Tone Shifts (was Re: Faeries)

[Joe Iglesias]

On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Ian Young wrote:

> With equal respect, I must state that this isn't an issue of glossing an
> issue over, or squeamishness, or being politically correct.  The issue is
> whether or not UA is intended to be vile and tasteless.  I firmly believe
> not.

I don't think the issue at hand is "vileness", actually.  I think we're
differing on "what is vile".
 
> If it truly is a disservice to ignore the vile and the tasteless in the
> game, then why do we merely have Dipsomancy instead of heroin-based magick?

I think Dipsomancy is just as "vile and tasteless" as heroin-magic would
be (and it has a better magical pedigree via Dionysus); alcoholism isn't
pretty, and look at the signature Dipsomancer: it's fairly obvious that
Dirk Allen's choice of style plays a large part in his self-destruction
(or vice-versa).  

>  Why do we have Pornomancy instead of rape/torture-based magick?  

And Pornomancy is morally superior somehow?  It's brain-rape instead of
physical rape is all.

> Why was
> serial murder- and ritual slaughter-based magick left out of the rules?

Probably because PCs are meant to be bad perhaps, but not outright twisted
(usually).  But I'm pretty sure that if some author comes up with a
dynamite scenario idea that hinges on ritual slaughter in some fashion,
it'll be included.  

I note that all your examples are tilted towards PC-availability-- did you
think I was advocating having player characters create "fae"?

Here's a not-very-hypothetical question: would you buy a game that had, in
the introductory adventure, a mentally disturbed man torture a pedophile
and then claw out his own eye to cause several squad cars' worth of cops
to "dissolve in a wave of flesh and fluid"?

UA also has such charming statements as "I'll just have to keep pushing
these needles into your eyes until you love each other again" in the
rulebook.  There is plenty of textual support for going squicky, if you want.
Look at the game's *cover*.

I agree that you don't *have to* skirt the edge of good taste (and
honestly I don't mind if you don't).  But please don't tell me I'm wrong
to do so.

What really perplexes me is that once the idea was *slightly rephrased*
you liked it.  The concept is still predicated on infanticide.
 
> I don't intend to make my UA game pretty.  It may have it's lovely and
> tender moments, but these will be balanced -- probably over-balanced -- by
> a form of gritty realism that I still won't let sink into being crass and
> vile merely for shock value.  

"Merely"?  I thought I spelled out the thematic reasons for using the
notion pretty well in my first reply.  Whether or not you agree that
that's a good *enough* reason to play with this concept, please do me the
the favor of admitting I'm not being crass *solely* to be so.

> Yes, it's very much a matter of taste, 

Exactly.  I'm not imputing shallowness on your part for your personal
taste in game style; please do me the same favor.

Joe
---
"Looking at my action figure, it occurred to me that that's not a bad way
to face the world: gorgeous, heavily-armed, and distinctively masked."
--Amy Rambow, contemplating Cosmic Angela | "I'd like to thank you and your
fellow pedophiles for your support." --attributed to Ross Perot |
Howling lunacy here: http://members.xoom.com/McGuffins/