Re-using Sabbat Art

[MSheafer33]

With the release of Final Nights, White Wolf has continued the policy of using
the most recent art, which means Sabbat art for all cases where there is more
than one version. This seems a bit of a shame, as the V:tES art is usually
better. The Sabbat War set also emphasized the themes of sadism and depravity
to extremes that I would prefer did not come to typify the game as a whole.

Does anyone actually like the Sabbat art better? Please comment.

Below is a list of cards for which there are more than one version. I prefer
the original art in almost all cases (except where indicated).

Canine Horde
V:tES: Closup on an animal's eyball, in which are reflected a group of dogs.
Attractive picture, good art.
Sabbat: Vague, muddy-looking picture of a group of ugly dogs attacking a
fallen human figure.

Cats' Guidance:
V:tES: Picture of two rather retarded-looking cats against a checkered
background.
Sabbat: Cat standing by master's leg as they observe approaching figure.
This is one of the rare occasions where I prefer the Sabbat art. Crude, but
atmospheric.

Wolf Companion:
V:tES: This fellow could win a prize at a dog show, though he still looks
dangerous enough. Judging from all those earings, his master is evidently
quite fond of him.
Sabbat: Also a good picture, but emphasizes the wolf's viciousness rather
than his status as a loyal pet. I guess the Sabbat are not given to
sentimental fondness.

Enhanced Senses
V:tES: Somewhat abstract profile diagram of a vampire's eye and brain.
Sabbat: Picture of a man's eye and ear. Less distinctive than the V:tES
version, and too specific, as the figure represented probably does not resemble
the vampire actually playing the card.

Pulse of the Canaille
V:tES: Picture centers on a woman's neck, where a mystical light shines.
Perhaps she is one of the "Canaille" and someone has a mystical "finger" on her
pulse. Or perhaps she is a vampire, and her pulse is in tune with that of the
Canaille.
Sabbat: Guy surrounded by coffins is making grand mystical gestures, while a
naked vampiric woman recoils. Rather more lurid. But what, if anything, does
this picture have to do with the Canaille (mortals)?

Spirit's Touch
V:tES: Vampiric lady holding aloft a book while phantoms stream around her,
against a background of windows through which a moon shines.
Sabbat: Ugly hand holds aloft a bloody dagger. Huh?

Telepathic Counter:
V:tES: Dorky-looking fellow is disarmed of his dagger telekinetically by a
guy standing two feet away.
Sabbat: White-faced green-eyed babe looks over the collar of her leather
jacket, next to the blood-spattered words YOU ARE MINE. Not bad. I might like
this one better.

Blur:
V:tES: A lupine figure, blurred by speed, against a background of abstract
designs. Harold McNeill's work, which I like.
Sabbat: Rather busy picture representing some sort of combat, apparently
involving several figures. There seems to be alot going on, but you can't tell
what, as it is all too blurry. Blah.

Fast Hands:
V:tES: Abstract picture of a pair of cloudy white hands, superimposed on a
dark bat-cape symbolizing speed. McNeill again.
Sabbat: A tatooed female vampire striking with hand. If you look closely,
you can see that she has deprived her opponent of a pistol with a laser-sight,
but it looks too large for her hand.

Flash:
V:tES: Batlike cloak streaking across a deserted street. Nice. (McNeill)
Sabbat: Ugly, orange-haired vampire with ugly red pants (typical Sabbat bad
taste) and bloody claws is shown in midst of a mighty leap. This version is
great if your crypt consists a fair number of ugly, orange-haired dudes.

Bonding:
V:tES: Man stares into a woman's eyes, evidently forming a psychic bond.
Sabbat. More abstract, and more erotic. The female is naked and the seducer
is batlike and monstrous. By Harold McNeill, and, as usual, I like his work.
However he did the same thing earlier (and arguably better) for the card
Seduction, for which it is more thematically suited.

Obedience:
V:tES: Hideous Nosferatu figure crawling through an enclosed space. Great
picture, though I bet that originally it had nothing to do with the card's
theme. If you imagine he is grovelling, rather than crawling through tunnels,
it works well enough thematically.
Sabbat: Naked figure with funny red tatoos on his arms crowches like a dog
before a woman in evening dress while others look on. The woman in question is
evidently Lasombra. Don't like it much.

Threats:
V:tES: Poor slob cowers in terror before a vampire. All you can see of the
vampire is his clawed hand.
Sabbat: Vampire forces victem to hold gun to own head. Not bad, but once
again makes the mistake of depicting the acting vampire, who in this case is a
curvaceous blonde. Not so helpful if you happen to be playing Marty Lechtansi.

Restoration:
V:tES: Guy calmly holds before him his bloody shirt, while a young woman
looks on in horror at the massive hole in his chest. Humorous.
Sabbat: Crude picture of a guy looking at something in his hand. Seems to
have nothing to do with the card's theme.

Skin of Rock:
V:tES: Depicts stone torso in a leather jacket, whose dynamic aspect
indicates the "statue" is not static. Nice.
Sabbat: Ugly fist streaming towards a retarded-looking long-haired vampire's
ugly mug. Truly hideous art by Langely.

Undead Persistence:
V:tES: Rather serene picture of a hairless male figure with multiple
scars/scratches, and a tree in the background.
Sabbat: More hideous art from Langely, in which two hulking grey-skinned
Sabbat monsters duke it out while blood spurts and splatters everywhere.
Arguably more suitable to the card's theme, but .... UGH.

Cloak the Gathering:
V:tES: Serene blue picture represents (presumably) the spashing of multiple
invisible feet in a pool of water. Nice.
Sabbat: Several partially invisible persons in Victorian dress, traversing an
opulent hallway. Not bad, but I prefer the other, which wisely fails to depict
the individuals involved.

Disguised Weapon:
V:tES: Attractive picture of a watch with hidden blades attached.
Sabbat: Tatooed babe in army pants doing a bad job (judging by the position
of the wire) of garrotting an ugly man before his fireplace. What those orange
lines are, I do not know.

Lost in Crowds:
V:tES: Veiled figure surrounded by a dark crowd of people.
Sabbat: Vague picture of a guy looking over his shoulder at a fuzzy (but
brightly lit) crowd of people). Okay, but hardly better.

Night Moves:
V:tES: Lonely figure shields match with hands while lighting cigarette on a
dark city street. Atmospheric.
Sabbat: Ugly, messy picture of a dark figure clambering through a dark
window.

Immortal Grapple
V:tES: I have no copies since my Sheldon deck was stolen, but it's got to be
better than the Sabbat version.
Sabbat: Another bit of Langely hideousness, in which naked, grey-skinned
sabbat monsters inflict messy bloody mahem. There seems to be no grappling
going on. Ugh!

Thrown Gate:
V:tES: A guy in a white coat skewered to the wall by a gate. Well rendered.
Sabbat: A hulking animalistic Sabbat brute (from Langely again) hurls a gate
at his victim. Muddy and messy. And where did all that blood come from? Or
perhaps all those blood splotches are merely intended to cover up the mediocre
quality of the art.

Undead Strength
V:tES: Depicts a heart and other innards, presumably the source of the
vampire's undead strength. Works for me.
Sabbat: A female sadist pleasures herself with a little eye gouging. Apart
from the fact that it is overly specific in depicting the vampire playing the
card, it also goes to gratuitous and thematically irrelevant extremes in the
depiction of depraved cruelty. I have no desire to identify with the vampire
here depicted, but that is what I am asked to do when I play this card. This
is one of the staple damage-dealing cards of the Potence discipline. Surely it
could do without this art. Repulsive.

Bewitching Oration:
V:tES: She looks bewitching all right, but not necessarily like she's giving
an oration.
Sabbat: He is clearly giving an oration, but he does not look the least bit
bewitching. Crude looking.

Dread Gaze:
V:tES: Angry-looking white-haired Ventrue-type fixes you with his dread gaze.
Sabbat: Same concept, but looks more like a Toreador or Brujah type, and his
eyes are glowing yellow. Arguably better, this time, though I'd as soon keep
the old version out of nostalgia.

Social Charm:
V:tES: Socially charming vampiress has clearly managed to impress 3 onlookers
(2 men and a woman).
Sabbat: Fuzzily rendered vampire lover gets ready to bite his victims thigh.
I guess he "socially charmed" her. More lurid and erotic; less thematically
appropriate.

Gleam of Red Eyes:
V:tES: More abstract work from Harold McNeill, with disembodied red eyes
gleaming against an atmospheric backdrop.
Sabbat: Grey-haired male vampire with red eyes, in a forest of red thorns.
Okay, but once again we do not need to see so specific a depiction of the
vampire playing the card.

Shadow of the Beast:
V:tES: Animalistic humanoid prowls the night under a full moon. Evidently he
has become more permanently bestial, in keeping with the card's theme.
Sabbat: Reclining figure has a phantom wolf leaping out of his chest.
Perhaps he is in the process of turning into a wolf, but this is certainly not
how I would imagine it. Confusing.

Wolf Claws:
V:tES: Guy with sunglasses brandishes sharp "wolf" claws.
Sabbat: A similar set of claws rake across a person's face, leaving a bloody
swath. The failure to depict the acting vampire is a point in its favor, this
time. But the typical Sabbat emphasis on bloody gore is perhaps something I
could do without.

Cauldron of Blood:
V:tES: Black cauldron is shown from the side, with rivulets of blood
flowing down the sides.
Sabbat: Evidently depicts the cauldron from above. It is less clear what is
being depicted here -- all we see is a mixture of shades of red.

Cryptic Mission:
V:tES: One of my favorite pictures from the original set. Old fashioned
vehicle races through the night, while a hideous blue batlike figure looms in
the foreground. I found it very atmospheric and "Lovecraftian", though I have
no idea what is going on.
Sabbat: Ugly vampire in ugly leather clothes casts some kind of spell on a
Garou. Okay if your vampire is an ugly mustached male and you happen to be
playing the card on a werewolf.

Theft of Vitae:
V:tES: Victim clutches his chest in horror while the lady behind him casts a
spell. I guess she stole vitae from him, poor fellow.
Sabbat: One vampire grasps another, who vomits a river of blood into her
mouth. Grotesque, but it does not look particularly mystical, nor usable at
long range.

Walk of Flame:
V:tES: A pair of naked feet trip across a background of bright yellow flames.
Fine.
Sabbat: Goateed guy is inveloped in flames, which is evidently the doing of
the happy lady standing in the background. Shows both participants, who we do
not need to see.

Arson:
V:tES: Figure holding container (of gasoline, presumably) is sillouetted
against an inferno. Fine.
Sabbat: A number of flaming figures leap from a burning building. As usual
with Sabbat cards, the theme is more violent and preoccupied with the depiction
of horror and pain.

Boxed In
V:tES: Indistinct figure cowers in a corner, while the shadow that covers him
indicates the presence of an advancing figure.
Sabbat: Tatooed babe rakes claws across a larger vampire's chest, spattering
blood on the wall behind him. Less atmospheric, more typical Sabbat emphasis
on gore. Depicts both figures in the combat.

Bribes
V:tES: White-haired vampire holding a stack of gold and money. Fine.
Sabbat: The briber looks like a Tzimisce, and he is evidently bribing with a
"book of secrets" rather than with money.

Computer Hacking:
V:tES: Sinister fellow hacks away merrily from the safety of his private
study. Nice, atmospheric, humorous. He keeps a skull and a rubix cube on his
shelf.
Sabbat: Sabbat thug holds a gun to a computer-user. Evidently, the Sabbat
are far too stupid to do their own computer hacking, and are only good at
bullying and threats.

Cryptic Rider:
V:tES: A document lies on a desk, with a cup, book, pen, and magnifying
glass.
Sabbat: Cryptic writing, cryptic figures, cryptic swath of blood. Very
cryptic and abstract.

Fake Out
V:tES: Funky abstract diagram featuring a skull and an swerving arrow,
symbolizing, evidently, a change of direction while pretending to attack.
Appropriate.
Sabbat: Pale chunky-looking guy in sunglasses engaged in some sort of might
leap, to the protests of the individual left far behind. Seems to have little
to do with the idea of a "fake-out", and more to do with the use of superhuman
powers not required for the use of the card..

Surprise Influence:
V:tES: Long-haired vampire confronts a figure who looks both surpised and
awed.
Sabbat: Ugly punk has evidently just spray-painted an art gallery with crude
insults. This sort of thing is evidently quite influential among the Sabbat.
They think it's really cool, though I'm unsure why this sort of behavior should
surprise them.

Consanguinous Boon
V:tES: A red rose with rising droplets of blood (contrasting with the black
rose of "Consanguinous Condemnation", with its falling blood drops).
Sabbat: A bunch of Nossie types (antitribu, presumably). If you plan to call
a boon on Nossies, this is fine.

Disputed Territory:
V:tES: A guy with a moon tatoo on his chest. Not sure what it has to do with
the card theme.
Sabbat: Two guys (Lasombra?) facing off in a Church. More thematically
appropriate, but nostalgia still attracts me to the older art.

Peace Treaty:
V:tES: A bunch of burning weapons lying on a sort of bullseye diagram.
Sabbat: A burning pistol ... with a severed hand attached. More gratuitously
gruesome, as is typical. Still, it is a nicer picture than most of the new
Sabbat art

Regaining the Upper Hand
V:tES: Evil looking dude thoughtfully scratches his nose with his clawed
thumb.
Sabbat: Severed head lies in the foreground on a table, while babe in the
background laughs at her victory. I guess that in the Sabbat, strategies are
never subtle.

.44 Magnum
V:tES: Ivory skinned woman languidly holds a smoking pistol as she leans over
a skull. I rather like this picture, despite its depiction of the employing
vampire.
Sabbat: Someone holding a big revolver. Are either of these gun's actually
.44 magnums?

Flamethrower
V:tES: Ugly dude with goggles holding a flamethrower.
Sabbat: A dude engulfed in flames, which are even spewing out the front of
his evidently hollow head. If you look closely, you can see in the background
the guy with the flamethrower.

Laptop Computer
V:tES: This laptop computer comes with an ankh, an ornate gargoyle
paperweight, and a letter to Dr. Van Helsing. What more do you want? (Wait ..
don't answer that!)
Sabbat: This laptop computer comes with a severed hand. Why? Apparently, if
one does not include such freebees, the Sabbat vampires just are not
interested.

Sport Bike:
V:tES: Picture of a sport bike.
Sabbat: Picture of a guy riding some kind of motor-bike (which we can barely
see), and being shot at. IOW, it depicts everything BUT the sport bike, none
of which will likely have anything to do with what is going on with the game.

Submachine Gun
V:tES: Someone holding a submachine gun.
Sabbat: Vampire punk holding an automatic rifle (NOT a submachine gun).

Ascendance:
V:tES: A bald meditator is evidently ascending in some mystical fashion.
Sabbat: An attractive vampiress is bathing in a pool of blood. Not being
that familiar with the WOD, I'm not sure which of these pictures is more
thematically appropriate. Bathing in blood, though, certainly seems wastefully
depraved even by normal vampire standards, though no doubt such practices are
known among the higher echelons of the Sabbat (cf. the card "Bloodbath" and the
legendary Countess Bathory, who I believe is considered Tzimisce in the WOD).
IOW, version is appropriate for the Sabbat set, but less so for the game as a
whole.

Blood Doll:
Both versions depict a young female with a wounded neck. In this case the
Sabbat art is nicer. One may note that in the Sabbat version, however, the
master has evidently been more savage in his feeding.

Short Term Investment
V:tES: Depicts a calculator showing the number of the beast, a
blood-spattered copy of the Wall Street Journal, and some stock certificates
for Wizards of the Coast.
Sabbat: Vague fuzzy picture of three workers surrounded by hanging chains,
and moving what may be barrels of blood. I'm not sure what, if anything, it
has to do with investments of any kind.

Sudden Reversal
V:tES: White-bearded figure surrounded by jagged streaks.
Sabbat: Abstract Harold McNeill effort showing a streaking supernatural
figure engaged in a sudden change in direction. As a Harold McNeill fan, I
guess I have to favor the Sabbat version in this case.

Unnatural Disaster
V:tES: Abstract bit from Harold McNeill implies the work of powerful
supernatural abilities summoning volcanic forces.
Sabbat: Exploding house. The picture, together with the silly quote from
Basil about gas lines, implies simple sabotage by lowlifes. Not nearly as
cool.

The Barrens
V:tES: Cemetary with toppled gravestones, one with the statue of an angel.
Rather serene.
Sabbat: Man with dreadlocks reaches for a corpse in the trunk of his car.
Evidently, this is what the intends to discard in "The Barrens". More blunt in
explaining the thematic idea behind the card, but not as nice.

Information Highway
V:tES: Gleefull long-haired vampire is surrounded by computer screens, which
are also reflected in his sunglasses.
Sabbat: Gargoyle or demon type shooting some sort of matrix ray at some
rennaissance dudes. Can't quite make sense of it.

Skill Cards:
I have little to say about these. In some cases (Animalism, Obfuscate) I
prefer the Sabbat art, while for others (Celerity, Potence, Thaumaturgy) I
prefer the originals.

[jeroen rombouts]

<...>

> Wolf Companion:
> V:tES: This fellow could win a prize at a dog show, though he still looks
> dangerous enough. Judging from all those earings, his master is evidently
> quite fond of him.

Piercing your dog is a sign of affection? Where are you from?

[The Nosferatu Stuff]

> Does anyone actually like the Sabbat art better? Please comment.

Yes, but only if you understand the far more brutal tactics of the sabbat,
over the civilized Camarilla. It is far more thematically correct, as you
despuit multiple times. Besides, it seems far more vampiric on the whole.
Not to say that many of your observations arn't correct, many VTES pictures
are better. But I prefer variety anyway. Breaks up those decks with 20
night moves if you can mix it up.

> Spirit's Touch
> V:tES: Vampiric lady holding aloft a book while phantoms stream around
her,
> against a background of windows through which a moon shines.
> Sabbat: Ugly hand holds aloft a bloody dagger. Huh?

The RPG power of spirits touch has nothing to do with spirits. You hold an
object, in this piece a dagger that has obviously just been used to stab
someone, and gain a mental image of it's last user/use. Much better then
the book with spirits.

> Blur:
> V:tES: A lupine figure, blurred by speed, against a background of
abstract
> designs. Harold McNeill's work, which I like.
> Sabbat: Rather busy picture representing some sort of combat, apparently
> involving several figures. There seems to be alot going on, but you can't
tell
> what, as it is all too blurry. Blah.

BLUR is way to blurry...hmm that hardly seems bad?

