean to the people who hurt her and want her dead is very anemic.


        First off, I think the most straightforward response to this sentiment is to say that I've seen more than enough people across a couple of forums express sentiments that the character of Raksi is still an absolutely terrible person. I mean, on this very forum we had a thread within days of her being revealed putting forward the argument that she was more villainous than she had ever been (with a few people contributing that she was utterly monstrous across the board). I'm not very concerned with the idea that the way Raksi is currently written will fail to be provocative to the people who want to use that.

        It's fine if it doesn't work to the full extent for you personally and singularly, but it's also fine that it's not entirely for you.

        The idea that it's not very provocative on account of another side having been the aggressor, well, there are implicitly even other Lunars who would regard the idea of what Raksi might do to enemy Terrestrials as being a bit much. If it was not, it wouldn't make sense as a thing she roles out to unnerve and unbalance rivals. There are certainly going to be readers who come with the attitude that regardless of the conflict, there are lines that are not to be crossed. I think the moral challenge based in the idea of horrific cruelty being inflicted on people that are supposed to be enemies being something to endorse or oppose might have more traction than a cruelty that is more directionless.

        I don't think an argument for providing a moral justification for the Bronze Faction is very important on two grounds. One is that the book for the Lunar Exalted isn't particularly the place to be making that case anyway. The other is that I don't really read moral arguments as being very significant to the Bronze Faction, for reasons such as "they target all Lunars", "they endorse the murderous, exploitative, enslaving Realm" and "their primary concern is with the continued existence of the world". Maybe one can opt to lean on a portrayal of the Bronze Faction as explicitly hypocritical, but for the time being I'll say that it's not something that I'd prioritise.

        That being said, even if they do need a moral justification, I can see one getting a decent amount out of "here's a person who went for the atrocities with gusto once a conflict started", which is in line with how Raksi is written and resonates with certain realistic concerns. Is condemnation for, say, Josef Stalin "anemic" just because the circumstances of his oppressive dictatorship were driven by revolution and fuelled by the pretty legitimate resentments of the Russian working class? We don't seem to discount him from being one of history's greatest monsters just because pre-revolutionary rural landowners really had been pretty oppressive. I've mentioned a few times how I've been reading the biopic Wild Swans the last few weeks, and I'll tell you, the only thing that feels anemic about the first hand accounts of what each new regime in China did to the power players in the last is the state that the overthrown are left in after the new boss is done lashing them.

        Never mind the question of exactly whose standards of innocence are applied. I personally would not see Raksi, nor many other dedicated members of the Silver Pact, giving much leeway to a Dynast who lives as an artist and is relatively marginal in their extended family, because that's not how these things tend to go. Like, they're a low priority target, but if one should be encountered by chance in a vulnerable state in the wild, waste not want not. It's a distinction I imagine many readers would apply.

        Last of all, I want to examined the purpose of the baby eating thing.

        I feel pretty confident in declaring that the intention behind how Raksi was written in First Edition was not about making a figure who could provide justifications to the other side. I don't usually want to be so absolute if I don't know the mind of writers, but fortunately the mind of line and book developer Geoff Grabowski is fairly well documented, both in The Art of Exalted and in archived quotes from his own forum posts. Those writings reveal an attitude towards Lunars not only concerned with his infatuation towards a certain form of savage fantasy present in the pulp that Exalted was inspired by, but he so frequently described them in terms of being throwbacks to a primeval ancient world (in this case aligning with the actual First Age). This lines up very closely with how Raksi was written in the book; First Edition was a lot more directly pulpy, and Raksi is described as being like that because she's a holdover from the end of the fallen empire at the height of its decadence and cruelty, expressed in the particular Lunar milieu. That's also a time when the idea that she eats babies is only a minor point in her wider cannibalism, albeit presented memorably in a chapter fiction. I don't believe he was that concerned with providing a moral argument for the Bronze Faction and Realm, because on the whole I don't think he was very occupied with presenting Creation's factions and characters as moral actors, the kind of thing that comes through in his references to old world governing practices while describing why the setting was written the way it was and encouraging people to read in terms other than "what moral alignment is the Scarlet Dynasty".

