Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to make a Wyld hunt Incompetent but not too incompetent

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
    The Victorian era's staidness was essentially a direct result of being fed up with their debauched grandparents.
    .
    See, this is believing somebody's hype. The Victorians were pretty damn saucy. Prostitution was a national spectator sport. Drug use was essentially a patriotic requirement. And gentlemen trolling London for young men was so common they actually had an entire separate newspaper just for the GOP National Convention section of the police blotter. All that "We are the moral exemplars of the universe, and even God cannot measure up to our standards!" was a wish list, because "We make the sister-f*cking parts of the Roman Empire look positively tame" would have been accurate but less moralistically pure.*

    And we got into Turks because evidently the Solars are the Turks and Lookshy is Hungary, and the Wyld Hunt is the Battle of Kosovo Polje. Or something. Though, I am willing to stipulate the Lunars are Victorian prostitutes - all over the place, falling out of their clothes, and willing to do seriously nasty things in the sack for 3 bob


    * I never understand hating on the Caligula period. Contrary to how people imagine it, the debauched carnival of sin period corresponds to the height of Roman power and military might. Uptight citizens' brigade of Jesus-love is the declining, ineffective part of the Roman Empire. More boobies, less Madonnas if you want a strong empire

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz
      The regency era aristocrats were screwing and shooting each other all over the place (dueling was banned in the end because it was so common that the government worried it was devastating the officer class).
      But the Scarlet Dynasty would be wholly unsustainable if they were killing each other all the time. {nod nod}
      Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz
      I really can't remember what this has to do with Exalted
      I made an analogy to an Immaculate being willing to cooperate with Anathema.


      I have approximate knowledge of many things.
      Write up as I play Xenoblade Chronicles.

      Comment


      • #93
        Oh curious, it Says in Scroll of Exalts that the Realm is waiting to Peleps Deled to die, or fail horribyl before sending new help to the pinacle of the eye of the hunt.

        What happens if its CAPTURED.

        I cant imagine that the returning Solars are doing anything BUT seeking to create some kind of "Anti Wyld hunt"


        Comment


        • #94
          If the Pinnacle was captured, it would be very embarrassing, and they'd have to send troops and Dragon-blood to take it back... but with the current wrangling, it might not actually get done. I mean everyone might agree it needs to be done, but try and get others to do it. Or it might be planned for the future and not gotten around to.

          I made an analogy to an Immaculate being willing to cooperate with Anathema.
          Okay, well sure, Britain (Protestant, idolised the crusades, saw itself as proof of white superiority, was proud of its liberty and semi-constitutional monarchy, tried to stamp out the slave trade) made an alliance with the Ottomans (Muslim, in the Middle East, not white, famous for its dictatorial government and acceptance of slavery). But then, Britain was reliant on the Suez Canal (the Immaculates don't have such an equivalent) and didn't actually consider the Ottomans to be soul-eating demons from Hell. Also, the alliance broke down in the end.
          I think an Immaculate follower, especially an impious one, or one who's willing to do bad things for the greater good, would do it. I don't think it would be common.

          See, this is believing somebody's hype. The Victorians were pretty damn saucy.
          Like all societies, they didn't live up to their own standards, but the standards society espoused in public were pretty strict. Of course, they were also controversial, not everyone agreed. It was very class based too: the middle classes were a lot more prudish than the upper classes (and colonial governments were renowned for being the hang-out of young men off on the adventure of sleeping with as many exotic beauties/British wives with nothing to do as they could). But this was the period when things were changing a lot. For example, it was the time when evangelicals got child prostitution banned. In the 1800s, that was seen as normal.

          And gentlemen trolling London for young men was so common they actually had an entire separate newspaper just for the GOP National Convention section of the police blotter.
          I'm not American, I'm a Brit living in China. I don't really get this reference. Do Republican conventions have a lot of men looking for other men?

          I never understand hating on the Caligula period. Contrary to how people imagine it, the debauched carnival of sin period corresponds to the height of Roman power and military might. Uptight citizens' brigade of Jesus-love is the declining, ineffective part of the Roman Empire. More boobies, less Madonnas if you want a strong empire
          That's kind of true, but it's partly the decline of the Roman empire that led to the increase in Christianity (and Mithraism, and the Cult of Isis, etc). Other religions are more the symptom than the cause, though saying that the Christians were slightly less keen on war (slightly).
          Also, strong empires aren't necessarily a good thing. Sure, technology declined, but the cultural acceptance of raping your slaves or making them fight to the death for your amusement also declined.