> Obedience:
> V:tES: Hideous Nosferatu figure crawling through an enclosed space.
Great
> picture, though I bet that originally it had nothing to do with the card's
> theme. If you imagine he is grovelling, rather than crawling through
tunnels,
> it works well enough thematically.
> Sabbat: Naked figure with funny red tatoos on his arms crowches like a
dog
> before a woman in evening dress while others look on. The woman in
question is
> evidently Lasombra. Don't like it much.

Sabbat's Obedience is far more correct to the card. While I think the jyhad
one is a very good picture I have never figured out what it's supposed to
be?

> Restoration:
> V:tES: Guy calmly holds before him his bloody shirt, while a young woman
> looks on in horror at the massive hole in his chest. Humorous.
> Sabbat: Crude picture of a guy looking at something in his hand. Seems
to
> have nothing to do with the card's theme.
>
>

> Thrown Gate:
> V:tES: A guy in a white coat skewered to the wall by a gate. Well
rendered.
> Sabbat: A hulking animalistic Sabbat brute (from Langely again) hurls a
gate
> at his victim. Muddy and messy. And where did all that blood come from?
Or
> perhaps all those blood splotches are merely intended to cover up the
mediocre
> quality of the art.

The actual throwing of the gate(hence the title thrown gate) versus some guy
hit in a certain position and pinned down. In this case I prefer the gate
tossing. The jyhad card looks kinda unrealistic for what I'd imagine
someone to look like who has a gate through them.

> Dread Gaze:
> V:tES: Angry-looking white-haired Ventrue-type fixes you with his dread
gaze.
> Sabbat: Same concept, but looks more like a Toreador or Brujah type, and
his
> eyes are glowing yellow. Arguably better, this time, though I'd as soon
keep
> the old version out of nostalgia.

Not very fair to shoot down good art just because something else was older.

> Cauldron of Blood:
> V:tES: Black cauldron is shown from the side, with rivulets of blood
> flowing down the sides.
> Sabbat: Evidently depicts the cauldron from above. It is less clear what
is
> being depicted here -- all we see is a mixture of shades of red.

I believe the sabbat card is just a depiction of blood itself. Because the
RPG power of Cauldron of Blood actually has nothing to do with cauldrons, it
seems that this is blood inside the vampires body, and it's getting agitated
because it's boiling, the purpose of the power. The superior of the two.

>
> Theft of Vitae:
> V:tES: Victim clutches his chest in horror while the lady behind him
casts a
> spell. I guess she stole vitae from him, poor fellow.
> Sabbat: One vampire grasps another, who vomits a river of blood into her
> mouth. Grotesque, but it does not look particularly mystical, nor usable
at
> long range.

Again, the appropriate way to use theft of vitae. You literally suck it out
of the victim. They see it comming and know where it's going, they just can
do nothing to stop it. As always, long range strikes are usable at close.
If you though this was grotesque, imagine the long range art...

>
> Arson:
> V:tES: Figure holding container (of gasoline, presumably) is sillouetted
> against an inferno. Fine.
> Sabbat: A number of flaming figures leap from a burning building. As
usual
> with Sabbat cards, the theme is more violent and preoccupied with the
depiction
> of horror and pain.

The original arson is awesome.

>
> Surprise Influence:
> V:tES: Long-haired vampire confronts a figure who looks both surpised and
> awed.
> Sabbat: Ugly punk has evidently just spray-painted an art gallery with
crude
> insults. This sort of thing is evidently quite influential among the
Sabbat.
> They think it's really cool, though I'm unsure why this sort of behavior
should
> surprise them.

Important card to show the difference between the way the Camarilla gain
influence, and the way the sabbat do it.

> Consanguinous Boon
> V:tES: A red rose with rising droplets of blood (contrasting with the
black
> rose of "Consanguinous Condemnation", with its falling blood drops).
> Sabbat: A bunch of Nossie types (antitribu, presumably). If you plan to
call
> a boon on Nossies, this is fine.

Nosferatu, being one of the most clan minded vampires, make a good and
instantly recognizable subject. Bloody roses, while nicer, seem to have
nothing to do with clans?

> Laptop Computer
> V:tES: This laptop computer comes with an ankh, an ornate gargoyle
> paperweight, and a letter to Dr. Van Helsing. What more do you want?
(Wait ..
> don't answer that!)
> Sabbat: This laptop computer comes with a severed hand. Why?
Apparently, if
> one does not include such freebees, the Sabbat vampires just are not
> interested.

My personal favorite art from the sabbat, so anything I'd say would be
biased. =)

>
> Unnatural Disaster
> V:tES: Abstract bit from Harold McNeill implies the work of powerful
> supernatural abilities summoning volcanic forces.
> Sabbat: Exploding house. The picture, together with the silly quote from
> Basil about gas lines, implies simple sabotage by lowlifes. Not nearly as
> cool.

Stupid card text from vampires is a whole different problem. Jyhad had some
superior flavor text. Recent sets: "I got my flame thrower back,
eventually" is just dumb. No game of stragety/gothic horror here. vampire
the eternal stupidness. I personally would rather see subtle humor rather
then out right jokes. How many times can you read that goofy quote and
think it's funny...usually only 1-2.

Aaron.

[Reyda]

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in msg news:
20010813063100...@ng-cm1.news.cs.com...

Before replying, i have to highlight three facts ;
1- you are a fan of Harrol Mc Neill. I really like Clint Langley's work...
2- you prefer nostalgy and tend to stick to the older version of a card if
the Sabbat/jyhad are of equal quality. I prefer novelty.
3- You don't want to see the acting vampire's face on cards... Personally i
don't mind ! some combat cards or modifiers simply cannot be rendered
without putting the acting guy on the picture (like dodge, computer hacking,
earthmeld...)

(snip)

> V:tES art is usually
> better. The Sabbat War set also emphasized the themes of sadism and
depravity
> to extremes that I would prefer did not come to typify the game as a
whole.

Yes, of course Sabbat is about violoence and this is why the change of
flavour in the illustrations is so relevant. Personnaly i don't mind of the
violence of the illustration. Some are cool, some are disgusting. But i know
however that we play a card game which depicts the blood tainted wars
between undead monsters who feeds on people, and where violence and gore are
part of everyday's unlife. I'm not pretendig i play pokemon ;) and the game
is aimed to mature audience... So the violence should not be a problem.

> Does anyone actually like the Sabbat art better? Please comment.

Sabbat illustration in general are more dynamic, more colorful, and most of
time simply better. WotC, when Sabbat came out, had the money to hire better
illustrators. We can agree that mark poole and douglas shuler, from magic
fame, were not the best talents around...

(snip a lot of good remarks)

> Enhanced Senses
> V:tES: Somewhat abstract profile diagram of a vampire's eye and brain.
> Sabbat: Picture of a man's eye and ear. Less distinctive than the V:tES
> version, and too specific, as the figure represented probably does not
resemble
> the vampire actually playing the card.

Come on ! Enhanced Senses old illustration is just crappy ! i was happy they
replaced one of the worst illustration of the first set. The new one is
still relevant since the vamp seems aware and open to everything happening
around. He is really "opening" or "spreading" his mind and senses in search
of something supernatural. This illustration actually means something to me.
And I don't mind if the vamp on the card is different from mine.

> Blur:
> V:tES: A lupine figure, blurred by speed, against a background of
abstract
> designs. Harold McNeill's work, which I like.
> Sabbat: Rather busy picture representing some sort of combat, apparently
> involving several figures. There seems to be alot going on, but you can't
tell
> what, as it is all too blurry. Blah.

This is a abstract version of blur, versus a representative one. I prefer
the latter (TM). The new blur shows a vamp acting so fast he cannot really
seen in normal, "pause" state. He appears "blurry" in the picture, which is
quite relavant, isn't it ?

> Fast Hands:
> V:tES: Abstract picture of a pair of cloudy white hands, superimposed on
a
> dark bat-cape symbolizing speed. McNeill again.
> Sabbat: A tatooed female vampire striking with hand. If you look
closely,
> you can see that she has deprived her opponent of a pistol with a
laser-sight,
> but it looks too large for her hand.

Same thing. Abstract art is nice, but representative is quite always better
simply because it's a card game and we need to understand what each card
does. Can you explain me what Far Faatus does if you look at the card ? i
think not.

> Flash:
> V:tES: Batlike cloak streaking across a deserted street. Nice. (McNeill)
> Sabbat: Ugly, orange-haired vampire with ugly red pants (typical Sabbat
bad
> taste) and bloody claws is shown in midst of a mighty leap. This version
is
> great if your crypt consists a fair number of ugly, orange-haired dudes.

again. You prefer Mc Neill's abstractive art... I prefer seeing a vampire in
action.

> Obedience:
> V:tES: Hideous Nosferatu figure crawling through an enclosed space.
Great
> picture, though I bet that originally it had nothing to do with the card's
> theme. If you imagine he is grovelling, rather than crawling through
tunnels,
> it works well enough thematically.
> Sabbat: Naked figure with funny red tatoos on his arms crowches like a
dog
> before a woman in evening dress while others look on. The woman in
question is
> evidently Lasombra. Don't like it much.

The sabbat version is not a great piece of art (LA Williams is often doing
strange things) , but at least it describes exactly what the card means :
obedience.

> Restoration:
> V:tES: Guy calmly holds before him his bloody shirt, while a young woman
> looks on in horror at the massive hole in his chest. Humorous.
> Sabbat: Crude picture of a guy looking at something in his hand. Seems
to
> have nothing to do with the card's theme.

Yes Ash Arnett's simply does not have his place as an illustrator in a game
like this : his style may be good for drawings or even art expo, but not to
depict things actually happening in a card game. It's too sketchy and to
grey-ish...
But don't forget the fact that the jyhad illustration in itself is quite
mediocre ! look at the guy's shoulders ! the girl's waist and mouth !
the best illustration for "restoration" is already on an other card : Rapid
healing, by Ron Spencer.

> Skin of Rock:
> V:tES: Depicts stone torso in a leather jacket, whose dynamic aspect
> indicates the "statue" is not static. Nice.
> Sabbat: Ugly fist streaming towards a retarded-looking long-haired
vampire's
> ugly mug. Truly hideous art by Langely.

don't call it hideous only because you don't like it ! i find this card uber
cool, and i'm not the only one (ask R.goudie =) ) Langley's splashing colors
is different and truly original.

> Undead Persistence:
> V:tES: Rather serene picture of a hairless male figure with multiple
> scars/scratches, and a tree in the background.
> Sabbat: More hideous art from Langely, in which two hulking grey-skinned
> Sabbat monsters duke it out while blood spurts and splatters everywhere.
> Arguably more suitable to the card's theme, but .... UGH.

Yes the art from the sabbat card is shocking. but it really suits the point
: vampires are undead monsters, and when they fight, they show their real
nature. The vamp with a stake in its chest is the one who should have gone
to torpor, and he has clearly decided to beat the hell out of his opponent
before falling. The goal of an "illustration" is attained.

> Disguised Weapon:
> V:tES: Attractive picture of a watch with hidden blades attached.
> Sabbat: Tatooed babe in army pants doing a bad job (judging by the
position
> of the wire) of garrotting an ugly man before his fireplace. What those
orange
> lines are, I do not know.

Well, since now you can equip with a Garrote via Disguise weapon, i think
it's not too bad =)

> Immortal Grapple
> V:tES: I have no copies since my Sheldon deck was stolen, but it's got to
be
> better than the Sabbat version.
> Sabbat: Another bit of Langely hideousness, in which naked, grey-skinned
> sabbat monsters inflict messy bloody mahem. There seems to be no
grappling
> going on. Ugh!

The old immortal grapple looks really, well, old. The new art is more
violent and more dynamic. this is the copy i put in my IG decks. Why not ?

(snip)

> Computer Hacking:
> V:tES: Sinister fellow hacks away merrily from the safety of his private
> study. Nice, atmospheric, humorous. He keeps a skull and a rubix cube on
his
> shelf.
> Sabbat: Sabbat thug holds a gun to a computer-user. Evidently, the
Sabbat
> are far too stupid to do their own computer hacking, and are only good at
> bullying and threats.

Voila ! so the whole illustration thing is perfectly rendered : a sabbat
vamp threatening a hacker to do the job for him.

(snip)

> Disputed Territory:
> V:tES: A guy with a moon tatoo on his chest. Not sure what it has to do
with
> the card theme.
> Sabbat: Two guys (Lasombra?) facing off in a Church. More thematically
> appropriate, but nostalgia still attracts me to the older art.

I think none of the two cards actually depicts what should be depicted.

(snip)

> .44 Magnum
> V:tES: Ivory skinned woman languidly holds a smoking pistol as she leans
over
> a skull. I rather like this picture, despite its depiction of the
employing
> vampire.
> Sabbat: Someone holding a big revolver. Are either of these gun's
actually
> .44 magnums?

.44 Magnum is an ammunition type. So a lot of guns who may fire those ammo
fit this description.

> Flamethrower
> V:tES: Ugly dude with goggles holding a flamethrower.
> Sabbat: A dude engulfed in flames, which are even spewing out the front
of
> his evidently hollow head. If you look closely, you can see in the
background
> the guy with the flamethrower.

I'm pleased to see what a flamethrower can do.

> Laptop Computer
> V:tES: This laptop computer comes with an ankh, an ornate gargoyle
> paperweight, and a letter to Dr. Van Helsing. What more do you want?
(Wait ..
> don't answer that!)
> Sabbat: This laptop computer comes with a severed hand. Why?
Apparently, if
> one does not include such freebees, the Sabbat vampires just are not
> interested.

As you said, it's more violent version of jyhad/camarilla cards.

(snip)

> Short Term Investment
> V:tES: Depicts a calculator showing the number of the beast, a
> blood-spattered copy of the Wall Street Journal, and some stock
certificates
> for Wizards of the Coast.
> Sabbat: Vague fuzzy picture of three workers surrounded by hanging
chains,
> and moving what may be barrels of blood. I'm not sure what, if anything,
it
> has to do with investments of any kind.

maybe a minor version of "slave auction" ...

> Sudden Reversal
> V:tES: White-bearded figure surrounded by jagged streaks.
> Sabbat: Abstract Harold McNeill effort showing a streaking supernatural
> figure engaged in a sudden change in direction. As a Harold McNeill fan,
I
> guess I have to favor the Sabbat version in this case.

Yes, this is the kind of effects you want to be described with abstract art.

(nip)

> Information Highway
> V:tES: Gleefull long-haired vampire is surrounded by computer screens,
which
> are also reflected in his sunglasses.
> Sabbat: Gargoyle or demon type shooting some sort of matrix ray at some
> rennaissance dudes. Can't quite make sense of it.

I think the sabbat info highway means when you're controlling all the latest
knowledge, you are able to decipher the oldest one (contained in rolls,
tablets...) , thus making it easier to track down ancient vampires around
the world and to see what you can offer to hire them. Thus perfecly making
sense. Am i wrong ?

> Skill Cards:
> I have little to say about these. In some cases (Animalism, Obfuscate) I
> prefer the Sabbat art, while for others (Celerity, Potence, Thaumaturgy) I
> prefer the originals.

The recent ones are better because the "art value" is higher. I think the
illustrator get well paid for, so they did a better job. I may be wrong
again...

Just don't forget that this game is mean, it's all about domination,
manipulation, vilence and gore splattering combat. That's why some of the
illustrations are so crude (i think of the gouged eye from undead stregth).
If you are not worried by what you are doing when you annonce your action,
the illustration should not be an issue :
"i will hunt in this discotheque where Lupo can seduce a couple of young and
beautiful girls, lure them for a quick relations.. He invites them in the
backroom and drinks their blood from their severed limbs after having scared
them to the point they cried and rolled onto the carpet without being able
to spell a single word. Once they are completely exsangue, he and his ghoul
wil toss their corpses somewhere in the basement of an unfinished building,
and burn their clothes and possessions. Is it okay for you ? so I tap the
'Innbase to get two blood instead of one... "

reyda
--
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
Jules de Gaultier

[hamdamcwa]

> Does anyone actually like the Sabbat art better? Please comment.

Yes. The quality of the art, the definition of the lines, and hell, on
the whole the tone is better. Yes it is slightly depraved, but HELLO!
These are VAMPIRES. They are not supposed to be "nice". This is
especially the case of the Sabbat. If you want "fluffy", go play
pokemon.

> Canine Horde
> V:tES: Closup on an animal's eyball, in which are reflected a group of dogs.
> Attractive picture, good art.

It's a Dogs Eye. Big deal.

> Sabbat: Vague, muddy-looking picture of a group of ugly dogs attacking a
> fallen human figure.

Youre right. I can't see it either. It's just a large group (Horde) of
dogs (Canines). Hang on a second...

> Wolf Companion:
> V:tES: This fellow could win a prize at a dog show, though he still looks
> dangerous enough. Judging from all those earings, his master is evidently
> quite fond of him.

A cute dog. Wow. No really. Tough to do.

> Sabbat: Also a good picture, but emphasizes the wolf's viciousness rather
> than his status as a loyal pet. I guess the Sabbat are not given to
> sentimental fondness.

No shit Sherlock! The Sabbat are rough vampires. Any dog answering to
their call is NOT going to win any prizes at a dog show (except "Most
Vicious Bastard Dog" award).

> Enhanced Senses
> V:tES: Somewhat abstract profile diagram of a vampire's eye and brain.

It's Auspex. It's all "wibbly wobbly, touchy feely".

> Sabbat: Picture of a man's eye and ear. Less distinctive than the V:tES
> version, and too specific, as the figure represented probably does not resemble
> the vampire actually playing the card.

Better defined artwork. Looks less like a science book, more like a
wibbly thing.

> Pulse of the Canaille
> V:tES: Picture centers on a woman's neck, where a mystical light shines.
> Perhaps she is one of the "Canaille" and someone has a mystical "finger" on her
> pulse. Or perhaps she is a vampire, and her pulse is in tune with that of the
> Canaille.

It has a slightly "soft focus" feel to the art. A bit poor.

> Sabbat: Guy surrounded by coffins is making grand mystical gestures, while a
> naked vampiric woman recoils. Rather more lurid. But what, if anything, does
> this picture have to do with the Canaille (mortals)?

Well, I don't get this one either, but once again, the picture feels
more contemporary, edgy, and better defined.

> Spirit's Touch
> V:tES: Vampiric lady holding aloft a book while phantoms stream around her,
> against a background of windows through which a moon shines.

Still a bit Science Book-ey

> Sabbat: Ugly hand holds aloft a bloody dagger. Huh?

Agreed. What were they smoking...?

> Telepathic Counter:
> V:tES: Dorky-looking fellow is disarmed of his dagger telekinetically by a
> guy standing two feet away.

Again, soft focus pastel-like art. Not exactly "edgy" or "dark". More
Harry Potter than Vampire.

> Sabbat: White-faced green-eyed babe looks over the collar of her leather
> jacket, next to the blood-spattered words YOU ARE MINE. Not bad. I might like
> this one better.