        (This at the same time as he was comparing the prospect of a Lunar victory to the Cambodian genocides)

        Her portrayal in Second Edition... it's kind of against my resolution to hold off for a while on focusing on things that I'm against, but I'll let that slide for just this one topic. Second Edition Raksi is an utter mess. This one especially challenges my wariness to make assertions or assumptions about writer intentions, but the baby eating thing is moved front and centre to such an absurd degree, given such an excess of detail, that it's hard for me to not conclude that it was a case of taking an element that had become very memetic among the fanbase and pandering to it, and I don't think that commonly makes for fiction with much depth to theme or intention. But the thing is that it would also be an utter mess on the grounds of "Raksi is so terrible that she can be used as a moral justification for opponents" because it gives her a backstory that robs her of any agency in how she is. She's not a baby cannibal because it reflects who she is as a person, she's like that because she was loaded with a bunch of traumas and then tossed into the Wyld to have it go right to her mind. I don't have time to unpack everything shoddy and gross about that, but suffice to say that it does not make a compelling point for baby eating as a major character element.

        So what's the context of Third Edition Raksi? First off, Third Edition as a whole is one that I find takes a more... even hand with its pulp inspirations. They're still present, but they're not being presented in such a raw form, there's a bit of reflection on them. This manifests with Lunars in particular in a few ways; one is the point of how it starts with the motif of the "barbarian at the fringes of civilization" and then interrogates and challenges it in the forms of the Lunars and the people that they are so often embedded with. The other is that the place of the Lunar Exalted has shifted from being refugees from the end of the Old Realm and their inheritors who preside over the savage lands and into a dedicated movement of insurrection.

        And the thing is that Third Edition Raksi belongs to that context. Mahalanka has transitioned from an ancient mystical savage queen reigning over decadent jungle tribes straight out of a Thirties paperback and into something reminiscent of the Yucatan peninsula at the height of its civilization. Raksi now has the personal arc of having been an unassuming academic who turned out to be the type who could become a fiercely dedicated revolutionary, a trend that is evident across history and especially prominent in the 20th century. Hell, that's where Stalin even came from. It is something that takes the bones of the character of "really old and prominent No Moon in position of high authority and terrifying reputation" and very thoroughly adapts it to the current milieu.

        That Raksi belongs in Fangs at the Gate a lot more than somebody who is in possession of an almost cartoonish violent personal indulgence because it expresses the book's themes and provides a viable mentor figure for Lunar players and their NPC peers, while still being a very prominent moral challenge. And I'm not even speaking in terms of "Raksi is helpful to us, but she's also really bad, when are we getting to the point that righteousness overtakes pragmatism and we take her down", I mean in terms of challenging what a person's evaluation for morality even is. Because that's the other side of insurrections, it's hard to conduct them cleanly regardless of how righteous their motives might be. The prevailing narrative of modern Western civilization is that the self-determination of small nations is the right thing and should be supported and fought for, but I'll never stop thinking about the description of the Irish Revolution's squad of assassins cornering and murdering an elderly clerk to prevent their finances from being sussed out. Was he an innocent or an enemy combatant? I don't think that question has an answer, just a debate that extends in perpetuity.

        I find that dilemma more compelling and significant, and I think giving her a practice of eating babies even in addition to it would be a bad call because it's so extreme that it's kind of a distraction and I predict that way too many people would look at that and find ambiguity falling far away.

        It kind of leads me back around to the point that I cannot disagree more with the perspective that a person dissecting enemies alive is a lifeless plot line because you know she has a reason to view them as enemies, and maybe you did as well. Seems to me that it's the kind of thing that is running red with the blood of "what are my standards for what is permissible for people to do to their enemies" and "what are my standards for what is permissible for people to do to my enemies"? Eating babies gives too much of an easy way out of that dilemma, a way that lacks an incentive for self-reflection.

        That plus the question of what Raksi's motive for doing so even is.