          I play...
          Kovan, actor, librarian, sorcerer, great bear, Lunar Elder from the First Age
          Thutmose-Osiris, seventh son of a seventh son, descendant of the Supreme Deity Sukhmet, renegade demigod and bearer of the Ghoul-Banishing Bow. Also bright green.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by phalamir
            I never understand hating on the Caligula period. Contrary to how people imagine it, the debauched carnival of sin period corresponds to the height of Roman power and military might. Uptight citizens' brigade of Jesus-love is the declining, ineffective part of the Roman Empire. More boobies, less Madonnas if you want a strong empire.
            Correlation, causation, blah blah, yakkedy schmackedy.


            I have approximate knowledge of many things.
            Write up as I play Xenoblade Chronicles.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
              I'm not American, I'm a Brit living in China. I don't really get this reference. Do Republican conventions have a lot of men looking for other men?
              It's anecdotal, but evidently when the GOP (which has the less gay-friendly platform and espouses heteronormality) has a convention in a city, the number of young gay men with spare cash goes through the roof. Also, a few years back, a Republican Senator was caught banging a prostitute while dressed in a diaper; his own party members expressed amazement that his partner was a woman (they seemed suspiciously blase about the diaper bit, though) - which implies they themselves assumed Republicans trolled for boys.

              Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
              Sure, technology declined, but the cultural acceptance of raping your slaves or making them fight to the death for your amusement also declined.
              You say that like its a good thing

              Comment


              • #97
                Maybe you want to be careful with the extent of your quotes...


                I have approximate knowledge of many things.
                Write up as I play Xenoblade Chronicles.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by phalamir View Post
                  You say that like its a good thing
                  I'm going to stick my neck out and make the assertation that yes, culture shifts that make slave-raping and gladiators more frowned on are good. Contraversial I know. Perhaps I'm being insensitive of other cultures, but I'm going to stick to my guns here, and say that the Christian campaigns to get the Coliseum closed down were a good thing.
                  Last edited by The Wizard of Oz; 12-26-2014, 06:06 AM.


                  I play...
                  Kovan, actor, librarian, sorcerer, great bear, Lunar Elder from the First Age
                  Thutmose-Osiris, seventh son of a seventh son, descendant of the Supreme Deity Sukhmet, renegade demigod and bearer of the Ghoul-Banishing Bow. Also bright green.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by The Wizard of Oz View Post
                    I'm going to stick my neck out and make the assertation that yes, culture shifts that make slave-raping and gladiators more frowned on are good. Contraversial I know. Perhaps I'm being insensitive of other cultures, but I'm going to stick to my guns here, and say that the Christian campaigns to get the Coliseum closed down were a good thing.
                    But I question their campaigns to eradicate women from Europe via flambe.

                    Comment


                    • Re: the Ottoman Empire and depictions, I was reading about the Turkic peoples on wiki a few weeks ago, and thought this might be of interest -

                      -
                      Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples#Turks_in_Persian_poetry View Post
                      "Countless Muslim authors have left us graphic descriptions of what they considered the essential attributes of the Turks as an ethnic group and the reasons for the latter's pre-eminence in the Islamic world from the eleventh century onwards. These accounts are counterbalanced, often, by description of what these same authors considered the all too obvious limitation of the same people. All authors of adab works, manuals of war, and mirrors for princes, agree on the military superiority of the Turks, their hardiness, their skill with horses and the bow and arrow, as well as their 'lion-like' qualities and pride...

                      The image of the Turk in Persian poetry soon developed into an ideal of manliness, the ideal beloved, white and beautiful, albeit cruel. 'Turk' came to relate to 'Hindu' like 'ruler' to 'slave', 'angel' to 'devil', while for Rūmī, for instance, Turkestan became the heavenly world of light (from which the beloved appeared) and Hind the dark world of matter....

                      Ultimately the 'lion-like' Turk, with his disdain for menial household tasks, was linked to the climate of his country of origin which predisposed him to a certain robustness and military valour. The nomadic Turks had a strongly developed 'love of homeland' (maḥabbat al-waṭan) or 'longing for homeland' (al-ḥanin 'ilā-l-waṭan). This attachment reinforced the mutual similarity and homogeneity of the Turks which expressed itself in an absolutely single-minded desire to achieve military command. The Turks' very single-mindedness was praised by Muslim writers as 'the only way to achieve anything'....

                      But the dark side of the Turkish character, regarded as equally universal, was an insatiable love of plunder and violence. In their own country, 'the Turks do not fight for religion nor for interpretation of Scripture nor for sovereignty nor for taxes nor for patriotism nor for jealousy, unless their women are concerned, nor for defense of their home, nor for wealth, but only for plunder. Given to violent appropriation, they were however free from unnatural vice, they treated prisoners well, kept their promises, and were not given to hypocrisy or intrigue, while being impervious to flattery, and not addicted to 'rivalry in poetic display'. 'The Turks know not how to flatter or coax, they know not how to practise hypocrisy or backbiting, pretence or slander, dishonesty or haughtiness on their acquaintance, or mischief on those that associate with them. They are strangers to heresy and not spoiled by caprice, and they do not make property lawful by quibbles.