'Nuff said.

> Blur:
> V:tES: A lupine figure, blurred by speed, against a background of abstract
> designs. Harold McNeill's work, which I like.

More soft focus...

> Sabbat: Rather busy picture representing some sort of combat, apparently
> involving several figures. There seems to be alot going on, but you can't tell
> what, as it is all too blurry.

Rather the point. Actally looks like combat is going on, which is a
good point to get accross for a combat card.

> Fast Hands:
> V:tES: Abstract picture of a pair of cloudy white hands, superimposed on a
> dark bat-cape symbolizing speed. McNeill again.

*yawn* Again, too abstract for the card.

> Sabbat: A tatooed female vampire striking with hand. If you look closely,
> you can see that she has deprived her opponent of a pistol with a laser-sight,
> but it looks too large for her hand.

Details... Edgy, well defined, and actaully looks FAST like celerity
should.

> Flash:
> V:tES: Batlike cloak streaking across a deserted street. Nice. (McNeill)
> Sabbat: Ugly, orange-haired vampire with ugly red pants (typical Sabbat bad
> taste) and bloody claws is shown in midst of a mighty leap. This version is
> great if your crypt consists a fair number of ugly, orange-haired dudes.

Might agree with this one. But I won't. It is about Vampires leaping
into the right range, or able to block someones path (to press). Hence
the leap. Makes sense to me. To be honest, both seem to offer the same
kind of illustration, but once again, the "edgy, dangerous" quality
goes to the Sabbat version.

> Obedience:
> V:tES: Hideous Nosferatu figure crawling through an enclosed space. Great
> picture, though I bet that originally it had nothing to do with the card's
> theme. If you imagine he is grovelling, rather than crawling through tunnels,
> it works well enough thematically.

It should be called "Scared of the Bogeyman" rather than Obedience. He
is not grovelling, he is crouched ready to pounce.

> Sabbat: Naked figure with funny red tatoos on his arms crowches like a dog
> before a woman in evening dress while others look on. The woman in question is
> evidently Lasombra. Don't like it much.

I think it's great! Bad case of "Don't do it again".

> Threats:

To be honest I hate the artwork for BOTH threats cards (too comical)
so I won't argue either way.

> Cloak the Gathering:
> V:tES: Serene blue picture represents (presumably) the spashing of multiple
> invisible feet in a pool of water. Nice.

Huh? I always saw it as a "Dark Swirly thing". I always thought of
this as a super lame art.

> Sabbat: Several partially invisible persons in Victorian dress, traversing an
> opulent hallway. Not bad, but I prefer the other, which wisely fails to depict
> the individuals involved.

Errr... the point of the effect is that a group of people become
undetectable. The card shows a group of people becoming undetectable.
No problem!

> Immortal Grapple
> V:tES: I have no copies since my Sheldon deck was stolen, but it's got to be
> better than the Sabbat version.

Two idiots looking like WWF rejects getting hot and horny.

> Sabbat: Another bit of Langely hideousness, in which naked, grey-skinned
> sabbat monsters inflict messy bloody mahem. There seems to be no grappling
> going on. Ugh!

One of my favourite cards. It shows the raw naked aggression that
would drive such a powerful ability. Well defined and, like the effect
of the card, scary.

> Thrown Gate:
> V:tES: A guy in a white coat skewered to the wall by a gate. Well rendered.

But still soft focus hokum.

> Sabbat: A hulking animalistic Sabbat brute (from Langely again) hurls a gate
> at his victim. Muddy and messy. And where did all that blood come from? Or
> perhaps all those blood splotches are merely intended to cover up the mediocre
> quality of the art.

No it's to make it look like a COMBAT card.

> Undead Strength
> V:tES: Depicts a heart and other innards, presumably the source of the
> vampire's undead strength. Works for me.

Looks stupid. The HEART isn't the thing that does the hitting!

> Sabbat: A female sadist pleasures herself with a little eye gouging. Apart
> from the fact that it is overly specific in depicting the vampire playing the
> card, it also goes to gratuitous and thematically irrelevant extremes in the
> depiction of depraved cruelty. I have no desire to identify with the vampire
> here depicted, but that is what I am asked to do when I play this card. This
> is one of the staple damage-dealing cards of the Potence discipline. Surely it
> could do without this art. Repulsive.

*Ahem* It shows a fairly feeble looking girl kicking ass. Says enough
to me.

> Computer Hacking:
> V:tES: Sinister fellow hacks away merrily from the safety of his private
> study. Nice, atmospheric, humorous. He keeps a skull and a rubix cube on his
> shelf.
> Sabbat: Sabbat thug holds a gun to a computer-user. Evidently, the Sabbat
> are far too stupid to do their own computer hacking, and are only good at
> bullying and threats.

Well done! Give the biy a cigar, he's FINALLY getting the point.
Ancient undead beasts, on the whole, don't make the best computer
technicians.
ver subtle.

he guy with the flamethrower.

> Laptop Computer
> V:tES: This laptop computer comes with an ankh, an ornate gargoyle
> paperweight, and a letter to Dr. Van Helsing. What more do you want? (Wait ..
> don't answer that!)

Badly defined drawing.

> Sabbat: This laptop computer comes with a severed hand. Why?

Who knows? Who cares? Any freebie is a good freebie.

Apparently, if
> one does not include such freebees, the Sabbat vampires just are not
> interested.

Well, they'll still take it if they throw in a free 3 year warranty
package, or nice software bundle... as long as they get Quake Arena as
part of it!

<snip loads more comparissons which really are hair splittingly dull>

To be honest, the difference between a lot of the cards is barely
noticeable, but to be honest the Sabbat artwork covers the bases a lot
more - combat cards look vicious, vote cards give a better insight
into the action they portray, action modifiers (auspex ones in
particular) look more abstract... etc.

It's a shame you don't like the refreshing directness of the Sabbat
artwork. It is, however, aimed at an older audience than most CCGs, so
has a licence to be a little more direct.

It strikes me that all of your comments are "pro abstract, con
directness". Obviously, this is horses for courses, but it leads me to
believe you are probably a Magic player on the quiet!

Personally my favourite artwork comes from the Dark Sovs and Ancient
Hearts expansions. Final Nights is also fairly good. All these
expansions seem to meld both Abstract and directness fluidly.

DH

[James Coupe]

In message <5eQd7.34398$7G.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, The
Nosferatu Stuff <roans...@yahoo.com> writes

>Nosferatu, being one of the most clan minded vampires, make a good and
>instantly recognizable subject. Bloody roses, while nicer, seem to have
>nothing to do with clans?

The War of the Roses seems eminently appropriate source material for
such, with the red and white roses representing each house.

--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6
Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D

[Stone]

> Come on ! Enhanced Senses old illustration is just crappy ! i was happy
they
> replaced one of the worst illustration of the first set. The new one is
> still relevant since the vamp seems aware and open to everything happening
> around.

like Jean Claude Van Damme?

He is really "opening" or "spreading" his mind and senses in search
> of something supernatural.

it definitely sounds like him, all right. :)
Stone

[James Coupe]

In message <9e10847c.0108...@posting.google.com>, hamdamcwa
<dave...@hotmail.com> writes

>> Sabbat: Also a good picture, but emphasizes the wolf's viciousness rather
>> than his status as a loyal pet. I guess the Sabbat are not given to
>> sentimental fondness.
>
>No shit Sherlock! The Sabbat are rough vampires. Any dog answering to
>their call is NOT going to win any prizes at a dog show (except "Most
>Vicious Bastard Dog" award).

As it happens, when I used to play more regularly with a group, Sabbat
Wolf Companion was renamed to Polar Bear Companion.

[MSheafer33]

The Nosferatu Stuff wrote:

>Yes, but only if you understand the far more brutal tactics of the sabbat,
>over the civilized Camarilla. It is far more thematically correct, as you
>despuit multiple times. Besides, it seems far more vampiric on the whole.

Oh but I DO understand the brutal tactics of the Sabbat. While I have not
entirely immersed myself in the WOD, I have read a few of the clan Novels, and
I find the Sabbat vampires therein portrayed to be quite hilarious. The novels
that focus on the Sabbat (Tzimisce, Lasombra) are so depraved it quickly
becomes a joke. The poor fools cannot spend 5 minutes together in the same
room without killing one another. How such fools could survive for a single
month (much less years, much less centuries) is an enduring mystery. An
equally enduring mystery is how the Camarilla vampires (not to mention mortals)
managed to be so incompetent as to allow these jokers to gain the upper hand.

Purely on the level of plausible dark fantasy, vampirism seems more realistic
if it is more subtle and reserved in its violence. Vampire victims should seem
like they have wasted away from a mysterious disease, not as though they have
had their heads ripped off by a superhuman maniac. I would assume (ordinarily)
that vampires are concerned with DRINKING blood, not splattering it all over
the place.
But you (and a few others) seem to have overlooked part of the context of my
post. What prompted my post was the fact that Sabbat art continues to be
reused in a non-Sabbat set, namely Final Nights, and I am questioning that it
necessarily should be. In particular, it is being reused in starter sets that
introduce new players to the game. I have never questioned the idea that
Sabbat art was appropriate for the Sabbat set. Indeed, I believe I affirmed
that idea from the start.

>Not to say that many of your observations arn't correct, many VTES pictures
>are better. But I prefer variety anyway. Breaks up those decks with 20
>night moves if you can mix it up.

Here, I disagree with you. If one is going to introduce a card with new art,
it might as well have a different title and effects that are at least slightly
different (ie. Rat's Warning vs. Guard Dogs). In a game with thousands of
different card types, having more than one picture for the same card seems to
me a bad way of "mixing things up" and introducing variety. Far better to keep
one picture for one card so that it is recognizable by sight (which is one of
the functions that pictures are supposed to serve.)

>The RPG power of spirits touch has nothing to do with spirits. You hold an
>object, in this piece a dagger that has obviously just been used to stab
>someone, and gain a mental image of it's last user/use. Much better then
>the book with spirits.

Thanks for the info, but it only confirms my belief that the Sabbat picture is
poor. The hand in question looks like it just got through using the weapon,
and is about to do so again, not like it is attempting divination upon it.

>BLUR is way to blurry...hmm that hardly seems bad?

In this case, yes. It is an overly busy picture that you cannot make out.
McNeill looks like he is representing the concept of a blur. The Sabbat
picture just looks like a photo of a combat that somebody took out of focus so
you could not see what is going on.

>Sabbat's Obedience is far more correct to the card.

As I have already conceded (I just don't like the picture.)

>While I think the jyhad
>one is a very good picture I have never figured out what it's supposed to
>be?

Clearly, it is a Nosferatu crawling through tunnels. If you don't look too
closely, and ignore the upper roof of the tunnel, one may imagine that it is a
Nosferatu grovelling on the floor in response to a command. Though clearly not
what the artist intended, this was presumably the idea when the art was chosen
to illustrate Obedience.

>The actual throwing of the gate(hence the title thrown gate) versus some guy
>hit in a certain position and pinned down. In this case I prefer the gate
>tossing. The jyhad card looks kinda unrealistic for what I'd imagine
>someone to look like who has a gate through them.

Odd. What is unrealistic about it? (Especially compared to the other one,
which is cartoonishly grotesque. And where did all that blood come from?)

>> Dread Gaze:
>> V:tES: Angry-looking white-haired Ventrue-type fixes you with his dread
>gaze.
>> Sabbat: Same concept, but looks more like a Toreador or Brujah type, and
>his
>> eyes are glowing yellow. Arguably better, this time, though I'd as soon
>keep
>> the old version out of nostalgia.
>
>Not very fair to shoot down good art just because something else was older.

How is calling it "arguably better" shooting it down? New art is fine, but I
would prefer new card text and title to go with it (such as, say, "Baleful
Stare" with a superior that allows one to gain two votes even if tapped). (In
this case the difference between the cards is no big deal, but I listed all
cards for the sake of completeness).

>The original arson is awesome.

Glad we agree on something. Can we agree on Cryptic Mission as well?

>> Surprise Influence:
>> V:tES: Long-haired vampire confronts a figure who looks both surpised and
>> awed.
>> Sabbat: Ugly punk has evidently just spray-painted an art gallery with
>crude
>> insults. This sort of thing is evidently quite influential among the
>Sabbat.
>> They think it's really cool, though I'm unsure why this sort of behavior
>should
>> surprise them.
>
>Important card to show the difference between the way the Camarilla gain
>influence, and the way the sabbat do it.

Fine with me, but could we please leave this verion of Surprise Influence with
those ridiculous childish Sabbat vampires, where it belongs? Does it really
need to be reprinted in non-Sabbat preconstructed decks? When I, an ancient
Methuselah, play "Surprise Influence" during a card game, I prefer to imagine
myself doing something truly subtle and devious, as opposed to doing something
an immature teenager would consider subtle and devious..

>> Unnatural Disaster
>> V:tES: Abstract bit from Harold McNeill implies the work of powerful
>> supernatural abilities summoning volcanic forces.
>> Sabbat: Exploding house. The picture, together with the silly quote from
>> Basil about gas lines, implies simple sabotage by lowlifes. Not nearly as
>> cool.
>
>Stupid card text from vampires is a whole different problem.

True, but in this case they go hand in hand. A gas-explosion is precisely what
one would expect to cause the effect illustrated on the Sabbat card. If not
that, then an incendiary explosive. This is not, I think, the original idea
behind the card, which is rather that of a "natural" type (earthquake, tidal
wave, volcano) disaster that has in fact been arranged by ancient Methuselahs
using "unnatural" godlike mystical powers.

> Jyhad had some
>superior flavor text. Recent sets: "I got my flame thrower back,
>eventually" is just dumb. No game of stragety/gothic horror here. vampire
>the eternal stupidness. I personally would rather see subtle humor rather
>then out right jokes. How many times can you read that goofy quote and
>think it's funny...usually only 1-2.

If even that. I like your comment about "Vampire: the Eternal Stupidness".
But to my mind, that comes pretty close to summarizing what the Sabbat are all
about. This is fine with me. After all, the whole reason the WOD has 20-30
odd different clans and bloodlines of vampires is so that it can appeal to a
wide variety of tastes and proclivities. I would just prefer that the
peculiarly idiotic, unsubtle, in-your-face, splatterfest Sabbat aesthetic not
come to represent the game as a whole, and not get exported into the starter
decks of non-Sabbat clans.

BTW, I would like to thank you for making a civil response to my post, which is
rather more than certain other respondents have been able to manage.

[Xian]

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20010813143718...@mb-fr.news.cs.com...
[major snippage...Aaron already got a lot of the stuff I was thinking]

[Obedience]

> Clearly, it is a Nosferatu crawling through tunnels. If you don't
look too
> closely, and ignore the upper roof of the tunnel, one may imagine
that it is a
> Nosferatu grovelling on the floor in response to a command. Though
clearly not
> what the artist intended, this was presumably the idea when the art
was chosen
> to illustrate Obedience.

Interesting. I thought the Sabbat version was much better. The
original
version looks like some sort of weird mutant organic cyborg alien,
just a
bunch of random hash marks that are defining a vaguely humanoid form.
(Points if you can name who I'm referring to.) I thought the Sabbat
version
had a more finished feel, and it looked better, IMO.

[Undead Strength]

> Undead Strength
> V:tES: Depicts a heart and other innards, presumably the source
> of the vampire's undead strength. Works for me.

I always thought it was pretty lame.

> Sabbat: A female sadist pleasures herself with a little eye

One could argue that most Sabbat are sadistic by nature.

> gouging. Apart from the fact that it is overly specific in
depicting
> the vampire playing the card, it also goes to gratuitous and
thematically
> irrelevant extremes in the depiction of depraved cruelty. I have no

Again, when dealing with undead, inhuman monsters, it's hard to
*really* be
extreme. Gouging out someone's eyes is pretty light fare when these
vampires suck the blood of the living, sometimes killing
them...especially
when you consider that the victim of said eye-gouging is probably
another
vampire, able to grow those eyes back in a relatively short period.

> desire to identify with the vampire here depicted, but that is what
I
> am asked to do when I play this card. This is one of the staple
damage-
> dealing cards of the Potence discipline. Surely it could do without
this
art.
> Repulsive.

I fail to see why you are asked to *identify* with the vampire
depicted.
It's a game...if the picture were a pile of dog poo instead, would you
be
asked to identify with that? Anyway, I like the later artwork, as the
original was just too abstract and, well, boring.

[Social Charm]

> V:tES: Socially charming vampiress has clearly managed to impress
> 3 onlookers (2 men and a woman).
> Sabbat: Fuzzily rendered vampire lover gets ready to bite his
> victims thigh. I guess he "socially charmed" her. More lurid and
> erotic; less thematically appropriate.

I'm about even on these. I don't feel that either is more or less
thematic
than the other.

I'm not entirely sure why the (seeming) objections to eroticism and
luridness, as this *is* a vampire game, after all. The vampire myth
(in its
current, post-Victorian state) is all about eroticism, the act of
drinking
blood taking the place of sex, etc. So I definitely don't think that
it's
out of place. Most of the presence and dominate cards could have
vaguely
pornographic pictures, and they'd probably still be fine. Well, not
Slaughtering the Herd. (Right now, I'm imagining Intimidation being
replaced by some guy pimp-slapping a strung-out looking woman.)

[Arson]
I'd like to object based on text, the original misattributed its Cure
quote.

>Bribes
> V:tES: White-haired vampire holding a stack of gold and money.
> Fine.
> Sabbat: The briber looks like a Tzimisce, and he is evidently
> bribing with a "book of secrets" rather than with money.

A "book of secrets" sounds more enticing to me, assuming you're
dealing with
centuries-old vampires that probably already have money, or can take
it from
whomever they desire. Liked the Sabbat art better anyway.

> Computer Hacking:
> V:tES: Sinister fellow hacks away merrily from the safety of

Sinister?

> his private study. Nice, atmospheric, humorous. He keeps a skull
and
> a rubix cube on his shelf.
> Sabbat: Sabbat thug holds a gun to a computer-user. Evidently, the

> Sabbat are far too stupid to do their own computer hacking, and are
only
> good at bullying and threats.

Probably accurate. Again, I thought the original was just kind of
cheesy,
and a depiction of "gamer cool" rather than something that actually is
cool-looking. "Wow, that guy is smoking a cigarette at his
computer...he
must be cool." (Much like Wolf Claws, Wolf Companion, Renegade Garou,
etc.)

> Fake Out
> V:tES: Funky abstract diagram featuring a skull and an swerving
> arrow, symbolizing, evidently, a change of direction while
pretending
> to attack. Appropriate.

Bleh. I thought this was some of the worst art in the original set,
and is
almost as bad as the original Rage's Dodge. Looks very last-minute.