        I have approximate knowledge of many things.
        Watch me play Dark Souls III (completed)
        https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDtbr08HW8RW4jOHN881YA3yRZBV4lpYw Watch me play Breath of the Wild (updated 12/03)

        Comment


        • #34
          Going to 40k as an example, there are two types of Inquisitors: Puritans and Renegades. Puritans "drink the koolaid" as it were, follow all the rules, don't cut deals with demons and trade favors with eldritch monstrosities, etc, and they are 100% right that nothing good will ever come from it, its shortsighted, and it always hurts more down the line than it helps.

          Renegades, however, take an "any means necessary" approach, make deals with hated xenos, use demonic weapons, trade resources and information to known enemies to maximize their campaign against their current enemies, and know that they 100% do not have the luxury of playing by all the rules, because goody-two shoeing is unsustainable in eternal war.

          Both sides are Right. Both sides are necessary, and both sides are in conflict with each other.

          Puritan Sidereal knows that the Lunar is going to be a bigger problem in the future than the problem they solve today. Gotta kill em. It's regrettable but safe. Puritans are right.
          Renegade Sidereal knows that the world is being held together with twine and gum and if they don't fix the Today Problem its going to snowball into complete catastrophe. Renegades are right.

          Depending on who is the viewpoint character- the Sids, the Lunar, the DBs, I'd expect both philosophies to have followers. You can make that conflict the source of the plot.


          ..."But I've bought a big bat, I'm all ready you see. Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me"

          Message me for Japanese translations.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
            It's fine if it doesn't work to the full extent for you personally and singularly, but it's also fine that it's not entirely for you.
            Absolutely agree.

            My opinion is my opinion. It's not a great standard of objective truth.

            But you rightly dissect that the 2E portrayal of Raksi (whether that portrayal was good or bad) was informed by what resonated with the 1st Ed players of Exalted (vis baby eating).

            As one of those players, I simply wish to express that baby eating is what makes Raksi resonate with me. A Raksi that doesn't eat babies isn't Raksi to me.

            It's ok to dial it back to 1E. It's ok to look at the wider themes of 3E and dial it back further. It's ok if Raksi only has ever eaten one live human baby in her entire life. Raksi's portrayal in the backer text of Fangs is fine by me -- I explicitly do no object to the written text, because in the wider context and history of Exalted my inference is that Raksi does "partake" when serving.

            Eric responding to your post implying that (by word of god) Raksi doesn't eat babies is what raises my concern. I'm ok with ambiguity, I'm ok with individual STs making the call at their table. I'm ok with players saying "well it doesn't actually say..."

            But a dev saying "the most iconic thing about a character is expressly no longer true" (and I acknowledge that Eric did NOT actually say this) is disappointing to me, and why I was seeking further clarity.

            I have no specific objections to the other points you raised, which are insightful. And there is, of course, no reason why Exalted should be tailored to my preferences. If the devs want to say "Raksi does not eat babies" then such is their right.

            I just feel like we're not really discussing the same thing.


            Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post



              Eric responding to your post implying that (by word of god)
              I like the developers. I admire their work, I admire their characters, I appreciate the degree to which they try to engage with the community.

              But I think we all place a bit too much stock in their statements outside of what is actually published (and as another credit to them, that's a sentiment I feel they've expressed themselves a few times). I see value in the Ask thread, but I also think it's fostered a few bad habits.

              If a developer was clarifying this particular thing (assuming he can even properly do that, considering the question of whether he wrote it and what might have been said about Raksi in the outline), why does that matter to you?

              And the actual meaning of that question here is "it might be a good idea to interrogate why it matters to you and letting go of it if it's not useful or desirable".


              I have approximate knowledge of many things.
              Watch me play Dark Souls III (completed)
              https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDtbr08HW8RW4jOHN881YA3yRZBV4lpYw Watch me play Breath of the Wild (updated 12/03)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
                Eric responding to your post implying that (by word of god) Raksi doesn't eat babies is what raises my concern. I'm ok with ambiguity, I'm ok with individual STs making the call at their table. I'm ok with players saying "well it doesn't actually say..."

