Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6271599" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, it isn't.&nbsp; D&amp;D is based on the stories we in this world have told.&nbsp; It doesn't draw on this world for inspiration.&nbsp; It draws on myth and legend, yes, but also on Fritz Leibur and Howard's Conan and Tolkien.&nbsp; It draws on stories explicitly set in worlds not our own it is itself almost always set in worlds not our own.&nbsp;&nbsp; Our world is only tangentially attached to the worlds of D&amp;D. And I'm saying, &quot;So what?&quot;&nbsp; Disagreement proves nothing.&nbsp;&nbsp; That fact is, in the D&amp;D world certainly, some of those views are actually right.Incidently, repulsive isn't the opposite of sacred.&nbsp; The opposite of sacred is profane - which means 'to show contempt for things that are owed do respect'.&nbsp;&nbsp; The opposite of repulsive is attractive.&nbsp;&nbsp; But in a fantasy setting, the sacred, the right, and the attractive are generally all on a team and of a piece.&nbsp;&nbsp; Undead are repulsive, profane, and improper all of one easy piece.How would you know?&nbsp; Can you put that to the test?&nbsp;&nbsp; How do you know that conjuring up undead isn't the magical equivalent of depleting the ozone, polluting the drinking water with carcinogens, and spreading radioactive waste around everywhere?&nbsp;&nbsp; What are the physics of making the dead walk while remaining dead?&nbsp; What power is at work?&nbsp;&nbsp; More importantly, in the stories people tell about animating the dead, these aren't happy stories.&nbsp;&nbsp; No matter how scientific minded the person, no matter how good his intentions, when he finishes his great work, Frankenstein looks up and realizes he's created a horrible monster.&nbsp;&nbsp; And your story is, &quot;Oh posh.&nbsp; It's just a body; it's nothing of significance!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Well, sorry, but your story doesn't seem to strike a very mythic cord.&nbsp;&nbsp; For one thing, people have never treated a body like it was just a body.&nbsp; We've been burying our dead and performing rituals around them and protecting them and caring for those bodies for something like 50,000 years.&nbsp;&nbsp; And for almost all that time we've been telling stories about restless spirits back from the grave.&nbsp; And you are going to tell a story about how corpses are just tools to be utilized, and you think that is going to resonate as the first and most important story about walking dead?Sure, that sounds rational and reasonable.&nbsp; And you can tell an interesting story I think around the culture that accepts that dad, and your rapist, and the six kids from that family across town that just died from typhus, are all just tools to animate and use for the good of the community.&nbsp; You can try to convince me that obedient automatons composed of decaying corpses of your village love ones doesn't ruffle the social fabric at all, and that the powers of unlife aren't really in opposition to weal and life, and that there are absolutely no dangerous side effects, and undead that go uncontrolled and start attacking people because their master has an accident, or because some evil necromancer took control are treated as neutrally as car accidents and run away horses.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm just not sure you can tell that story, come to the conclusion, &quot;It never meant anything&quot;, and it be an interesting story.&nbsp;&nbsp; And if you want to blow up the trope, &quot;I am Legend.&quot;, did that years and years ago.&nbsp; Most notably though, any time you blow up the trope - from &quot;I am Legend&quot; to &quot;Buffy the Vampire Slayer&quot;, it involves proving that what's on the inside isn't a match for what's on the outside.&nbsp; You can't do that with mindless undead.Sure and I agree as far as that goes, though presumably raised in a society where animating the dead was routine, cremating your loved ones remains to keep them out of the body mill would be chaotic.But your fixating now on the social traditions around burial, and not on the necromancy itself.&nbsp;&nbsp; You don't need to convince me that social traditions around burial could be flexible.&nbsp; You have to convince me that animating the dead is not only an act with out moral weight in a fantasy setting, but that that ought to be our default expectation.No, you aren't get it.&nbsp; It's not that it feels disgusting.&nbsp; It is disgusting.&nbsp; We aren't talking about subjective disgustedness.&nbsp; I'm asserting that it a feature of fantasy worlds that disgusting, horrible and ugly and things of that sort aren't subjective.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6271599, member: 4937"] No, it isn't. D&D is based on the stories we in this world have told. It doesn't draw on this world for inspiration. It draws on myth and legend, yes, but also on Fritz Leibur and Howard's Conan and Tolkien. It draws on stories explicitly set in worlds not our own it is itself almost always set in worlds not our own. Our world is only tangentially attached to the worlds of D&D. And I'm saying, "So what?" Disagreement proves nothing. That fact is, in the D&D world certainly, some of those views are actually right. Incidently, repulsive isn't the opposite of sacred. The opposite of sacred is profane - which means 'to show contempt for things that are owed do respect'. The opposite of repulsive is attractive. But in a fantasy setting, the sacred, the right, and the attractive are generally all on a team and of a piece. Undead are repulsive, profane, and improper all of one easy piece. How would you know? Can you put that to the test? How do you know that conjuring up undead isn't the magical equivalent of depleting the ozone, polluting the drinking water with carcinogens, and spreading radioactive waste around everywhere? What are the physics of making the dead walk while remaining dead? What power is at work? More importantly, in the stories people tell about animating the dead, these aren't happy stories. No matter how scientific minded the person, no matter how good his intentions, when he finishes his great work, Frankenstein looks up and realizes he's created a horrible monster. And your story is, "Oh posh. It's just a body; it's nothing of significance!" Well, sorry, but your story doesn't seem to strike a very mythic cord. For one thing, people have never treated a body like it was just a body. We've been burying our dead and performing rituals around them and protecting them and caring for those bodies for something like 50,000 years. And for almost all that time we've been telling stories about restless spirits back from the grave. And you are going to tell a story about how corpses are just tools to be utilized, and you think that is going to resonate as the first and most important story about walking dead? Sure, that sounds rational and reasonable. And you can tell an interesting story I think around the culture that accepts that dad, and your rapist, and the six kids from that family across town that just died from typhus, are all just tools to animate and use for the good of the community. You can try to convince me that obedient automatons composed of decaying corpses of your village love ones doesn't ruffle the social fabric at all, and that the powers of unlife aren't really in opposition to weal and life, and that there are absolutely no dangerous side effects, and undead that go uncontrolled and start attacking people because their master has an accident, or because some evil necromancer took control are treated as neutrally as car accidents and run away horses. I'm just not sure you can tell that story, come to the conclusion, "It never meant anything", and it be an interesting story. And if you want to blow up the trope, "I am Legend.", did that years and years ago. Most notably though, any time you blow up the trope - from "I am Legend" to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", it involves proving that what's on the inside isn't a match for what's on the outside. You can't do that with mindless undead. Sure and I agree as far as that goes, though presumably raised in a society where animating the dead was routine, cremating your loved ones remains to keep them out of the body mill would be chaotic. But your fixating now on the social traditions around burial, and not on the necromancy itself. You don't need to convince me that social traditions around burial could be flexible. You have to convince me that animating the dead is not only an act with out moral weight in a fantasy setting, but that that ought to be our default expectation. No, you aren't get it. It's not that it feels disgusting. It is disgusting. We aren't talking about subjective disgustedness. I'm asserting that it a feature of fantasy worlds that disgusting, horrible and ugly and things of that sort aren't subjective. [/QUOTE]

Verification