[Surprise Influence]

> Fine with me, but could we please leave this verion of Surprise
Influence with
> those ridiculous childish Sabbat vampires, where it belongs? Does
it really
> need to be reprinted in non-Sabbat preconstructed decks? When I, an
ancient
> Methuselah, play "Surprise Influence" during a card game, I prefer
to imagine
> myself doing something truly subtle and devious, as opposed to doing
something
> an immature teenager would consider subtle and devious..

I much preferred the Sabbat version, as it seemed more fleshed out,
and one could
imagine that it was a Camarilla art museum that has been defaced,
which
would definitely be surprising.

> Submachine Gun
> V:tES: Someone holding a submachine gun.
> Sabbat: Vampire punk holding an automatic rifle (NOT a submachine
> gun).

I preferred the original art, but the Sabbat version is definitely
*not* an
automatic rifle. It's a large submachine gun, but it's still a
submachine
gun. Looks like some sort of H&K.

> Short Term Investment
> V:tES: Depicts a calculator showing the number of the beast, a

I can't believe you actually said "number of the beast".

> blood-spattered copy of the Wall Street Journal, and some stock
> certificates for Wizards of the Coast.

Appropriate.

> Sabbat: Vague fuzzy picture of three workers surrounded by hanging
> chains, and moving what may be barrels of blood. I'm not sure what,
if
> anything, it has to do with investments of any kind.

I have no clue here either. Though I still prefer the art of the
Sabbat
version, as the original was again, incredibly cheesy.

> Sudden Reversal
> V:tES: White-bearded figure surrounded by jagged streaks.
> Sabbat: Abstract Harold McNeill effort showing a streaking
> supernatural figure engaged in a sudden change in direction. As a
> Harold McNeill fan, I guess I have to favor the Sabbat version in
> this case.

I definitely favor the Sabbat version, as I just don't get the
original.
"I'm a spooky wizard, and I shut you down!"

> Unnatural Disaster
> V:tES: Abstract bit from Harold McNeill implies the work of
> powerful supernatural abilities summoning volcanic forces.
> Sabbat: Exploding house. The picture, together with the silly
> quote from Basil about gas lines, implies simple sabotage by
lowlifes.
> Not nearly as cool.

Hmm. I always thought it was pretty much the same thing. Well, we
*always*
played Unnatural disaster as exploding gas mains.

Xian

[Aaron]

"jeroen rombouts" <jeroen....@pandora.be> wrote in message news:<eZOd7.50952$ye.21...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...

Maybe Egypt? And in some Egyptian scupulture cats were adorned with
jewlery, like ear rings:

http://www.nhm.org/cats/bisno/

So maybe it's an Egyptian owner, who decided to also pierce his wolf.
There is nothing excessivly cruel to making your pet pretty by adding
jewlery. No more so then people wearing rings/necklaces/etc?

[jeroen rombouts]

> > Piercing your dog is a sign of affection? Where are you from?
>
>
> Maybe Egypt? And in some Egyptian scupulture cats were adorned with
> jewlery, like ear rings:
>
> http://www.nhm.org/cats/bisno/
>
> So maybe it's an Egyptian owner, who decided to also pierce his wolf.
> There is nothing excessivly cruel to making your pet pretty by adding
> jewlery. No more so then people wearing rings/necklaces/etc?

I never said anything about (finger) rings or necklaces and such. It's the
piercing that kind of bugs me here. (not that hard, it's only a drawing.)
remeber that the dog has in no way chosen to be pierced.

Reminds me of some guy here in Belgium, who tattood a pig and managed to
sell it as Art. A Japanese consortium bought the pig for millions of Belgian
Franks ($1=47 BF)

Jeroen

[The Fanboy]

> Oh but I DO understand the brutal tactics of the Sabbat. While I have not
> entirely immersed myself in the WOD, I have read a few of the clan Novels, and
> I find the Sabbat vampires therein portrayed to be quite hilarious. The
> novels that focus on the Sabbat (Tzimisce, Lasombra) are so depraved it
> quickly becomes a joke. The poor fools cannot spend 5 minutes together in
> the same room without killing one another. How such fools could survive for > a single month (much less years, much less centuries) is an enduring
> mystery. An equally enduring mystery is how the Camarilla vampires (not to

> mention mortals)managed to be so incompetent as to allow these jokers to gain > the upper hand.

The average Sabbat is lucky to make it through his first year.
They're embraced with the expectation that either their pack, a rival
pack, or their sworn enemies will destroy them. That's why they make
so many of them -- they're considered expendable cannon fodder.

The Sabbat that survive do so because they take their humanity, and
bury it. They find something else to focus on, and they become
stronger for it. These Sabbat are lucky to survive the decade.

The Sabbat that are truly ancient -- Goratrix, Moncada, Sascha Vykos,
Lambach, etc, are older than the Sabbat itself. They see the Sabbat
for what it is -- a tool. A mostly stupid homicidal tool, indeed, but
a tool nonetheless.

When the Sabbat has a foe, they can be unstoppable in their unity --
reference the assault on the High in Toreador and Tzimice. When the
enemy isn't present, they can collapse under their own weight --
reference the war councils in Tzimisce.

The Camarilla is a composite of vampires, each with an individual
agenda. They allow the Sabbat to win because they're too busy
fighting their own little petty wars -- more often than not,
sacrificing their "allies" within their own sect to various Sabbat
raids. When the Camarilla does start to work together, however, their
efficiency is frightening. Reference the Battle for New York in the
latter portion of the Clan Novel sequence.

> Purely on the level of plausible dark fantasy, vampirism seems more realistic
> if it is more subtle and reserved in its violence. Vampire victims should
> seem like they have wasted away from a mysterious disease, not as though they > have had their heads ripped off by a superhuman maniac. I would assume
> (ordinarily) that vampires are concerned with DRINKING blood, not splattering > it all over the place. But you (and a few others) seem to have overlooked > part of the context of my post. What prompted my post was the fact that
> Sabbat art continues to be reused in a non-Sabbat set, namely Final Nights,
> and I am questioning that it necessarily should be. In particular, it is
> being reused in starter sets that introduce new players to the game. I have > never questioned the idea that Sabbat art was appropriate for the Sabbat
> set. Indeed, I believe I affirmed that idea from the start.

This is a fairly valid point. The Giovanni range from indifferent to
outright brutal, mirroriing Sabbat tactics more than Camarilla
tactics, and the Assamites are nothing but murderers, but they
generally avoid making messes. The Ravnos, or at least a significant
portion of the clan pre-Week of Nightmares, is so deeply entrenched in
Romani custom that even touching another's blood is anathema to them,
and the Setites generally eschew violence of any sort. Some
combination of artwork from the two sect's sets would have been more
appropriate, thematically. There again, most of the people in my old
playgroup thought Sabbat artwork was better all the way around, and
the response to Sabbat's artwork during its release was mostly
positive -- so that may have factored in, as well.

> Here, I disagree with you. If one is going to introduce a card with new art,
> it might as well have a different title and effects that are at least slightly
> different (ie. Rat's Warning vs. Guard Dogs). In a game with thousands of
> different card types, having more than one picture for the same card seems to
> me a bad way of "mixing things up" and introducing variety. Far better to
> keep one picture for one card so that it is recognizable by sight (which is
> one of the functions that pictures are supposed to serve.)

Wizards of the Coast -- the one company to make a substantial profit
over the long term, begs to differ. They've been fairly successful
with multiple pieces of art on the same card (I'm up to about 8
different Disenchants, for crying out loud), even going so far as to
have two to four different pieces of art within a set.

I don't know if they duplicate art within a set anymore, but when I
stopped playing Magic, they were putting new art on cards every time
they did a core edition -- indicating there's an audience for new art
each time a card is recycled.

> Fine with me, but could we please leave this verion of Surprise Influence with
> those ridiculous childish Sabbat vampires, where it belongs? Does it really
> need to be reprinted in non-Sabbat preconstructed decks? When I, an ancient
> Methuselah, play "Surprise Influence" during a card game, I prefer to imagine
> myself doing something truly subtle and devious, as opposed to doing something
> an immature teenager would consider subtle and devious..

Hmm...breaching the Masquerade in another Methuselah's territory would
be subtle and devious, and making it look like s street thug act only
deflects blame to someone else (Sabbat, maybe)?

Besides, grafitti is classic Ravnos -- so it would be appropriate for
an unaligned set.

Fanboy

[Halcyan 2]

>> Does anyone actually like the Sabbat art better? Please comment.
>
>Sabbat illustration in general are more dynamic, more colorful, and most of
>time simply better. WotC, when Sabbat came out, had the money to hire better
>illustrators. We can agree that mark poole and douglas shuler, from magic
>fame, were not the best talents around...
>
>(snip a lot of good remarks)

Reyda, you blasphemer! From the old days when I still played "that other game,"
I personally thought that Mark Poole and Doug Shuler were some of the *best*
artists for WotC (next to Daniel Gelon's Savannah Lions of course and those
really adorable Mtenda Lions!).

>The recent ones are better because the "art value" is higher. I think the
>illustrator get well paid for, so they did a better job. I may be wrong
>again...

I'm sorry but I have no idea where you're coming up with the whole "new art is
better." In fact, wasn't it just the opposite with Final Nights? With what I've
heard, White Wolf wanted to *limit* the art budget, hence so much stuff from
Christopher Shy and Lawrence Snelly.

Halcyan 2

[AL]

mshea...@cs.com (MSheafer33) wrote in message

> Does anyone actually like the Sabbat art better? Please comment.

It depends...when Sabbat came up, I was horrified when I saw
L.Snelly´s pics(manipulated photos), like Korah(ah, but now I'm
talking about minions).

> Canine Horde
The Eyeball pic seems to be more threatening although it does not
visualize the violence (like Sabbat pic). Some abbat cards try to be
too realistic, like Blur, Flash etc.

> Pulse of the Canaille

Sabbat pic has too many elements in it, again.

> Flash:

One of my favorite pictures in vtes, but Sabbat version is truly
horrific; there is no flashing speed in it, the guy seems to be
hanging in the air.

> Obedience:
> V:tES: Hideous Nosferatu figure crawling through an enclosed space. Great
> picture, though I bet that originally it had nothing to do with the card's

> theme. <snip here>
> Undead Strength

I liked vtes picture more, but that's not because Sabbat pic is
bloody/rerpulsive. In this case, eeriely coloured heart looks much
more like "undead str." than some eye-gouging.

> Wolf Claws:
> V:tES: Guy with sunglasses brandishes sharp "wolf" claws.
> Sabbat: A similar set of claws rake across a person's face, leaving a bloody
> swath. The failure to depict the acting vampire is a point in its favor, this
> time. But the typical Sabbat emphasis on bloody gore is perhaps something I
> could do without.

Hey, bloody gore is something that the claws are for. When I look the
vtes Claws, I always think a wussy like Greger Anderssen playing them,
then Rot-check, Amaranth (puke).

> Cauldron of Blood:
> Theft of Vitae:
sabbat pic looks fine to me, although I'm not sure if the blood being
stolen should be visible.

> Walk of Flame:

Sabbat version is quite hideous; the colours are all wrong, picture is
too static (like in some other sabbat cards)

> Blood Doll:
> Both versions depict a young female with a wounded neck. In this case the
> Sabbat art is nicer. One may note that in the Sabbat version, however, the
> master has evidently been more savage in his feeding.

I dont't know...if you look the face of vtes's Blood Doll, she seems
to be quite sick and suffering, whereas Sabbat Blood Doll only had a
little accident with her master...

[Reyda]

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> a écrit dans le message news:
20010814020537...@mb-cb.aol.com...

> >> Does anyone actually like the Sabbat art better? Please comment.
> >
> >Sabbat illustration in general are more dynamic, more colorful, and most
of
> >time simply better. WotC, when Sabbat came out, had the money to hire
better
> >illustrators. We can agree that mark poole and douglas shuler, from magic
> >fame, were not the best talents around...
> >
> >(snip a lot of good remarks)
>
> Reyda, you blasphemer! From the old days when I still played "that other
game,"
> I personally thought that Mark Poole and Doug Shuler were some of the
*best*
> artists for WotC (next to Daniel Gelon's Savannah Lions of course and
those
> really adorable Mtenda Lions!).

Hey ! you call me Blasphemer ! I played "that other game too" in the old
days !
But our personal tastes differ.
Have a look at "Eye for an Eye", "Counterspell" or "Festival" ! Honestly the
only thing i grant to Shuler is the beautiful and unforgettable Serra Angel.
Still i do think that Pool is a bad artist who was there because at those
time WotC was not really concerned by the art values of the cards -they
needed illustrations, and chose to hire newbies for less money.
The best artists of those days were imho : Ron Spencer, Anson Maddock and
Christopher Rush. I was so happy when i first saw their art for Jyhad !

> >The recent ones are better because the "art value" is higher. I think the
> >illustrator get well paid for, so they did a better job. I may be wrong
> >again...
>
> I'm sorry but I have no idea where you're coming up with the whole "new
art is
> better." In fact, wasn't it just the opposite with Final Nights?

It's again a matter of taste. I find the new art of Final nights truly
excellent. Durwin Talon, with his colored and highlighted characters, and
Shy's blurry vamps have a special glow in their eyes...

> With what I've
> heard, White Wolf wanted to *limit* the art budget, hence so much stuff
from
> Christopher Shy and Lawrence Snelly.

Yes of course, WW was on a budget. But talking of the reprints, at the time
Sabbat was edited, WotC had enough money to hire good illustrators. That's
why i think the quality of Sabbat Art is better. And that's why i prefer WW
to reprint the Sabbat Art instead of the old one.

reyda

[Peter D Bakija]

Msheafer wrote:
>>Canine Horde>>

Not really fond of either, but both are perfectly acceptable.

>>Cats' Guidance:>>

I always loved Margret Organ-Kean's original, but the new one is nice too.

>>Wolf Companion:>>

Kinda like Melissa Benson's better--richer color.

>>Enhanced Senses>>

Always thought the Jyhad picture was kinda lame, but it had a cool Kate Bush
quote on it (well, not such a cool quote, but a Kate Bush quote none the
less...). The new one is a better picture, and certainly acceptable as an
illustration of the concept.

>>Pulse of the Canaille>>

Like the VTES version better.

>>Spirit's Touch>>

I always found the VTES picture a little sloppy and questionably rendered. The
Sabbat one is a better picture.

>>Telepathic Counter:>>

Like Spirit's Touch, the VTES version is sloppy and questionably rendered. The
Sabbat version is a much better picture.

>>Blur:>>

I like both of these. I like McNeil, but whoever did the Sabbat version did a
good job as well.

>>Fast Hands:>>

I actually like the Sabbat version better--again, I like McNeil, but the Sabbat
picture is certainly well done and kinda cracks me up.

>>Flash:>>

Flash is one of the cards from Sabbat I can't even bring myself to use, I
dislike the picture so much. I'm all about the McNeil on this one, which is my
favorite illustration of his.

>>Bonding:>>

I like McNeil's better.

>>Obedience:>>

I go with the Sabbat--I like the VTES picture, but it doesn't make much sense.
The Sabbat picture is both well done and thematically consistient.

>>Threats:>>

Not real fond of either.

>>Restoration:>>

Sabbat version is a vast improvement over the VTES illustration. VTES version
is very questionably rendered (i.e. out of proportion, but not in a consistient
stylistic sort of way) and kind of sloppy. The Sabbat version is questionably
thematic, but at least it is a good picture.

>>Skin of Rock:>>

I always found the VTES SoR tobe perfectly competent, but kind of boring. I
like Langely's work, so the Sabbat version wins out in a second.

>>Undead Persistence:>>

Both are acceptable.

>>Cloak the Gathering:>>

Both are nice.

>>Disguised Weapon:
V:tES: Attractive picture of a watch with hidden blades attached.
Sabbat: Tatooed babe in army pants doing a bad job (judging by the position
of the wire) of garrotting an ugly man before his fireplace. What those orange
lines are, I do not know.>>

They are stylized "look here!" lines, indicating the disguised weapon in the
vase that the guy is going for (look closely at the card). I vastly prefer the
Sabbat version. The VTES version is good, I just like the Sabbat one much
better.

>>Lost in Crowds:>>

Kinda like the Sabbat version better, although the VTES version is perfectly
good.

>>Night Moves:>>

Not really fond of either.

>>Immortal Grapple>>

I like William's VTES version better, but that is 'cause Williams is freaking
great. Langely's is fairly entertaining, and certainly is growing on me, but
the VTES version is my favorite of the two.

>>Thrown Gate:>>

Don't really like the VTES version--kind of muddy. The Sabbat picture is much
more entertaining, for my money.

>>Undead Strength>>

Ahh, see, it all comes down to this. I am very fond of the VTES picture (which
is one of the great ones from the original set), but I love the Sabbat version
even more. The picture is hysterical--a gauze clad waif gouging some dude's
eyes out with her unforseen might! A very well rendered and brilliantly
concieved picture. Is it fairly gruesome? Sure, but they are blood sucking
vampires, now aren't they?

>>Bewitching Oration:>>

Of the two, I'd go with VTES, but not real fond of either.

>>Dread Gaze:>>

Not real fond of either.

>>Social Charm:>>

Like the Sabbat version better. The VTES isn't bad, but I like the overall look
of the Sabbat version more.

>>Gleam of Red Eyes:>>

Of these, I like the Sabbat version better.

>>Shadow of the Beast:>>

The Sabbat version is not so good. I can't even recall the VTES version.

>>Wolf Claws:>>

The Sabbat version is a better picture, but of all of those, Claws of the Dead
wins.

>>Cauldron of Blood:>>

Both are fairly abstract, and fairly good.

>>Cryptic Mission:>>

Yeah, Ilike the VTES version better.

>>Theft of Vitae:>>

Kinda like the Sabbat version better.

>>Walk of Flame:>>

VTES.

>>Arson:>>

Like the Sabbat version better.

>>Boxed In>>

VTES.

>>Computer Hacking:>>

VTES

>>Cryptic Rider:>>

VTES

>>Fake Out>>

Never really fond of the VTES card, but it is better than the Sabbat version.

>>Consanguinous Boon>>

I vastly prefer the VTES version--I think the Sabbat version is kind of muddy
and questionably rendered.

>>.44 Magnum
V:tES: Ivory skinned woman languidly holds a smoking pistol as she leans over
a skull. I rather like this picture, despite its depiction of the employing
vampire. Sabbat: Someone holding a big revolver. Are either of these gun's
actually .44 magnums?>>

I kinda like the Sabbat picture better, and it is actually of a .44 magnum type
gun. The VTES .44 Magnum is actually the illustration for Saturday Night
Special (go look at Saturday Night Special closely...)--the pictures got
switched.