                But a dev saying "the most iconic thing about a character is expressly no longer true" (and I acknowledge that Eric did NOT actually say this) is disappointing to me, and why I was seeking further clarity.
                Thank you for acknowledging that I didn't actually say that.


                Developer for Exalted.

                Want to write for Exalted? Look at the freelancer submission guidelines.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Eric Minton View Post
                  Thank you for acknowledging that I didn't actually say that.
                  Yeah, no problem. As I said, I worry that what's being responded to is not what's being said.

                  Which... happens a lot. All I did was ask if Raksi still eats babies... I did not expect it to become a "thing". I'm happy to have the discussion, but this was not my intent.

                  To dispel any confusion, I don't have any problem with anything you've said or anything written about Raksi (whether by you or others). And you have every right to say or publish anything you want. (And I think you're pretty cool, and I thank you for your time.)
                  Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
                  And the actual meaning of that question here is "it might be a good idea to interrogate why it matters to you and letting go of it if it's not useful or desirable".
                  And, again, I feel like we're discussing two completely different things. So I'm going to quote the very first post I made in this thread to help clarify my position:

                  Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
                  Regardless of what the canon says: that sounds like a fun story concept and therefore you should allow it at your table.
                  I am all for ignoring the actual published canon if it makes for a better game. Ignoring Word of God is absolutely fine in my book.

                  But as to why I asked whether Raksi still eats babies... it's like if someone wrote a Third Edition version of Luke Skywalker but left out the Force, then you've come in and explained how Luke is still an interesting and compelling character based on literally every other aspect of his life (growing up on a backwater, becoming a crack pilot, rescuing a princess and blowing up an evil empire's super weapon) -- and I don't disagree with you, but the Force is a pretty essential part of what makes Luke Skywalker "Luke Skywalker".

                  For Word of God in general? Role playing is a communal activity, it only works when players have common assumptions. The only reason for me to buy Onyx Path products is to buy into a shared world. I'm free to change whatever I want in my game world and have Raksi eat babies for breakfast, lunch and dinner and the devs can't stop me. But if the exact opposite is going to be portrayed in the published gameline, then my alteration to the canon is going to be unsupported and potentially alienate other players. Knowing the intent of the developers and the direction of the game line is especially important in a world like Exalted, where the ST has to do a fair bit of world building. That doesn't mean I have to slavishly hang on every utterance of the devs, or that I can't shake things up for a particular game. But knowing the intent of the devs helps me engage with the other players. I don't want to know what Eric thinks because Eric is important, I want to know what Eric thinks because that will help me tell better stories.

                  Which is why I like the published(?) text. You can read it any way you want and mix things up based on the needs of your campaign. I don't think we disagree on this point.

                  I'm pretty confident, in fact, that even if you don't agree with me that I (at least) do not disagree with you. You've made some great points. And I'm glad you've made them because this is an interesting topic for discussion. I was being sincere when I said your observations were insightful. But I can't debate you because I don't have a contrary point of view. I see the logic behind everything you've said, and where we disagree is a matter of taste. Unless I've grossly misunderstood we're both happy with the 3E interpretation of Raksi, and you infer that she does not eat babies and I infer she does but we both acknowledge that the text only says she "serves live infants on platters" to guests (and we both agree this is a vast improvement over her 2E portrayal).

                  By the Dragons, I'm not going to duel you over your interpretation of the texts.
                  Last edited by JohnDoe244; 02-05-2020, 04:58 AM.


                  Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JohnDoe244 View Post
                    But as to why I asked whether Raksi still eats babies... it's like if someone wrote a Third Edition version of Hitler but left out the entire Holocaust, then you've come in and explained how Hitler is still an evil and compelling character based on literally every other aspect of his life -- and I don't disagree with you, but the Holocaust is a pretty essential part of what makes Hitler "Hitler".
                    No it isn't, those are real things, there are way huger implications to positing scenarios in which they were dramatically different, good Lord. Raksi is completely made up, the thing that is a cute element to her is decided upon by a writer.