                      Their fault which makes them most unpopular is their love of land and love of moving freely up and down the country and propensity for raiding and preoccupation with plunder...."
                      When considering how Turkic Empires were construed by Europeans, it seems interesting to note that the people who actually lived within these societies noted a contrast between the Turkic ruling class, as plundering, yet simple and not decadent warrior elites and contrasted to other, more "sophisticated" people within their society by being less given to "hypocrisy" and "intrigue", less "addicted to rivalry in poetic display", less duplicitous, and less legalistic.

                      With all that, you might expect depictions of the societies of the Turkic Empires by outsiders, while of course being more unflattering than reality, to echo a similar duality, and to reflect a certain truth to a degree, rather than being purely fictional.

                      (Of course, I know that most people on the web are far too Eurocentric to *actually* care about what these people (Persians and Turks) said about one another. Most people just assume carte blanche that we have no way of checking European descriptions of them against anything else, because of course what else exists other than what Europeans say to one another, and what else shapes how people are perceived? )

                      Re: the Victorians and their sexual morality, my read of history is that they lived through an era of industrialisation, which in all countries seems to involve an influx of women from the rural areas to the cities, where many inevitably end up working as prostitutes, due to the anonymity of the city compared to small villages, many male labourers attracted to the city, urban poverty and shortages of work, etc. See present day and near past China, Korea or India for examples.

                      They were also a deeply economically divided societies where an expensive, costly empire was fueled by industrialisation and the common people, and very large scales of the profits from industrialisation flowed to people with capital and connections. And in societies like that, the rich can afford to pay people off to perform acts they wouldn't normally consider.
                      At the same time, the Victorians self consciously really were both socially anxious and formal and committed to hierarchical bourgeois morality in contrast to frontier societies and societies under a war-like aristocracy, like their own grandparents to a degree.

                      Not that social awkwardness has much to do with prostitution or pornography - most studies find that in today's societies the high volume users of these services tend to be men who are far from socially isolated and tend to be promiscuous and highly sexually active anyway, and usually a bit lacking in an understanding of intimacy or romance. Usually tend to be highly sexed men who want more than they can already get. Which is what we see when we look at any sane, person-who-wrote-this-has-actually-left-their-bedroom-and-talked-to-real-people cultural depiction of "Johns" and guys who use lots of porno, more Don Juan and Don John than truly isolated people.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by phalamir View Post

                        But I question their campaigns to eradicate women from Europe via flambe.
                        Feel free. I'm not defending everything any Christian did ever (for example, all that homophobia: the pre-Christian societies were homophobic, but much more mildly), I'm just saying that I think Christianity was for the most part a good influence on the Roman Empire (arguably the Roman Empire was a terrible influence on Christianity though, because it taught them that the best way to spread their religion was political power).

                        (On the subject of Witch burnings: first, men were burnt too, just less than women.
                        Secondly, ironically the Church actually tried to stamp out belief in witches all through the dark ages. In the 9th century, for example, the Pope wrote a number of letters to Scandinavian kings asking them to pardon women sentenced to death for witchcraft, on the grounds that witches aren't real. The Scandinavian laws against witchcraft were actually pre-Christian.
                        From the 12th century on though, European Christians started to become increasingly paranoid, with the continual failures of the Crusades, various heresies, massive Church corruption, and the Black Death. Hatred and fear of Jews, Muslims, gays, gypsies, and anyone with unusual religious views increased, and so did belief in witches, vampires and werewolves. The Knights Templar, for example, were purged for the crime of being Satanist homosexual Muslim witches. It was I think the 13th century when the Pope announced that witches were real, and the 14th when he declared them heretics and thus under the Church's purview to prosecute. They started executing a few witches. Then there was the reformation, the collapse of organised religious authority in northern Europe, and wide-spread war, fear, paranoia, and street preachers, and the Protestants started burning tons of "witches" all over the place.
                        The sad thing about the witch-burnings is that you can't really blame organised religion, governments, etc, because there were a lot more witch-burnings in places where those things were weak. The fault for the witch-burnings is essentially down to the regular people of Europe.)
                        Last edited by The Wizard of Oz; 12-26-2014, 09:10 PM. Reason: Edited: the first paragraph to be more specific


                        I play...
                        Kovan, actor, librarian, sorcerer, great bear, Lunar Elder from the First Age
                        Thutmose-Osiris, seventh son of a seventh son, descendant of the Supreme Deity Sukhmet, renegade demigod and bearer of the Ghoul-Banishing Bow. Also bright green.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X