>>Flamethrower>>

Very fond of the Sabbat version.

>>Laptop Computer>>

I'm with you here--I rather like the VTES version, rather not the Sabbat.

>>Sport Bike:>>

The VTES one is certainly a well done picture of a sports bike, but kind of
uninteresting. Sabbat version is rather a more entertaining picture (and just
as well done).

>>Ascendance:>>

Rather fond of the Sabbat version.

>>Blood Doll:>>

Rather fond of the Sabbat version.

>>Short Term Investment
V:tES: Depicts a calculator showing the number of the beast, a
blood-spattered copy of the Wall Street Journal, and some stock certificates
for Wizards of the Coast.
Sabbat: Vague fuzzy picture of three workers surrounded by hanging chains,
and moving what may be barrels of blood. I'm not sure what, if anything, it
has to do with investments of any kind.>>

The VTES version is a good picture, but I think the Sabbat version is totally
excellent both visually and thematically. Drew Tucker is one of the great CCG
illustrators who rarely gets the credit he deserves (but often gets abuse he
doesn't). Those aren't three *workers*, but there are three of them. Think
about it...

>>Sudden Reversal>>

Sabbat wins on the McNeil factor--neither illustration makes much sense
thematically, so the better picture wins.

>>Unnatural Disaster>>

I kinda like the Sabbat version better. McNeil's isn't bad, however.

>>The Barrens>>

Not real fond of either.

>>Information Highway>>

VTES all the way.

Peter D Bakija
PD...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6

"The giant robot, with bird like head.
The giant robot, he is my friend."
-The Aquabats!

[MSheafer33]

Jeroen Rombouts wrote:

>I never said anything about (finger) rings or necklaces and such. It's the
>piercing that kind of bugs me here. (not that hard, it's only a drawing.)
>remeber that the dog has in no way chosen to be pierced.

I'm not fond of any kind of piercing myself. But if a person where a fan of
such body art for himself/herself, then I would interpret any effort to
similarly decorate a pet as a sign of value placed on that pet, as well as an
interest in humanizing that pet.

It seems to me that a vampire with animalism would have little difficulty
piercing an animal without trauma or pain (anaesthetic saliva coupled with
psychic animal control). Considering the current context of the discussion, it
seems to me that complaints that this is immoral or cruel are laughable.
Indeed, if morality is a concern, it is to be hoped that the vampire in
question feeds regularly on the blood of his pet in order to minimize his
dependency on humans.

[MSheafer33]

Xian wrote:

>> Sabbat: A female sadist pleasures herself with a little eye
>
>One could argue that most Sabbat are sadistic by nature.

The issue at question is whether specifically Sabbat art (which was
specifically chosen with an eye towards unusual depravity) should be used in
non-Sabbat sets. In this case, the card in question apprears in the Giovanni
starter set. Like all vampires, the Giovanni can easily be imagined as
stooping to this level of depravity. But they need not be, if the player does
not wish it. This is why, I think, it is preferable to not be quite so
specific. Vagueness is sometimes more advisable, as it allows players to use
their own imagination to determine what the cards represent. That way, the
game will not be merely for those for whom sadistic dark fantasy has appeal.

To me, the idea of Potence, and its usefulness in combat, has little to do with
what is portrayed on this card. If this illustration were used for something
like Tortured Confession, or Depravity, it might be more thematically
appropriate. But, as already stated, Undead Strength is one of the staple
damage-dealing cards of the Potence discipline, and all players will not find
the thought of their vampires indulging in such gratuitous cruelty and
mutilation to be enhancing of their pleasure of the game.

It is not, for instance, a fantasy that appeals to me personally. It appears
there are idiots on this NG who will choose to insult me for this, but it
certainly does not seem to me to be something that I, or anyone, need
appologise for. If a card is less specific in what it represents, then I and
others will be free to imagine whatever violent fantasies we choose. It is
better that way, I think.

>> gouging. Apart from the fact that it is overly specific in
>depicting
>> the vampire playing the card, it also goes to gratuitous and
>thematically
>> irrelevant extremes in the depiction of depraved cruelty. I have no
>
>Again, when dealing with undead, inhuman monsters, it's hard to
>*really* be
>extreme. Gouging out someone's eyes is pretty light fare when these
>vampires suck the blood of the living, sometimes killing
>them...especially
>when you consider that the victim of said eye-gouging is probably
>another
>vampire, able to grow those eyes back in a relatively short period.

It seems to me far more acceptable to destroy a vampire than to torture it,
once you have it at your mercy. Lethal combat is often necessary and
acceptable. Torture of the helpless is not. In this case, the cruelty does
not even have the vampires normal presumed motive of feeding for the sake of
survival (driven by uncontrollable instincts). I'm sorry that you do not see
anything abnormally repulsive about gratuitious cruelty for its own sake.

>> desire to identify with the vampire here depicted, but that is what
>I
>> am asked to do when I play this card. This is one of the staple
>damage-
>> dealing cards of the Potence discipline. Surely it could do without
>this
>art.
>> Repulsive.
>
>I fail to see why you are asked to *identify* with the vampire
>depicted.

In game terms, the vampire depicted represents the acting vampire. The acting
vampire is a character whose actions I contol. It is not quite as involved as
in a Role Playing Game, but your minions are still your characters, and you
either identify with them to some extent, or else miss out on much of the game
atmosphere. If game atmosphere is irrelevant, then there is no need for card
art at all.

>It's a game...if the picture were a pile of dog poo instead, would you
>be
>asked to identify with that?

Does the pile of dog poo represent the acting vampire -- a character I control
-- engaged in some sort of wierd protean ability? If not, then I fail to see
the parallel.

>[Social Charm]
>> V:tES: Socially charming vampiress has clearly managed to impress
>> 3 onlookers (2 men and a woman).
>> Sabbat: Fuzzily rendered vampire lover gets ready to bite his
>> victims thigh. I guess he "socially charmed" her. More lurid and
>> erotic; less thematically appropriate.
>
>I'm about even on these. I don't feel that either is more or less
>thematic than the other.

To me the phrase "social charm" does not mean the same thing as seduction or
sex appeal. To assume it does seems to indicate a sort of sex-obsessed
mentality that I would prefer not become typical of the game.

> I'm not entirely sure why the (seeming) objections to eroticism and
> luridness,

I have no objections to eroticism when thematically appropriate, but I would
prefer it not raise its head otherwise, as in such cases it tends to take over
entirely and drive out other elements, reducing those art forms infected into
hollow trash. I also tend to prefer subtlety and power-of-suggestion to
explicitness, as that allows the imaginative player to imagine what he wishes,
and not imagine what he does not wish.

> as this *is* a vampire game, after all.

I am aware of that.

> The vampire myth (in its
> current, post-Victorian state) is all about eroticism, the act of
> drinking blood taking the place of sex, etc.

If you want to think of it that way, it is fine for you (I guess). But if that
is what the vampire myth is "all about", then it is an extraordinarily
uninteresting myth. Neo-freudian "wisdom" of this sort is boring as hell.
<yawn> I think that a number of interesting things (which I won't go into for
now) could be said about the possible significance and applicability of the
vampire myth, all of which are reduced to abject nonsense if you assume that
the act of drinking blood represents sex.

Personally, eroticism is never what attracted me to the vampire myth. To me,
vampires, to the extent that they are plausible fiction, are monsters of
horror. There is nothing sexy about them. Any "sexiness" that vampires might
seem to posess is an illusion that only serves to increase the horror when and
if the illusion is exposed. Once the charm is seen through, vampires are
representatives of disease and death, the direct opposite of sexiness, the
direct opposite of life. If any genuine sex-appeal is present in a vampire
tale, it is associated with the living, human characters who are the
life-draining vampire's potential victims.

But you're right about much of current vampire fiction. Much of it has
degenerated into a sort of pervert porno trash for those those who wish to
indulge in S&M or rape-murder fantasies and whatnot. This only illustrates
what I mentioned earlier -- that if you give too much ground to gratuitious
eroticism, it quickly takes over and drives out other elements, debasing all
that it touches. It also condemns the appeal of such art to a tiny minority.
While they appeal to those who are "into" it, most erotic art seems
embarrasingly and transparently bad to anyone who does not share such tastes.
Most people (I suspect) do not see anything sexy about sucking blood or having
the blood sucked out of them, nor do they find sex appeal in torture,
mutilation, and pain.

Whenever I read or watch a work of modern vampire fiction, which actually tries
to make the vampires themselves erotic or sexual or sexy, my suspension of
disbelief is shattered at once. When I play Jyhad, I prefer the Nosferatu,
since they are the most free from this idiotic taint.

> So I definitely
> don't think that it's
> out of place. Most of the presence and dominate cards could have
> vaguely
> pornographic pictures, and they'd probably still be fine. Well, not
> Slaughtering the Herd. (Right now, I'm imagining Intimidation being
> replaced by some guy pimp-slapping a strung-out looking woman.)

While I am sure that this would please you (and many others) perfectly well, I
rather hope that you do not get your wish.

>> Sabbat: Sabbat thug holds a gun to a computer-user. Evidently, the
>
>> Sabbat are far too stupid to do their own computer hacking, and are
>only
>> good at bullying and threats.
>
>Probably accurate. Again, I thought the original was just kind of
>cheesy,
>and a depiction of "gamer cool" rather than something that actually is
>cool-looking. "Wow, that guy is smoking a cigarette at his
>computer...he
>must be cool." (Much like Wolf Claws, Wolf Companion, Renegade Garou,
>etc.)

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What the hell is "gamer cool"?
And what (apart from cruelty, torture, spattered blood, and borderline
pornography) qualifies in your mind as "genuine cool"?

I don't smoke (nor do most gamers) and I don't see anything particularly "cool"
about those who do. But the grinning cigar chomping werewolf on the "renegade
garou" card has individuality, humor and personality. No doubt you would
prefer to see a blood-spattered garou ripping someone's heart out,
demonstrating no individuality or personality other than the blind rage which
is a base feature of all his kind.

And what is "gamer cool" about the V:tES Computer Hacking guy, apart from the
fact that he actually looks like the kind of person who might do his own
computer hacking?

What is "gamer cool" about the wolf companion?

What is "gamer cool" about the art for Wolf Claws? The sunglasses?

>> Fake Out
>> V:tES: Funky abstract diagram featuring a skull and an swerving
>> arrow, symbolizing, evidently, a change of direction while
>pretending
>> to attack. Appropriate.
>
>Bleh. I thought this was some of the worst art in the original set,
>and is
>almost as bad as the original Rage's Dodge. Looks very last-minute.

It does not look like much work went into it, I agree. But it still serves its
purpose far better than the replacement. The qualities about it, which you
evidently do not like, at least make it distinctive. The replacement looks
more like any other card, and what it portrays is completely thematically
inappropriate. A mighty leap is not a "fake-out", and makes no sense on a card
that will typically be used by allies and weenie vamps without superhuman
powers.

>> When I, an ancient
>> Methuselah, play "Surprise Influence" during a card game,
>> I prefer to imagine
>> myself doing something truly subtle and devious, as opposed
>> to doing something
>> an immature teenager would consider subtle and devious..
>
> I much preferred the Sabbat version, as it seemed more fleshed out,
> and one could
> imagine that it was a Camarilla art museum that has been defaced,
> which
> would definitely be surprising.

<shrug> If that's what appeals to you. It would be rude, at this point, to
repeat my own impressions.

>> Submachine Gun
>> V:tES: Someone holding a submachine gun.
>> Sabbat: Vampire punk holding an automatic rifle (NOT a submachine
>> gun).
>
> I preferred the original art, but the Sabbat version is definitely
> *not* an
> automatic rifle.

It is certainly "automatic", and, due to it's length and due to the fact that
it is clearly designed in such a manner as to enable it to be fired from the
shoulder, and almost certainly fires "rifled" shots, I would think that it
qualifies as a "rifle" by most reasonable definitions. I have no idea what
criteria you are using to exclude it.

> It's a large submachine gun, but it's still a
> submachine
> gun. Looks like some sort of H&K.

It looks similar, in size and design, to the weapon pictured on the card
"Assault Rifle".

I suppose you could use the term "submachine gun" to apply to any hand-held
automatic weapon (as the term "machine gun" generally refers to mounted ones).
Doing so, however, abandons the destinction made, in the original set, between
submachine guns and assault rifles.

>> Short Term Investment
>> V:tES: Depicts a calculator showing the number of the beast, a
>
> I can't believe you actually said "number of the beast".

You seem easily shocked. Explain your comment.

>> blood-spattered copy of the Wall Street Journal, and some stock
>> certificates for Wizards of the Coast.
>
>Appropriate.
>
>> Sabbat: Vague fuzzy picture of three workers surrounded by hanging
>> chains, and moving what may be barrels of blood. I'm not sure what,
>if
>> anything, it has to do with investments of any kind.
>
>I have no clue here either. Though I still prefer the art of the
>Sabbat
>version, as the original was again, incredibly cheesy.

I am not sure I understand your definition of "cheese". Perhaps it is any
humor that has a distancing effect from the darkness of the material. But it
seems to me that the idea of playing the role of monsters might begin to border
on the offensive if you took it too seriously and did not have a sense of humor
about it.

Sheafer

[MSheafer33]

Fanboy wrote:

>The average Sabbat is lucky to make it through his first year.
>They're embraced with the expectation that either their pack, a rival
>pack, or their sworn enemies will destroy them. That's why they make
>so many of them -- they're considered expendable cannon fodder.

The whole idea of the "Masquerade" was designed to make vampires seem like a
credible fiction in a world not too dissimilar to our own. The rampaging,
expendible, cannon-fodder Sabbat idiots shatter this fiction and work against
the suspension of disbelief that the Masquerade was designed to create. One
can, however, imagine something like the Sabbat existing in some parralel
universe in which all mortals are even more abysmally stupid than the vampires
themselves.

>The Sabbat that survive do so because they take their humanity, and
>bury it. They find something else to focus on, and they become
>stronger for it.

You are simply repeating an implausible fiction. In reality, the habits
attributed to the Sabbat do not make one stronger, and are not conducive to the
long-term survival of any individual or group.

>These Sabbat are lucky to survive the decade.

I should think so.

>The Sabbat that are truly ancient -- Goratrix, Moncada, Sascha Vykos,
>Lambach, etc, are older than the Sabbat itself. They see the Sabbat
>for what it is -- a tool. A mostly stupid homicidal tool, indeed, but
>a tool nonetheless.

I have not gotten too far into the clan novels, but I note that Moncada has
already managed to get himself killed, partly as a consequence of his own
shortsighted brutality and depraved self-indulgence.

I wish Lucita would get herself killed as well, but that seems unlikely. I
suspect that certain readers are intended to identify with the sadistic power
fantasy that she represents.

I don't know what will happen to Vykos. But she seems far too busy being
depraved to actually look out for her own interests. When I refererred to the
Sabbat as a joke, Vykos was one of the vampires I had in mind.

I concede that the Lasombra and the Tzimisce, as clans, are reasonably
interesting creations. But (as your own comments imply) they are more
interesting and plausible the more they are distanced from the fiction of the
Sabbat itself.

>When the Sabbat has a foe, they can be unstoppable in their unity --
>reference the assault on the High in Toreador and Tzimice. When the
>enemy isn't present, they can collapse under their own weight --
>reference the war councils in Tzimisce.

Presumably the things could be said about the Camarilla, so this still begs the
question I asked earlier.

> The Camarilla is a composite of vampires, each with an individual
> agenda.

So is the Sabbat.

>They allow the Sabbat to win because they're too busy
> fighting their own little petty wars -- more often than not,
> sacrificing their "allies" within their own sect to various Sabbat
> raids.

In other words, the Camarilla , like the Sabbat, are too busy "trying to be
evil" to ACTUALLY look out for their own interests. But the Sabbat must be
more depraved and shortsightedly "selfish" even than this. Otherwise, what is
the distinction?

But if each group is too stupid to cooperate and look out for themselves, then
this onely begs the question of why some third group has not wiped out both
sets of idiots long ago.

>When the Camarilla does start to work together, however, their
>efficiency is frightening. Reference the Battle for New York in the
>latter portion of the Clan Novel sequence.

Have not got that far.

[MSheafer33]

Fanboy wrote:

>>Far better to
>> keep one picture for one card so that it is recognizable by
>> sight (which is
>> one of the functions that pictures are supposed to serve.)
>
>Wizards of the Coast -- the one company to make a substantial profit
>over the long term, begs to differ.

They are welcome to. I stand by my opinion, for what it is worth. I do not
play magic.

[MSheafer33]

Fanboy wrote:

>> Methuselah, play "Surprise Influence" during a card game, I prefer to
>imagine
>> myself doing something truly subtle and devious, as opposed to doing
>something
>> an immature teenager would consider subtle and devious..
>
>Hmm...breaching the Masquerade in another Methuselah's
>territory would
>be subtle and devious, and making it look like s street thug act only
>deflects blame to someone else (Sabbat, maybe)?

First of, I do not see how spraypainting the phrase "Virgil is a traitorus
[sic] whore" qualifies as a breach of the masquerade.

Secondly, breaches of the masquerade, as already pointed out, are damaging to
the suspension of disbelief and plausibility of the universe created.

>Besides, grafitti is classic Ravnos -- so it would be appropriate for
>an unaligned set.

He don't look much like Ravnos to me.

[Pat Ricochet]

>> The average Sabbat is lucky to make it through his first year.
>> They're embraced with the expectation that either their pack, a rival
>> pack, or their sworn enemies will destroy them. That's why they make
>> so many of them -- they're considered expendable cannon fodder.
>
> The whole idea of the "Masquerade" was designed to make vampires seem like a
> credible fiction in a world not too dissimilar to our own. The rampaging,
> expendible, cannon-fodder Sabbat idiots shatter this fiction and work against
> the suspension of disbelief that the Masquerade was designed to create. One
> can, however, imagine something like the Sabbat existing in some parralel
> universe in which all mortals are even more abysmally stupid than the vampires
> themselves.

AFAIK, the Sabbat don't care so much for the Masquerade, except in the
sense of keeping alive. In fact, it's not uncommon for them to mess up the
Masquerade to keep the Camarilla scrambling to keep it covered, not unlike
your classic super-villain endangers innocents to keep the super-hero
otherwise occupied. (for a cheesy example, see the movie "Superman II." =)

Now, all that aside, I'll hop in and say that, like all "DP:TES
players," I'm somewhat indifferent to the art. Most of the card art isn't
even seen much during play (many cards go UNDER the vampire cards, even more
goes to the ash heap), and I mix Jyhad/VTES when I have to. Now, I DO have
some favorite art, but it doesn't really affect my playing of any card. As
long as WW prints the cards and does so at the least cost, such that they
keep making the game, I'm fine.