                    I suppose the essence of my lengthy post boils down to an argument that, no, eating babies is not in fact the core detail that makes the character of Raksi. That in First and Third Edition there are more broadly useful and substantive things to centre her around, and the fact that Second Edition made "eats babies" such a core detail is a big part of why she's one of the weakest elements of that gameline.

                    Maybe there are some people who like it, but I feel confident in suggesting that on the whole it alternates too extremely between uncompromisingly vile and completely absurd for very much to be done with her besides being a token "unambiguously repellent Lunar for player Dynasts and Bronze Faction to go against".


                    I have approximate knowledge of many things.
                    Watch me play Dark Souls III (completed)
                    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDtbr08HW8RW4jOHN881YA3yRZBV4lpYw Watch me play Breath of the Wild (updated 12/03)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I'd prefer if we could maybe steer away from the holocaust. It's just that this is online discourse and Nazis rarely steer it in a productive direction.


                      Onyx Path Forum Moderator
                      Please spare a thought for updating the Exalted wiki.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post

                        No it isn't, those are real things
                        Agree to disagree (on the relevance of the distinction between history and fiction, not over whether Hitler was a "real thing").

                        I've changed my example to Luke Skywalker for more conducive debate.

                        Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
                        I suppose the essence of my lengthy post boils down to an argument that, no, eating babies is not in fact the core detail that makes the character of Raksi. That in First and Third Edition there are more broadly useful and substantive things to centre her around, and the fact that Second Edition made "eats babies" such a core detail is a big part of why she's one of the weakest elements of that gameline.
                        And again, agree to disagree.

                        It's a matter of taste, sure. And I reiterate that I enjoy the published text. And I acknowledge your valid interpretation of what can be done with the 3E text (which could not be done with the 2E text).
                        Last edited by JohnDoe244; 02-05-2020, 02:33 PM.


                        Hi, I'm JohnDoe244. My posts represent my opinions, not facts.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I'm sorry to admit that I did not and have not read the most recent responses to this thread; I was to cowardly for it. There is something I wish to say now regardless.

                          The discussion about Lilith elsewhere had me reading back over the First Edition write-ups for the Lunar elders, and disregarding the question of babies specifically, I had forgotten that the description did indeed make Raksi's culinary and sexual appetites for human beings from outside her domain a central characteristic. Like, it's basically the defining feature of exactly what she's doing as a decadent jungle queen holdover from the ancient wonder civilisation.

                          And while the elements are intertwined to a degree that I think dropping the one means leaving the other, I'm suddenly recognising that I had not given due consideration to people being attached enough to that old prominent quality to be sorry to see it go. For that I apologize.

                          That being said... the number of times I've referenced Wild Swans recently, now that I would characterize as a flex. Allow me to turn that to other services. Did I ask before what the presumed motive for insurgent Raksi to engage in cannibalism is? Here I cite the reference in the book to an incident of a peasant rebel who, on successfully killing a landlord who had murdered his brother proceeded to eat his enemy's heart, which gets me thinking about other reports on what can become of insurgents who rise to power.

                          Sure almost all Lunars are cannibals to some degree, but the characteristics of the kinds of insurgents that Raksi most clearly invokes are the kinds that hover closely enough to such a thing extending beyond the necessities of the sacred hunt in the treatment of enemies, and it's not a very long jump from there to the image of somebody who has been... affected by the pressures of such a conflict and other personal hang-ups (like a bitter falling out with a comrade) to start developing atrocious recreational habits. I wouldn't call it inherent to Raksi as she is currently written, but would find it to be a pretty organic expansion on the material, easily reconciled with the existing features. It would still serve as a valid commentary on what insurgency does to people, not least because the book otherwise has points about characters struggling to not be defined by violence.

                          I mean, the most compelling thing I find about Third Edition Raksi is that she's somebody who revels in what a life of violence made her into. That's not something that strictly necessitates she be a cannibal for recreational purposes, but it reconciles pretty easily with it, not least because write-up and chapter fiction dances on the line of her being done form of cannibal.