BUT, I will say that there's no REASON to choose "violence and sex!" as
"fitting" the game. I think in general, the "quality" of the images in
Sabbat are better, and I think that WW has most all of that art, but much of
the VTES art was lost. (Note the Taste of Vitae, that looks SCANNED in, and
looks bad for it!) If it costs WW any more money to get "new, sexy, and
violent art!", I'm against it. If it costs them more money to recreate or
restore "classic art," I'm against that. Given a total, coin flip, who
cares, I'm not crazy about the violent art; it does bother me a little that
it'll get WW into trouble later on down the line, what with witchhunts
against game companies when mentally disturbed kids play games and then
commit crimes, and links get made...why give the finger-pointers so much to
work with?
(for all possible "hey, the game is about vampires!" replies: See the
"coin flip scenario." All this is IRrelevant if one reprint is cheaper than
another, as I suspect it is. And, as M. Sheafer, I just don't need/prefer
over-the-top sex and violence. My OPINION.)

--
Pat Ricochet
Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

[Derek Ray]

mshea...@cs.com (MSheafer33) wrote a whole freakin' novel in
news:20010815154101...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com:

> Xian wrote:
>
>>> Sabbat: A female sadist pleasures herself with a little eye
>>
>>One could argue that most Sabbat are sadistic by nature.
>
> The issue at question is whether specifically Sabbat art (which was
> specifically chosen with an eye towards unusual depravity) should be
> used in non-Sabbat sets. In this case, the card in question apprears

What issue? It got used. It will probably continue to be used, because
new art costs money and creating brand-new art every time a card gets
reprinted is, frankly, a waste of money AND somewhat confusing to new
players. (Possibly also at issue is whether WotC, and NOT WW, owns the
original Jyhad art, necessitating more money to be spent just to get the
existing stuff... or whether the old art is even available?)

To me, the issue seems to be your OPINION that you don't like the Sabbat
art, and think it's too gory/sadistic/insert-word-here. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion, but worrying too much about the art when we're
all trying to rescue the game from the ash heap that WotC threw it in
strikes me as perhaps a bit of a fringe concern... once we've regained
prominence among CCGs, then we can worry that the art is sending the wrong
message.

> in the Giovanni starter set. Like all vampires, the Giovanni can
> easily be imagined as stooping to this level of depravity. But they
> need not be, if the player does not wish it. This is why, I think, it
> is preferable to not be quite so specific. Vagueness is sometimes
> more advisable, as it allows players to use their own imagination to
> determine what the cards represent. That way, the game will not be
> merely for those for whom sadistic dark fantasy has appeal.

It's a card game, not the RPG. The card game is much richer for the use of
descriptive art, which allows people to add flavor to what would otherwise
be a purely mechanical game..., but it is still the card game and not the
RPG. Nobody is mandating that ANYONE picture themselves as a vampire
gouging out eyes just because they play a card with that picture on it.

> discipline, and all players will not find the thought of their
> vampires indulging in such gratuitous cruelty and mutilation to be
> enhancing of their pleasure of the game.

In which case it might be time for such players to step back a TINY bit
from the game and remind themselves "it's a card game, not an RPG". If
they wish, they may describe the card's effect in DIFFERENT terms than
shown on the card. Again, being locked-in to what the picture is seems
excessively "involved" to me, and more than a little bit UNimaginative,
frankly.

> anyone, need appologise for. If a card is less specific in what it
> represents, then I and others will be free to imagine whatever violent
> fantasies we choose. It is better that way, I think.

Is it? The original art for Undead Strength is tragically dorky; but it's
certainly very non-specific. The Sabbat art is -somewhat- more indicative
of the idea of the card (a fragile woman being surprisingly strong), but
eye-gouging is something a 90lb. weakling is capable of; it missed the
boat.

A 'best' art for Undead Strength, to me, would be the same fragile woman
lifting a "300lb bruiser" type over her head, perhaps smashing him into a
lamppost or something? This is quite descriptive, to me, of the ability
the card provides. While it may be specific, it is also GOOD. To me, the
artwork on a card provides a second, non-text medium to help convey an idea
that's represented literally by the text. Witness the problems with
understanding Torn Signpost, simply because the name, art, and text don't
EVER match up properly.

> instincts). I'm sorry that you do not see anything abnormally
> repulsive about gratuitious cruelty for its own sake.

Correct, I see nothing ABNORMALLY repulsive about it. I consider it
repulsive, and I would never encourage such behavior in real life, but it
is a card game. I have no difficulty separating the card game from
reality, and again, I suggest that those who do take ONE step back and look
at themselves.

> In game terms, the vampire depicted represents the acting vampire.
> The acting vampire is a character whose actions I contol. It is not

Correct, but it is NOT you. You are a Methuselah who is influencing
(perhaps secretly) that vampire to perform your bidding. The vampire
himself is invoking his Undead Strength in the course of his activities.

> quite as involved as in a Role Playing Game, but your minions are
> still your characters, and you either identify with them to some

Your minions are no more "your" characters than your party's NPCs are
"your" characters. Your minions are just that... your MINIONS.

> extent, or else miss out on much of the game atmosphere. If game
> atmosphere is irrelevant, then there is no need for card art at all.

Game atmosphere is not irrelevant. But excessively identifying with the
game is not a good idea, either. Again, it is a card game, not the RPG.

(snip)

> To me the phrase "social charm" does not mean the same thing as
> seduction or sex appeal. To assume it does seems to indicate a sort
> of sex-obsessed mentality that I would prefer not become typical of
> the game.

To assume that it CAN, however, is entirely appropriate. Social Charm can
most certainly be about sex appeal; many women have described me as
"charming" in the past, while no men EVER have. That, to me, is indicative
that sex appeal is certainly a PART of 'charm', although certainly not the
entire thing. One approach was selected for the V:TES card; one was
selected for the Sabbat card. Either is appropriate.

I would prefer that the game's art not be TOTALLY focused on sex and
violence as well, just because that sort of thing will draw fire from the
fundie fanatics, ...even though when I play Social Charm, I don't picture
myself as licking someone's leg.

>> The vampire myth (in its
>> current, post-Victorian state) is all about eroticism, the act of
>> drinking blood taking the place of sex, etc.
>
> If you want to think of it that way, it is fine for you (I guess).

Er. QUITE a lot of people think of it that way, although I don't see the
drinking-blood-taking-the-place-of-sex part myself. However, the popular
idea of a vampire currently IS something dark and erotic... with the
violence lurking in the shadows, ready to spring out at any moment for the
full horror. This is part of what makes it so erotic to people, I believe;
the 'restrained fury' of the Beast.

> But if that is what the vampire myth is "all about", then it is an
> extraordinarily uninteresting myth. Neo-freudian "wisdom" of this

To you, perhaps. A lot of people find it QUITE interesting. (I'm largely
indifferent.)

> I don't smoke (nor do most gamers) and I don't see anything
> particularly "cool" about those who do. But the grinning cigar

However, it is an image that has successfully persisted in the public's
mind for MANY years that smoking somehow lends an aura, a certain 'je ne
sais quois', to an individual. Note that the same Garou without the cigar
loses something indefinable?

> chomping werewolf on the "renegade garou" card has individuality,
> humor and personality. No doubt you would prefer to see a
> blood-spattered garou ripping someone's heart out, demonstrating no
> individuality or personality other than the blind rage which is a base
> feature of all his kind.

Either would be appropriate. After all, the Garou, in the card game,
pretty much IS just a combat thug.

> And what is "gamer cool" about the V:tES Computer Hacking guy, apart
> from the fact that he actually looks like the kind of person who might
> do his own computer hacking?

He strikes me as some old "detective show" refugee, actually... sort of a
Sam Spade brought into the modern era. Inappropriate for him to be sitting
in front of a computer, but certainly fits in with "gamer cool".

> What is "gamer cool" about the art for Wolf Claws? The sunglasses?

Right first try. Bonus points, that man.

> I am not sure I understand your definition of "cheese". Perhaps it
> is any humor that has a distancing effect from the darkness of the
> material. But it seems to me that the idea of playing the role of
> monsters might begin to border on the offensive if you took it too
> seriously and did not have a sense of humor about it.

Which is basically my point. Taking the art too seriously detracts from
the fun of the game; if there's art you don't like, then feel free to not
like it, and just don't PICTURE things that way. The Sabbat ultra-gore
does serve a purpose in its own fashion; it is exaggerated and over-the-
top, helping to distance people a notch from things.

[Gene Wirchenko]

mshea...@cs.com (MSheafer33) wrote:

[snip]

>It seems to me that a vampire with animalism would have little difficulty
>piercing an animal without trauma or pain (anaesthetic saliva coupled with
>psychic animal control). Considering the current context of the discussion, it
>seems to me that complaints that this is immoral or cruel are laughable.
>Indeed, if morality is a concern, it is to be hoped that the vampire in
>question feeds regularly on the blood of his pet in order to minimize his
>dependency on humans.

PETA is going to be after you. <G>

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

[The Nosferatu Stuff]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns90FEB4BA...@198.99.146.10...

> A 'best' art for Undead Strength, to me, would be the same fragile woman
> lifting a "300lb bruiser" type over her head, perhaps smashing him into a
> lamppost or something? This is quite descriptive, to me, of the ability
> the card provides. While it may be specific, it is also GOOD. To me, the
> artwork on a card provides a second, non-text medium to help convey an
idea
> that's represented literally by the text. Witness the problems with
> understanding Torn Signpost, simply because the name, art, and text don't
> EVER match up properly.

The art is exceptional, when compared to the title. Looking closely at the
art on the card is important. Obviously someone has literally torn this
signpost with their hands. The idea that the ability to tear up a piece of
sheet metal, as easily as you would paper may be slightly abstract, but none
the less correct in the concept of personal strength. Besides, it's a
*great* picture. =)

That new Nosferatu Anti guy..now there's some confusing art!

Aaron.

[Gene Wirchenko]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>mshea...@cs.com (MSheafer33) wrote a whole freakin' novel in
>news:20010815154101...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com:

[snip]

>To me, the issue seems to be your OPINION that you don't like the Sabbat
>art, and think it's too gory/sadistic/insert-word-here. Everyone is
>entitled to their opinion, but worrying too much about the art when we're
>all trying to rescue the game from the ash heap that WotC threw it in
>strikes me as perhaps a bit of a fringe concern... once we've regained
>prominence among CCGs, then we can worry that the art is sending the wrong
>message.

Consider the possibility that the art is a factor.

[snip]

>> To me the phrase "social charm" does not mean the same thing as
>> seduction or sex appeal. To assume it does seems to indicate a sort
>> of sex-obsessed mentality that I would prefer not become typical of
>> the game.
>
>To assume that it CAN, however, is entirely appropriate. Social Charm can
>most certainly be about sex appeal; many women have described me as
>"charming" in the past, while no men EVER have. That, to me, is indicative

I have been in the company of charming women AND men. No, I am
not sexually attracted to men.

Social Charm = Charisma? Think of the D&D stat if that helps.

>that sex appeal is certainly a PART of 'charm', although certainly not the

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'd say "can be and often is" instead.

>entire thing. One approach was selected for the V:TES card; one was
>selected for the Sabbat card. Either is appropriate.

[snip]

[Xian]

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20010815154101...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com...

> Xian wrote:
>
> >One could argue that most Sabbat are sadistic by nature.
>
> The issue at question is whether specifically Sabbat art (which was
> specifically chosen with an eye towards unusual depravity) should be
used in
> non-Sabbat sets. In this case, the card in question apprears in the
Giovanni

Sure, I'll concede that I got off track a little bit.

[Undead Strength, gratuitous depiction of violence]

> It is not, for instance, a fantasy that appeals to me personally.
It appears
> there are idiots on this NG who will choose to insult me for this,
but it

Perhaps.

I will point out that with no provocation, you seem to have taken
personal offense at something I wrote, and continually insulted my
imagined views on the art/game/etc. throughout your post. Not that I
really care, but it is somewhat hypocritical when you off-handedly
remarked elsewhere that people were being rude to *you* for no reason
at all.

> certainly does not seem to me to be something that I, or anyone,
need
> appologise for. If a card is less specific in what it represents,
then I and

No, you don't need to apologize for not being thrilled by depictions
of violent acts. However, in no way was I attempting to glorify them
in my post, which you seem to have inferred.

[snip vampires beating each other up and regenerating]

> It seems to me far more acceptable to destroy a vampire than to
torture it,
> once you have it at your mercy. Lethal combat is often necessary
and
> acceptable. Torture of the helpless is not. In this case, the
cruelty does

I guess this all depends on your view of the use of torture, mercy
killing, etc. Personally, I think it'd probably be better to live and
let live, but maybe that's just me. Or, specifically in the context
of the WoD, beat up the vampire, let him know you could have killed
him, and then set him free.

> not even have the vampires normal presumed motive of feeding for the
sake of
> survival (driven by uncontrollable instincts). I'm sorry that you
do not see
> anything abnormally repulsive about gratuitious cruelty for its own
sake.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't find
gratuitous cruelty repulsive. Sure, the picture on the Sabbat/SW
version of Undead Strength is graphic and the act it portrays is
repulsive. I said that this is *less* repulsive than the act of
killing a human.

[identifying with the vampire on the card]

> In game terms, the vampire depicted represents the acting vampire.
The acting
> vampire is a character whose actions I contol. It is not quite as
involved as

The acting vampire on the card (in the game) represents a character
that is being influenced to do something you want them to do. In the
WoD, it is often suggested that the characters may do something for no
apparent reason or a reason that completely coincides with their own
goals, yet furthers the goals of a Methuselah that is manipulating
them. So it could be with the card game.

> in a Role Playing Game, but your minions are still your characters,
and you
> either identify with them to some extent, or else miss out on much
of the game

I can certainly see playing with a set of minions, playing it in a
role playing fashion, and not identifying with them. How often does a
cruel and brutal overlord identify with his pawns? Maybe look at it
that way...

> atmosphere. If game atmosphere is irrelevant, then there is no need
for card
> art at all.

Well, the game atmosphere is nice, and I'd miss it if this were Dog
Poo: the Eternal Struggle, but I'd still play the game.

> Does the pile of dog poo represent the acting vampire -- a character
I control
> -- engaged in some sort of wierd protean ability? If not, then I
fail to see
> the parallel.

Sorry, reference to a comment by a noted poster that the game could be
about piles of dog poo for all he cares about the art. Sure, the art
is nice and all, but the mechanics draw a significant portion of the
players as well.

> >[Social Charm]

> To me the phrase "social charm" does not mean the same thing as
seduction or
> sex appeal. To assume it does seems to indicate a sort of
sex-obsessed

It does for me when you put it in quotation marks. "Social Charm" :)
As Derek points out, it could have something to do with it, or not.

> I have no objections to eroticism when thematically appropriate, but
I would
> prefer it not raise its head otherwise, as in such cases it tends to
take over
> entirely and drive out other elements, reducing those art forms
infected into
> hollow trash. I also tend to prefer subtlety and
power-of-suggestion to
> explicitness, as that allows the imaginative player to imagine what
he wishes,
> and not imagine what he does not wish.

Subtlety is great. I'm all for it. However, White Wolf doesn't have
a history of hiring artists that are all about subtlety. As long as
they keep producing the game, they can put whatever art they want on
the cards. Art I like is better, but art I don't like is fine too.

> > The vampire myth (in its
> > current, post-Victorian state) is all about eroticism, the act of
> > drinking blood taking the place of sex, etc.
>
> If you want to think of it that way, it is fine for you (I guess).
But if that

Yeah, it works for me. I was referring to the vampire myth in fiction
from, oh, Bram Stoker onwards. It's a pretty standard reading of
_Dracula_ that the obsession with sucking blood is a metaphor for sex.
Then again, in literature, *lots* of stuff is a metaphor for sex.

> is what the vampire myth is "all about", then it is an
extraordinarily
> uninteresting myth. Neo-freudian "wisdom" of this sort is boring as
hell.

I did not say that the entirety of the vampire myth is about sex...I
referred to the specific current view of it, in modern fiction.
(Also, ask anyone at the Comfort Suites for GenCon this year...the
classy ladies who kept dropping in on our VTES sessions certainly look
at it that way.)

Sorry you're bored, but it's not Freudian, it's just a standard
interpretation of _Dracula_.

> Personally, eroticism is never what attracted me to the vampire
myth. To me,

Nor I.

> > Slaughtering the Herd. (Right now, I'm imagining Intimidation
being
> > replaced by some guy pimp-slapping a strung-out looking woman.)
>
> While I am sure that this would please you (and many others)
perfectly well, I
> rather hope that you do not get your wish.

Wow. You're right. You saw right through me on that one. I
frequently indulge in fantasies (and the actuality) of beating up my
girlfriend and subjecting her to all sorts of violent abuse.
</sarcasm>

Again, I don't care what the art is, I was applying your suggestion
that *all* of the art from Sabbat is needlessly violent and gruesome.
It could be worse.

[gamer cool]

> I have no idea what you are talking about here. What the hell is
"gamer cool"?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

Oh, sorry. Actually, I just meant that it's incredibly cheesy are
that is supposed to look cool and appeal to people that by and large,
have little fashion sense.

> And what (apart from cruelty, torture, spattered blood, and
borderline
> pornography) qualifies in your mind as "genuine cool"?

There you go again with the derogatory remarks. I've never actually
stated (or even implied, I think) that these are cool either.

Leather jackets and sunglasses at night are "gamer cool", as are
trenchcoats. Actually being cool usually requires that you create
your own unique style, and that others copy you, trying to imitate
you. My version of cool differs from many other peoples', I'm sure.

> I don't smoke (nor do most gamers) and I don't see anything
particularly "cool"
> about those who do. But the grinning cigar chomping werewolf on the
"renegade

Neither do I.

> garou" card has individuality, humor and personality. No doubt you
would

Granted. He also looks like a big dork. That's where the humor comes
in for me.

> prefer to see a blood-spattered garou ripping someone's heart out,
> demonstrating no individuality or personality other than the blind
rage which
> is a base feature of all his kind.

No, I don't really care...and that picture would probably be kind of
boring. I just think the art for Renegade Garou is incredibly cheesy.

> And what is "gamer cool" about the V:tES Computer Hacking guy, apart
from the
> fact that he actually looks like the kind of person who might do his
own
> computer hacking?

That's just it. He's far too tragically hip to be a hacker. Heh.

> What is "gamer cool" about the wolf companion?

Earrings.

> What is "gamer cool" about the art for Wolf Claws? The sunglasses?

Exactly.

[Submachine Gun]

> It is certainly "automatic", and, due to it's length and due to the
fact that
> it is clearly designed in such a manner as to enable it to be fired
from the
> shoulder, and almost certainly fires "rifled" shots, I would think
that it
> qualifies as a "rifle" by most reasonable definitions. I have no
idea what
> criteria you are using to exclude it.

You're right. I wasn't looking at the art at the time and was going
from (faulty) memory.

> > I can't believe you actually said "number of the beast".
>
> You seem easily shocked. Explain your comment.

I would have just said "It says '666' on the display". Number of the
Beast seems overwrought.

> I am not sure I understand your definition of "cheese". Perhaps it
is any
> humor that has a distancing effect from the darkness of the
material. But it

Perhaps. Not completely, but incredibly goofy looking art just
doesn't do it for me.

> seems to me that the idea of playing the role of monsters might
begin to border
> on the offensive if you took it too seriously and did not have a
sense of humor
> about it.

Ah, but I do have a sense of humor about it. It seems to me that you
are the one that is taking the whole thing *way* too seriously.

Xian

[Derek Ray]

ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in
news:3b7b13ec....@news.shuswap.net:

> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>once we've regained prominence among CCGs, then we can worry that the
>>art is sending the wrong message.
>
> Consider the possibility that the art is a factor.

Considered and discarded. Gamers LIKE that sort of thing; look at all the
first-person shooters out there, etc. I've heard tales of the art in
Montreal by Night (i believe?) being -quite- grim. Look at Clan Novel:
Giovanni. Look at many comics, something sold in the same shops as V:TES
and definitely to the same people. Yes, some gamers don't like it, but an
AWFUL lot of gamers and RPGers do. Gamers aren't going to be our problem
(if we have one) with regards to the art. Fundie fanatics and over-frantic
parents WILL, which is a far better reason to avoid gratuitous sex and
violence.

(pointless semantic nitpicking about 'charm' deleted, since what you think
i should've said I actually already said.)

[MSheafer33]

Xian wrote:

>I will point out that with no provocation, you seem to have taken
>personal offense at something I wrote,

Not to my knowledge. When I referenced certain idiots, I had another poster in
mind.

>and continually insulted my
>imagined views on the art/game/etc. throughout your post.

Not to my knowledge. I have only taken issue with, and disagreed with, the
views that you appeared to be expressing. While you may feel that I
misinterpreted your views, I certainly never insulted you for them.

>No, you don't need to apologize for not being thrilled by depictions
>of violent acts. However, in no way was I attempting to glorify them
>in my post, which you seem to have inferred.

If you choose to argue with me, I must assume that you intend to disagree with
me *somehow*.

>I guess this all depends on your view of the use of torture, mercy
>killing, etc.

I guess so.

>Personally, I think it'd probably be better to live and
>let live, but maybe that's just me. Or, specifically in the context
>of the WoD, beat up the vampire, let him know you could have killed
>him, and then set him free.

If you feel that torture is acceptable in such context, then we are in
disagreement. I am merely making a statement, and not attempting to insult
your imagined views.

>I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't find
>gratuitous cruelty repulsive. Sure, the picture on the Sabbat/SW
>version of Undead Strength is graphic and the act it portrays is
>repulsive. I said that this is *less* repulsive than the act of
>killing a human.

Frankly, I find it far easier to imagine situations where the killing of a
human is morally acceptable, than to imagine a situation where torture is
morally acceptable. If a piece of art were to show the acting minion killing a
human (or other sentient being) I would not necessarily be difficult to imagine
situations where such an act were justified. Apart from the fact that a state
of war exists between all Methuselahs minions on the table, many combat
killings in the game can easily be justified on the grounds of self defense.
Of course, most violence in the game involves vampires, and all violence
involves the pawns and minions of vampires. It is difficult to argue that any
such creature is entitled to be regarded as innocent murder victems, and
certainly no Vampire can claim any moral right to continue its unnatural life..

>The acting vampire on the card (in the game) represents a character
>that is being influenced to do something you want them to do. In the
>WoD, it is often suggested that the characters may do something for no
>apparent reason or a reason that completely coincides with their own
>goals, yet furthers the goals of a Methuselah that is manipulating
>them. So it could be with the card game.

I am aware of this, but see no reason why it should alter my opinion, or my
aesthetic preferences.

>I can certainly see playing with a set of minions, playing it in a
>role playing fashion, and not identifying with them. How often does a
>cruel and brutal overlord identify with his pawns? Maybe look at it
>that way...

Perhaps a given Methuselah does not choose to imagine himself the sort of
overlord who does not identify with his pawns. But this is all begging the
issue. He must identify with himself, and if he is their overlord, and
manipulating them, he is therefore responsible for what they do.

>Well, the game atmosphere is nice, and I'd miss it if this were Dog
>Poo: the Eternal Struggle, but I'd still play the game.

I do not believe that I would play this game if it were Dog Poo, the Eternal
Struggle. Atmosphere does matter to me to a significant extent. . That is why
I have an interest in the topic of game art. Normally, I would assume that
others who choose to participate in this discussion have an interest in the
issue as well. But you seem to be saying that your interest is minimal at
best.

>Subtlety is great. I'm all for it. However, White Wolf doesn't have
>a history of hiring artists that are all about subtlety.

<shrug> perhaps, but the art on the cards since White Wolf took over does not
seem to me to be unusually depraved, or at least, not gratuitiously so. (The
art on "Tortured Confession" is at least thematically relevant).

>As long as
>they keep producing the game, they can put whatever art they want on
>the cards. Art I like is better, but art I don't like is fine too.

Is this your way of bowing out of the discussion, or are you determined to be
militant in promoting your disinterest?

>Yeah, it works for me. I was referring to the vampire myth in fiction
>from, oh, Bram Stoker onwards. It's a pretty standard reading of
>_Dracula_ that the obsession with sucking blood is a metaphor for sex.
>Then again, in literature, *lots* of stuff is a metaphor for sex.

Yes, in the minds of the sort of people, who, in my classification, get
labelled as clueless idiots. I am perfectly aware that this sort of nonsense
is widespread, even in academia. Feel free to continue to call it "standard",
but it will not impress me..

> I did not say that the entirety of the vampire myth is about sex...

No, you merely suggested that my interest and preference for non-erotic
vampires was somehow unreasonable and contradictory. I believe my response was
appropriate.

> I
> referred to the specific current view of it, in modern fiction.
> (Also, ask anyone at the Comfort Suites for GenCon this year...the
> classy ladies who kept dropping in on our VTES sessions certainly
> look at it that way.)

Why? Do you think they will change my opinion?

>Sorry you're bored, but it's not Freudian, it's just a standard
>interpretation of _Dracula_.

Ok. I won't call it "Freudian". I won't even call it "Neo-Freudian". I'll
just call it "Stupid". Maybe we can compromise and call it "Standard Stupid".

>> Personally, eroticism is never what attracted me to the vampire
>myth. To me,
>
>Nor I.

Well that makes two of us. Nonetheless, I derived considerable enjoyment from
"Dracula", even though I did not find the title character even remotely sexy.
How about you? I read it as a straight horror story. I strongly suspect that
this is precisely what Bram Stoker intended, whatever the "standard
interpretation" might be.

>> While I am sure that this would please you (and many others)
>perfectly well, I
>> rather hope that you do not get your wish.
>
>Wow. You're right. You saw right through me on that one. I
>frequently indulge in fantasies (and the actuality) of beating up my
>girlfriend and subjecting her to all sorts of violent abuse.
></sarcasm>

<shrug> I merely repreated the opinion you expressed, which is that you would
be perfectly happy with borderline pornographic art on many vampire cards. I
merely reiterated that I stand by my own preferences, whether I am outnumbered
or no.

>Again, I don't care what the art is,

In that case, may I humbly suggest that you move on to another thread?

>I was applying your suggestion
>that *all* of the art from Sabbat is needlessly violent and gruesome.
>It could be worse.

So?

>[gamer cool]
>> I have no idea what you are talking about here. What the hell is
>"gamer cool"?
>
>If you have to ask, you'll never know.
>Oh, sorry. Actually, I just meant that it's incredibly cheesy are
>that is supposed to look cool and appeal to people that by and large,
>have little fashion sense.

Fine. Personally, I have no more interest in what is considered fashionable
than I do in "standard interpretations". Perhaps this explains why stuff that
I like is considered "gamer cool" by truly cool individuals like yourself.

>> And what (apart from cruelty, torture, spattered blood, and
>borderline
>> pornography) qualifies in your mind as "genuine cool"?
>
>There you go again with the derogatory remarks. I've never actually
>stated (or even implied, I think) that these are cool either.

Fair enough. I still have no idea what sort of art you prefer or why you are
bothering to participate in this discussion at all.

> Leather jackets and sunglasses at night are "gamer cool", as are
> trenchcoats.

I have never known gamers to have any notable interest in such things. I guess
I just hang out with the wrong kind of gamers.

> Actually being cool usually requires that you create
> your own unique style, and that others copy you, trying to imitate
> you.

In that case, I can safely say that I have as little interest in "actual" cool
as I do in "gamer" cool.

> My version of cool differs from many other peoples', I'm sure.

I'm sure. Which more or less underscores the pointlessness of this discussion.

> That's just it. He's far too tragically hip to be a hacker. Heh.

You've lost me once again. But please don't bother to explain.

> Earrings.

Hmm. I wonder if all those stupid tattoos in the Sabbat art are "gamer cool".
No wait! It's just an idle thought. I do not wish for an answer.

>I would have just said "It says '666' on the display". Number of the
>Beast seems overwrought.

"I can't believe you actually said 'number of the beast'" seems overwrought to
me.

>> seems to me that the idea of playing the role of monsters might
>begin to border
>> on the offensive if you took it too seriously and did not have a
>sense of humor
>> about it.
>
>Ah, but I do have a sense of humor about it. It seems to me that you
>are the one that is taking the whole thing *way* too seriously.

Yes. You are definitely militant in promoting your disintrest in the topic
under discussion.

[Matt Latham]

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20010816070035...@ng-bj1.news.cs.com...
> Xian wrote:

> > Leather jackets and sunglasses at night are "gamer cool", as are
> > trenchcoats.
>
> I have never known gamers to have any notable interest in such things. I
guess
> I just hang out with the wrong kind of gamers.
>

What Xian is describing are LARPers, those who do live-action roleplaying in
the World of Darkness.

At least in my experience that is what he is describing.

Matt

[Gomi no Sensei]

In article <20010815154101...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com>,
MSheafer33 <mshea...@cs.com> wrote:

>It seems to me far more acceptable to destroy a vampire than to torture it,
>once you have it at your mercy. Lethal combat is often necessary and
>acceptable. Torture of the helpless is not. In this case, the cruelty does
>not even have the vampires normal presumed motive of feeding for the sake of
>survival (driven by uncontrollable instincts). I'm sorry that you do not see
>anything abnormally repulsive about gratuitious cruelty for its own sake.

I'd rather be tortured than killed ANY day. I can recover from torture.

gomi

--
There are enough people who have a brain-cell to their credit and
yet still disagree with me that I don't feel any need to argue with
morons. -- M. Lorton

[MSheafer33]

Gomi wrote:

>I'd rather be tortured than killed ANY day. I can recover from
>torture.

Your preferences notwithstanding, it is far easier for me to imagine situations
where I would be justified in killing you than to imagine situations where I
would be justified in torturing you. (ie. if you were to attack me, and I were
forced to defend myself; or if a state of war existed between us and you were
an enemy combatant; or if you were to commit horrendous crimes, and I were
obliged to have you executed.)

Now perhaps, if a situation existed where I had only two choiced, either to
kill you or to torture you, then torture *might* be justified in those
circumstances. But such situations are hard to imagine. Also, a situation
that met the above requirements would probably not qualify as "torture".
Therefore, the dichotomy you raise is dubious.

If you were a vampire, my moral duty would probably be to kill you, and your
preferences would be irrelevant. I would have no moral obligation (and no
moral excuse) for torturing you.

It is certainly human nature (and vampire nature) to want to preserve one's
life at almost any cost. But the fact remains that death is inevitable, and
must eventually be accepted. There is no such rule that states that cruelty
must be accepted. Cruelty, unlike death, is avoidable. (Indeed, it could be
argued that a vampire's determination to preserve his existence at any cost is
the very essence of what makes him evil.)

In my case, I do not approve of the torment of animals for the sake of medical
science. It seems to me that maintaining strict prohibitions against cruelty
will have a far more beneficial effect on the overall quality of human
existence, than will any marginal increase in average life expectancy that
might result from abandonning such prohibitions.

Of course, the idea of regrettable-but-necessary "torture" has nothing to do
with the idea being suggested by the card under discussion. In that card, the
tormentor appears to be enjoying herself, and the art suggests no other motive
for her actions besides wanton cruelty..

[Gomi no Sensei]

In article <20010816152242...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com>,

MSheafer33 <mshea...@cs.com> wrote:
>Gomi wrote:
>
>>I'd rather be tortured than killed ANY day. I can recover from
>>torture.

>Your preferences notwithstanding, it is far easier for me to imagine situations
>where I would be justified in killing you than to imagine situations where I
>would be justified in torturing you. (ie. if you were to attack me, and I were
>forced to defend myself; or if a state of war existed between us and you were
>an enemy combatant; or if you were to commit horrendous crimes, and I were
>obliged to have you executed.)

Killing in self-defence is very different from volitionary killing.
If you kill me in self defence you are not a murderer. I was comparing
a torturer to a murderer; you are comparing some who killed in self defence
to a torturer. Morally speaking, these are very different comparisons.

A mass torturer is less evil than a mass murderer; his theft is on a
different scale.

>Now perhaps, if a situation existed where I had only two choiced, either to
>kill you or to torture you, then torture *might* be justified in those
>circumstances. But such situations are hard to imagine. Also, a situation
>that met the above requirements would probably not qualify as "torture".
>Therefore, the dichotomy you raise is dubious.

The dichotomy you raise is itself dubious; your Nosferatu are not killing
in self defence. They are killing to advance your agenda as Methuselah.

>If you were a vampire, my moral duty would probably be to kill you, and your
>preferences would be irrelevant. I would have no moral obligation (and no
>moral excuse) for torturing you.

Yes. But if Jeffrey Dahmer had imprisoned, violated, beaten, and released
his victims without killing them, those victims would still be alive
and he would be some fraction less evil.

Torture and murder are both morally reprehensible. You seem to be
conflating killing with murder. These are two separate actions.

As a tangent, the Biblical commandment prohibits murder, not killing.
The distinction is made quite clear in Talmudic law.

[wank]

>In my case, I do not approve of the torment of animals for the sake of medical
>science.

Good. More chemotherapy for me, then. I trust you eschew the results of
such experimentation (all vaccines, antibiotics, pretty much the entire
panoply of modern medicine) as it is based on research you find
objectionable.

[wank]

>Of course, the idea of regrettable-but-necessary "torture" has nothing to do
>with the idea being suggested by the card under discussion. In that card, the
>tormentor appears to be enjoying herself, and the art suggests no other motive
>for her actions besides wanton cruelty..

Vampires are wanton and cruel creatures. As their taskmaster, you are
utterly divorced from any notion of humanity, and are a virtual epitome
of cruelty yourself. Your minions kill and die in your name to serve
your whims; you fight the Jyhad not to survive but to stave off mere
boredom. Get over it.

[Gene Wirchenko]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in
>news:3b7b13ec....@news.shuswap.net:
>
>> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>once we've regained prominence among CCGs, then we can worry that the
>>>art is sending the wrong message.
>>
>> Consider the possibility that the art is a factor.
>
>Considered and discarded. Gamers LIKE that sort of thing; look at all the
>first-person shooters out there, etc. I've heard tales of the art in

Some do; some don't.

[James Coupe]

In message <3b7c11a5...@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko
<ge...@shuswap.net> writes

>>> Consider the possibility that the art is a factor.
>>
>>Considered and discarded. Gamers LIKE that sort of thing; look at all the
>>first-person shooters out there, etc. I've heard tales of the art in
>
> Some do; some don't.

And it is impossible to cater to them all. A market is chosen and aimed
for, however ill-advised/successful that choice might be.

--
James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D
EBD690ECD7A1F
You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot B457CA213D7E6
Happy Christmas your arse, I pray God it's our last 68C3695D623D5D

[Derek Ray]

ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in

news:3b7c11a5...@news.shuswap.net:

> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Considered and discarded. Gamers LIKE that sort of thing; look at all
>>the first-person shooters out there, etc. I've heard tales of the art
>>in
>
> Some do; some don't.

Which is exactly what I said later in the paragraph, except I clarified
that most do. If most didn't, there wouldn't be so damn much of it running
around out there right now.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Xian]

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20010816070035...@ng-bj1.news.cs.com...

> Xian wrote:
>
> >I will point out that with no provocation, you seem to have taken
> >personal offense at something I wrote,
>
> Not to my knowledge. When I referenced certain idiots, I had
another poster in
> mind.

Perhaps I was reading too much into the subtle barbs about
pronography, violence, and general deviance.

> If you choose to argue with me, I must assume that you intend to
disagree with
> me *somehow*.

True...I disagree that the art is necessarily unsuitable for future
expansions, and I disagree with your notion of needing to identify
with the art and the actions each card represents.

> >Personally, I think it'd probably be better to live and
> >let live, but maybe that's just me. Or, specifically in the
context
> >of the WoD, beat up the vampire, let him know you could have killed
> >him, and then set him free.
>
> If you feel that torture is acceptable in such context, then we are
in
> disagreement. I am merely making a statement, and not attempting to
insult
> your imagined views.

No, I did not say torture was *acceptable*, I said it is *preferable*
to killing.

> >I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I don't find
> >gratuitous cruelty repulsive. Sure, the picture on the Sabbat/SW
> >version of Undead Strength is graphic and the act it portrays is
> >repulsive. I said that this is *less* repulsive than the act of
> >killing a human.
>
> Frankly, I find it far easier to imagine situations where the
killing of a
> human is morally acceptable, than to imagine a situation where
torture is
> morally acceptable. If a piece of art were to show the acting
minion killing a

Again, I'm not arguing that torture or killing are morally acceptable,
I said that torture is pretty much inherently less reprehensible than
*murder*, not simply killing. Killing someone is acceptable in
certain circumstances. You seem able to go out of your way to imagine
circumstances where killing is acceptable. Can you justify murder?

"Oops, my Nosferatu somehow entered combat with your minion. Oops.
He's really strong. Oops. He just punched your minion for a
bone-jarring amount of damage. He didn't mean it. Oops, he ripped
off your minion's head. He must have slipped."

> human (or other sentient being) I would not necessarily be difficult
to imagine
> situations where such an act were justified. Apart from the fact
that a state
> of war exists between all Methuselahs minions on the table, many
combat

War means that killing is okay? But torture isn't. Gotcha.