                          I have approximate knowledge of many things.
                          Watch me play Dark Souls III (completed)
                          https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDtbr08HW8RW4jOHN881YA3yRZBV4lpYw Watch me play Breath of the Wild (updated 12/03)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Personally, I wasn't exactly fond of the obsession with babies and thought her original culinary and sexual appetite for attractive youths had way more milage for an antagonist because it gave her an excuse to reach beyond Mahlalanka and be responsible for some high profile disappearances.

                            The biggest problem with eating babies though? In my experience a lot of people don't take it even remotely seriously, probably because it's so far removed from any real world cruelty they've observed that it's strictly in the realms of black comedy in a way that a cannibalistic rapist serial killer isn't. Look at the TV tropes page the overwhelming majority of examples are jokes.


                            Onyx Path Forum Moderator
                            Please spare a thought for updating the Exalted wiki.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Isator Levi View Post
                              That being said... the number of times I've referenced Wild Swans recently, now that I would characterize as a flex. Allow me to turn that to other services. Did I ask before what the presumed motive for insurgent Raksi to engage in cannibalism is? Here I cite the reference in the book to an incident of a peasant rebel who, on successfully killing a landlord who had murdered his brother proceeded to eat his enemy's heart, which gets me thinking about other reports on what can become of insurgents who rise to power.

                              Sure almost all Lunars are cannibals to some degree, but the characteristics of the kinds of insurgents that Raksi most clearly invokes are the kinds that hover closely enough to such a thing extending beyond the necessities of the sacred hunt in the treatment of enemies, and it's not a very long jump from there to the image of somebody who has been... affected by the pressures of such a conflict and other personal hang-ups (like a bitter falling out with a comrade) to start developing atrocious recreational habits. I wouldn't call it inherent to Raksi as she is currently written, but would find it to be a pretty organic expansion on the material, easily reconciled with the existing features. It would still serve as a valid commentary on what insurgency does to people, not least because the book otherwise has points about characters struggling to not be defined by violence.

                              I mean, the most compelling thing I find about Third Edition Raksi is that she's somebody who revels in what a life of violence made her into. That's not something that strictly necessitates she be a cannibal for recreational purposes, but it reconciles pretty easily with it, not least because write-up and chapter fiction dances on the line of her being done form of cannibal.
                              Hmmm, this is very interesting!

                              I remember when I was staying close to the Russian border watching Russian news, they were extensively covering a situation where a Syrian rebel had killed a Syrian army soldier and then cut out his heart and eaten it on live TV. Why? It seems bizarre. But this, I think, was essentially a result of trauma and seeing so many friends and relatives die at the hands of the Syrian army.

                              So I can see your point here, that does make some sense.


                              I run... Lunars: The Apocalypse! Exalted 3rd edition. Fimbulwinter is upon the world as an Ice Age begins, and only six young Lunar heroes have a chance of saving humanity.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
                                I remember when I was staying close to the Russian border watching Russian news, they were extensively covering a situation where a Syrian rebel had killed a Syrian army soldier and then cut out his heart and eaten it on live TV. Why? It seems bizarre. But this, I think, was essentially a result of trauma and seeing so many friends and relatives die at the hands of the Syrian army.
                                I'd attribute it to a combination of trauma, becoming desensitized to the lives of the enemy, and being in the kind of situation that promotes a form of superstition, or at least ritualistic behaviour. The ratios vary (sometimes to zero in one or two).

                                I'm suddenly wondering if there's been any study into correlations between US soldiers in the Pacific Theatre exhibiting signs of PTSD and taking enemy body parts as trophies.

                                Of course, some of it can be dependent on features of the motivating ideology or cultural background of the people in question. And an action such as that during wartime, with an audience? Intimidation tactics hardly seen bizarre. I expect the right people can stomach a lot of things for the sake of cowing enemies.

                                A desperate situation can press a person closer to the thresholds, but is not strictly necessary.


                                I have approximate knowledge of many things.
                                Watch me play Dark Souls III (completed)
                                https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDtbr08HW8RW4jOHN881YA3yRZBV4lpYw Watch me play Breath of the Wild (updated 12/03)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X