> such creature is entitled to be regarded as innocent murder victems,
and
> certainly no Vampire can claim any moral right to continue its
unnatural life..

How so? What if said vampire has used his unnatural "life" to only do
good deeds, has never taken a life, and has never taken blood without
permission? Has he committed any act that is unforgivable?

> >goals, yet furthers the goals of a Methuselah that is manipulating
> >them. So it could be with the card game.
>
> I am aware of this, but see no reason why it should alter my
opinion, or my
> aesthetic preferences.

I don't suppose that it should alter your aesthetic preferences, but
you seem capable of a remarkable amount of moral gymnastics in order
to justify other actions, why do your own motives need to be cut and
dry?

> Perhaps a given Methuselah does not choose to imagine himself the
sort of
> overlord who does not identify with his pawns. But this is all
begging the

And? Just because it is so does not mean it has to be.

> issue. He must identify with himself, and if he is their overlord,
and
> manipulating them, he is therefore responsible for what they do.

So because the Methuselah gives a vague instruction about ruining
another's influence, if his minion kills another in the process, the
original Methuselah is to blame? You make a weak case. A military
commander orders his subordinates to go do something...if they kill a
civilian in the process, it's on the commander's head?

> I do not believe that I would play this game if it were Dog Poo, the
Eternal
> Struggle. Atmosphere does matter to me to a significant extent. .
That is why

Your loss.

> I have an interest in the topic of game art. Normally, I would
assume that
> others who choose to participate in this discussion have an interest
in the
> issue as well. But you seem to be saying that your interest is
minimal at
> best.

Not exactly minimal, but yes, I'd still play the game no matter what
it was about.

[Dracula, blood, sex?]

> Yes, in the minds of the sort of people, who, in my classification,
get
> labelled as clueless idiots. I am perfectly aware that this sort of
nonsense
> is widespread, even in academia. Feel free to continue to call it
"standard",
> but it will not impress me..

Ah. I see perhaps where the problem lies, now.

You are free to remain unimpressed. Read it as a straight horror
novel, if you like. I find it hard to deny that sexual undercurrents
run through the book. All of the female characters had some sort of
infatuation or liasons with the Count, in various states of undress or
intimacy.

Do you take all fiction at face value and not look for any hidden or
deeper meanings? Did you read Frankenstein as a pure horror story?
The Jungle is just something about a guy in a meat factory?
1984...just another sordid, tawdry romance in a futuristic police
state? Shakespeare, writing stuff about dead guys that did stuff and
then died? Player Piano is a guy sitting around and worrying about
losing his job or somesuch?

> > I did not say that the entirety of the vampire myth is about
sex...
>
> No, you merely suggested that my interest and preference for
non-erotic
> vampires was somehow unreasonable and contradictory. I believe my
response was
> appropriate.

Actually, I didn't say that it's unreasonable. I said that current
fiction likes to portray them as erotic, and I'm not making a
judgement on that one way or another. I tend to agree that the
vampire is over-hyped as an erotic symbol, and I don't believe I said
anything about you being wrong for not agreeing with the current trend
in pop culture.

> > I
> > referred to the specific current view of it, in modern fiction.
> > (Also, ask anyone at the Comfort Suites for GenCon this year...the
> > classy ladies who kept dropping in on our VTES sessions certainly
> > look at it that way.)
>
> Why? Do you think they will change my opinion?

They certainly seem to find vampires erotic, and they are most
certainly more representative of the common person than most followers
of this newsgroup.

> >Sorry you're bored, but it's not Freudian, it's just a standard
> >interpretation of _Dracula_.
>
> Ok. I won't call it "Freudian". I won't even call it
"Neo-Freudian". I'll
> just call it "Stupid". Maybe we can compromise and call it
"Standard Stupid".

Go right ahead...it was obviously dreamed up by some idiot in an ivory
tower who knows nothing about the subject.

> Well that makes two of us. Nonetheless, I derived considerable
enjoyment from
> "Dracula", even though I did not find the title character even
remotely sexy.
> How about you? I read it as a straight horror story. I strongly
suspect that
> this is precisely what Bram Stoker intended, whatever the "standard
> interpretation" might be.

Actually, I don't think that's what he intended. I think he intended
elements of horror in the novel in order to bypass censors, and to
keep it titillating for his Victorian readers, but it's also not that
much of a leap (for me, at least) to read hidden desires in the
actions of the characters.

> <shrug> I merely repreated the opinion you expressed, which is that
you would
> be perfectly happy with borderline pornographic art on many vampire
cards. I

I suppose pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Social Charm is
nowhere near pornographic, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe borderline
racy, I mean...you can see her ankles and most of her legs, even.

> Fine. Personally, I have no more interest in what is considered
fashionable
> than I do in "standard interpretations". Perhaps this explains why
stuff that

Go for it.

> I like is considered "gamer cool" by truly cool individuals like
yourself.

I haven't claimed to be cool...I am claiming that fashion is highly
subjective, and gamer fashion is, at best, severely dated and conforms
to stereotypes best exemplefied by characters in mid-80's TV shows.
If you don't care, that's fine.

> Fair enough. I still have no idea what sort of art you prefer or
why you are
> bothering to participate in this discussion at all.

Renoir, John Singer Sargent, Brian Bolland and Carlos Ezquerra would
be a good start. I'm not a big fan of...well, really any of the CCG
artists, as far as I've seen.

> > Leather jackets and sunglasses at night are "gamer cool", as are
> > trenchcoats.
>
> I have never known gamers to have any notable interest in such
things. I guess
> I just hang out with the wrong kind of gamers.

I guess you do. Note that I was not saying that every single gamer
wears these, I have just noticed that many gamers would qualify
individuals wearing these articles as more likely to be cool.

> > That's just it. He's far too tragically hip to be a hacker. Heh.
>
> You've lost me once again. But please don't bother to explain.

No problem.

> > Earrings.
>
> Hmm. I wonder if all those stupid tattoos in the Sabbat art are
"gamer cool".

Probably.

> No wait! It's just an idle thought. I do not wish for an answer.

Well, since you weren't referring to specific cards, you've got it.

> "I can't believe you actually said 'number of the beast'" seems
overwrought to
> me.

If you like. Typing out the numerical representation of the number
displayed on the calculator would have taken a lot less work, and
seems, well, superstitious, kind of like the whole calling Macbeth,
"the Scottish play."

Xian

[Andrew S. Davidson]

On 15 Aug 2001 19:41:01 GMT, MSheafer33 wrote:

>The issue at question is whether specifically Sabbat art (which was
>specifically chosen with an eye towards unusual depravity) should be used in
>non-Sabbat sets.

I agree that the Sabbat art is generally nit as good as the VTES
equivalent. It may be that it is being used for contractual reasons.
WotC fell out with a lot of artists when it changed the terms on which
their art was used for Magic. The original VTES art comes from that
period and may be affected by this.

Andrew

[Cameron]

> > <shrug> I merely repreated the opinion you expressed, which is that
> you would
> > be perfectly happy with borderline pornographic art on many vampire
> cards. I
>
> I suppose pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Social Charm is
> nowhere near pornographic, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe borderline
> racy, I mean...you can see her ankles and most of her legs, even.

Please, I'm reading this at work, and am getting looks... god that was
funny. I mean if we were going to talk about slightly racey art, how
about Fetish Club Hunting Ground, or something?

> > "I can't believe you actually said 'number of the beast'" seems
> overwrought to
> > me.
>
> If you like. Typing out the numerical representation of the number
> displayed on the calculator would have taken a lot less work, and
> seems, well, superstitious, kind of like the whole calling Macbeth,
> "the Scottish play."

Crap, and now your going to break a leg, or have a light stand fall on
you or something.

Gotta say, yeah Vampires are (the Victorian version of them anyway)
fused with the hidden eroticism of the time. They were demons in a
frame story. So the reader could read the "blood sucking" part
understand it for what it was (sex) and read this at home without the
censors (that Moral Crusade of Gladstone...) knocking down his door.
The whole era is full of repressed or hidden sexuality. Hell, if we
want to we could see a link between Dracula and a more modern romance.
Here we have a mysterious stranger who is captivating to the opposite
sex. He has the beasital/primal urge thing going for him, and the
refined ladies of Victorian England just can't help themselves. I
should bounce this off my mom, she does research into the origins of
this genre.

Cameron

[Emmit Svenson]

mshea...@cs.com (MSheafer33) wrote in message news:<20010816070035...@ng-bj1.news.cs.com>...

> Xian wrote:
> > I was referring to the vampire myth in fiction
> >from, oh, Bram Stoker onwards. It's a pretty standard reading of
> >_Dracula_ that the obsession with sucking blood is a metaphor for sex.
>

> Yes, in the minds of the sort of people, who, in my classification, get
> labelled as clueless idiots. I am perfectly aware that this sort of nonsense
> is widespread, even in academia. Feel free to continue to call it "standard",
> but it will not impress me..
>

> >Sorry you're bored, but it's not Freudian, it's just a standard
> >interpretation of _Dracula_.
>
> Ok. I won't call it "Freudian". I won't even call it "Neo-Freudian". I'll
> just call it "Stupid". Maybe we can compromise and call it "Standard Stupid".

> . . . I did not find the title character even remotely sexy. . .

> I read it as a straight horror story. I strongly suspect that
> this is precisely what Bram Stoker intended, whatever the "standard
> interpretation" might be.

Unless you read some expurgated version of &#8220;Dracula&#8221; for
Catholic elementary school readers, you're just earning your own
epithet of "clueless idiot" when you admit you didn't see any
eroticism in the novel. The book revolves around the very Victorian
horror theme of the seduction of innocents.

Did you skip over the scenes in Dracula's castle when his three
vampire mistresses try to lure Harker out of his room by whispering
seductively through his door? Did you not wonder why Dracula--who we
assume could drink the blood of anyone he chose--focused his
attentions on attractive young girls? What was it he called the
female vampires he made? Oh yes. . . his brides.

Go back and read Mina and Lucy's accounts of Dracula's assaults.
Notice how they describe the Count as lewd and lusting, and how they
describe their own physical reactions to his attentions. Or flip back
to Van Helsing's account of the nosferatu's unnatural appetites.

"Dracula" is about as crammed with sex as a Victorian novel could be.
You don't have to find Stoker's fiction arousing (I certainly don't)
to make this rather elementary observation. If V:tES cards incorporate
darkly erotic imagery, then they're reflecting their source material
accurately.

What the hell do you want on "Social Charm", anyway? A picture of
Sesame Street's The Count smiling and passing out peanut butter
sandwiches to his muppet friends?

(/flame)

[Gene Wirchenko]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

>In message <3b7c11a5...@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko
><ge...@shuswap.net> writes
>>>> Consider the possibility that the art is a factor.
>>>
>>>Considered and discarded. Gamers LIKE that sort of thing; look at all the
>>>first-person shooters out there, etc. I've heard tales of the art in
>>
>> Some do; some don't.
>
>And it is impossible to cater to them all. A market is chosen and aimed
>for, however ill-advised/successful that choice might be.

Which means that art is one of the things that should be looked
at if you want to pull the product out of the ashheap. And why not?
It is part of the product, just as the rules are, the quality of the
paper used, <lots of other stuff here>.

[James Coupe]

In message <3b7d61b3....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko
<ge...@shuswap.net> writes

>>And it is impossible to cater to them all. A market is chosen and aimed
>>for, however ill-advised/successful that choice might be.
>
> Which means that art is one of the things that should be looked
>at if you want to pull the product out of the ashheap.

Let's see, Sabbat sold out both printings, pretty much, and Sabbar War
(first printing) sold "like crack-cocaine". It seems like a market has
been delineated, targeted and sold to effectively. That you wouldn't
have chosen that market is something different.

Given that this market pushes it sufficiently far away from Magic
(fairly neutral) and Pokémon/Harry Potter (cutesy), it steers out of the
way of the Hasbro juggernaut - which can only be a good thing, really.

[Gene Wirchenko]

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:

>In message <3b7d61b3....@news.shuswap.net>, Gene Wirchenko
><ge...@shuswap.net> writes
>>>And it is impossible to cater to them all. A market is chosen and aimed
>>>for, however ill-advised/successful that choice might be.
>>
>> Which means that art is one of the things that should be looked
>>at if you want to pull the product out of the ashheap.
>
>Let's see, Sabbat sold out both printings, pretty much, and Sabbar War
>(first printing) sold "like crack-cocaine". It seems like a market has
>been delineated, targeted and sold to effectively. That you wouldn't
>have chosen that market is something different.

Sure.

>Given that this market pushes it sufficiently far away from Magic
>(fairly neutral) and Pokémon/Harry Potter (cutesy), it steers out of the
>way of the Hasbro juggernaut - which can only be a good thing, really.

In rec.games.board, the term "Hasborg" gets occasional use.

[MSheafer33]

Xian wrote:

>True...I disagree that the art is necessarily unsuitable for future
>expansions,

I don't recognize this opinion you are ascribing to me. I indicated a
preference for some of the older art, in those cases where two versions exist,
and questioned the policy of always using the most recent art. Where only one
version of a card exists (no matter how extreme in tone) I have said nothing to
indicate that it was unsuitable for reprinting. Indeed, I have argued
specifically against printing new art for old cards.

>and I disagree with your notion of needing to identify
>with the art and the actions each card represents.

So are you disagreeing with me when I say that this enhances my enjoyment of
the game? Or are you merely saying that these factors are relevant to your own
enjoyment. If the latter, then all that remainst to be done is to acknowledge
each other's preferences as legitimate and move on.

>> I do not believe that I would play this game if it were Dog Poo, the
>Eternal
>> Struggle. Atmosphere does matter to me to a significant extent. .
>

>Your loss.

LOL. You are more than welcome to it, if it ever comes to pass.

[MSheafer33]

Xian wrote

>> "I can't believe you actually said 'number of the beast'" seems
>overwrought to
>> me.
>
>If you like. Typing out the numerical representation of the number
>displayed on the calculator would have taken a lot less work, and
>seems, well, superstitious, kind of like the whole calling Macbeth,
>"the Scottish play."

<sigh> I hope you see the irony here.

[MSheafer33]

> Please, I'm reading this at work, and am getting looks... god that was
> funny. I mean if we were going to talk about slightly racey art, how
> about Fetish Club Hunting Ground, or something?

I think I have already made my position on such cards clear. Of all the
versions of Fetish Club Hunting Grounds that exist, the one with the racy art
clearly the best of the lot.

Come off it, please. Surely I have made myself clear enough. Of the two
versions of Social Charm that existed, I indicated that I preferred one over
the other, not because it was *too racy* in a general sense, but rather because
I considered it more thematically appropriate to what I saw as the intended
card concept, and for other aesthetic reasons that are difficult to define..

I also indicated a preference for the Sabbat version of Bonding, which is
"racier" than either version of Social Charm.

FCHG is clearly thematically appropriate to the Toreador Antitribu. Of course,
this is all the more reason why art, in general, should be subdued in raciness.
If all vampires are portrayed as perverts, then the Tor-Antis will have a hard
time distinguishing themselves.

[Xian]

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20010818121700...@mb-mm.news.cs.com...
> Xian wrote
[overwrought-ness of "number of the beast"]

> >If you like. Typing out the numerical representation of the number
> >displayed on the calculator would have taken a lot less work, and
> >seems, well, superstitious, kind of like the whole calling Macbeth,
> >"the Scottish play."
>
> <sigh> I hope you see the irony here.

It was intended.

Xian

[Xian]

"MSheafer33" <mshea...@cs.com> wrote in message

news:20010818121432...@mb-mm.news.cs.com...

> Xian wrote:
>
> >True...I disagree that the art is necessarily unsuitable for future
> >expansions,
>
> I don't recognize this opinion you are ascribing to me. I indicated
a

I will quote (from Message-ID:
<20010815154101...@ng-bd1.news.cs.com>): "The issue at

question is whether specifically Sabbat art (which was
specifically chosen with an eye towards unusual depravity) should be
used in
non-Sabbat sets."

You're probably going to argue that "future expansions" is "vague and
nebulous", but I will pre-emptively counter that all current, planned
expansions are "non-Sabbat".

> preference for some of the older art, in those cases where two
versions exist,
> and questioned the policy of always using the most recent art.
Where only one

In the previously citation, you said that the issue is using Sabbat
art in sets that are not Sabbat-oriented. Now you claim that you were
simply expressing a preference for older art. Nice shift of position.
Care to try again?

> version of a card exists (no matter how extreme in tone) I have said
nothing to
> indicate that it was unsuitable for reprinting. Indeed, I have
argued

In fact, you did.

> specifically against printing new art for old cards.

What about a card that was only in a Sabbat set that is reprinted in a
future expansion? Fade from View for example? Would you be against
new art then; or would the old, Sabbat art be fine? How about a
reprint of Bone Spur, Disarm, Decapitate, or Rapid Thought in a
non-Sabbat set?

[DP:tES]

> LOL. You are more than welcome to it, if it ever comes to pass.

No problem. I'd be more than happy to play it, if that's what the
game changed to.

Xian

[XZealot]

> >Hmm...breaching the Masquerade in another Methuselah's
> >territory would
> >be subtle and devious, and making it look like s street thug act only
> >deflects blame to someone else (Sabbat, maybe)?
>
> First of, I do not see how spraypainting the phrase "Virgil is a traitorus
> [sic] whore" qualifies as a breach of the masquerade.

Okay, I will jump in and explain this. Look at the card. He is not
spraypainting accross some brick wall. This is a art museum where the
intellectual elite go to view the beauty of fine art. Now you have "Virgil
is a traitor"
spray painted accross it. It makes this people think "Who is Virgil?" and
"Why is he a traitor". If Virgil is a vampire then this is a huge breach
of the Masquerade. If virgil is a kine, and a well know one then people
will start digging around looking for the answer to that second question.

> >Besides, grafitti is classic Ravnos -- so it would be appropriate for
> >an unaligned set.
>
> He don't look much like Ravnos to me.

What should a Ravnos look like?
What should a newsgroup poster look like?

Comments Welcome,
Norman S. Brown, Jr.
XZealot
Archon of the Swamp

[Santiago]

In article <20010813063100...@ng-cm1.news.cs.com>,
mshea...@cs.com (MSheafer33) wrote:

>Laptop Computer
> V:tES: This laptop computer comes with an ankh, an ornate gargoyle
>paperweight, and a letter to Dr. Van Helsing. What more do you want?
>(Wait...don't answer that!)
> Sabbat: This laptop computer comes with a severed hand. Why?
>Apparently, if one does not include such freebees, the Sabbat vampires
>just are not interested.

Well, I prefer the Jyhad one in this case, but that's because it's
a PowerBook, while the Sabbat one is some crappy Wintel laptop...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."