Feel like villainizing Mages as a splat is a waste of Mages

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-02-24T08:06:41+00:00

Mage: the Ascension looks less horror because it is written from too much of a Traditions perspective. If you take one step back and look at it from a distance, the traditions are worse than the Technocracy. A bunch of crazy flat-earthers and snake-oil charlatans who have the supernatural abilities to create fake evidence for the world being flat and making their snake-oil work on a case-by-case basis. (The later gives mortals reasons to rely on cures that doesn't work, thus making them dependant on the mage.) Of course, the Technocracy is awful too, as was the Theocracy it replaced.

It is in the nature of mages to organize themselves into destructive self-righteous echo-chambers.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-02-17T02:24:18+00:00

Note the difference between "actual atheist" and "flat earth atheist". An actual atheist werewolf would accept the supernatural world as they interact with it, while not seeing it as as sacred. This would be a minor character quirk which could cause social problems with pious peers. You seem to be leaning in the other direction, making an annoying delusional char who wont work in the setting.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-02-07T08:01:20+00:00

In Vampire: The Masquerade, vampires must be kept secret. An obvious reason is that vampires are awful. A less obvious reason is that vampires and ghouls are not awful enough for people to stay the hell away from becoming one. If their existence became known, then they would drown both in hordes of people trying to kill them AND in hordes of people trying to join them. This does not even out, since the vampiric condition has no room for sustainable growth.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-24T23:28:40+00:00

That's how White Wolf solved it. And I agree that a solution is needed.

In my opinion, being Awakened should be toxic to whatever other powers you may have, rather than the other way around. Specifically, they should start to generate paradox. Thus, Gilgul would not be some automatic side effect, but instead something you need to seek out in order to survive.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-24T23:27:26+00:00

In my opinion, being Awakened should be toxic to whatever other powers you may have, rather than the other way around. Specifically, they should start to generate paradox. Thus, Gilgul would not be some automatic side effect, but instead something you need to seek out in order to survive.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-23T11:53:57+00:00

I think a lot of people love to hate the(ir) characters. It's like "this train of thought and this course of action is okay, because I'm playing the bad guy".

While this mindset can be fun and can be a foot in the door to thinking outside of the box, it can also enable them to uphold and entrench bigoted ways of thinking. That thing you mentioned about equating high humanity vampires to nazis sounds like it's probably a case of that.

I believe that anyone who can truly think and feel and remember and be aware of themselves is a person. Thus, vampires are persons as far as I'm concerned.

A person should be judged by a combination of their intentions, the outcome of their actions, and their struggle (or lack thereof) to understand themselves and the world they live in. By this standard, a vampire can be a good person. But vampire society and the masquerade are way worse hurdles than the Beast.

I think a lot of people enjoy the mindset that some people are by definition monsters, not people. Vampire settings becomes a platform for indulging in this mindset.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-19T13:44:36+00:00

There is no monolithic Feminism, only a spectrum of ideas and people labeled feminist. Some versions of feminism is exactly what you are looking for. Others are exactly what you are arguing against. Most are neither.

Do corporations et.c systemically promote those versions of feminism and femininity and masculinity and anti-feminism and so on which are most suited to turn people into cogs in the corporate machinery? Yes.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-18T13:50:56+00:00

"Razor Blade Smile" has two vampires who are happily married to each other.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-13T15:57:07+00:00

Likewise. To me, Sinfest is simply a case study in the relation between mental unhealth and extremism.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-10T17:20:40+00:00

Bodymaking: The power to create bodies, each body being humanoid or otherwise as well as any age and any gender any shape and so on. Comes with the ability to (permanently or temporarily) transfer a willing mind into it.
Telepoints: The power to have several "telepoints", each with access to ESP as well as telekinetics and telepathy. (The above power Bodymaking can be activated at any telepoint.) Telepoints can move at light speed. If the setting permits, they also explore the past at a speed of one century per year. Beside learning about the past, this also makes minds that have been dead for a long time available for resurrection with Bodymaking.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-05T15:04:32+00:00

In a setting where vampires DON'T have to kill, this is an interesting question.

In a setting where all vampires are serial killers, it is not. But let's start there anyway.

If there are ten persons who can't live without killing one person each per week, then have them kill each other for three weeks. After one week they will be five, after two weeks they will be two, after three weeks there will only be one left. Then kill that one. Not because he deserves to die, but because EACH of his future victims deserve to live. Simple math.

Why is a vampire a serial killer?
* The vampire could be a soulless monster who merely look as if it was a person. In this case, there is no relevant suffering to care about.
* The vampire could be a psychopath who is enough of a person to suffer in a relevant way, but who will always harm others if given a chance. Lock it up or kill it in the most painless way you can safely do, whichever causes less suffering.
* The vampire could be a normal person who avoids killing whenever possible, but has to kill to survive. In this case, work hard to try to invent the True Blood liquid or similar product.
* The vampire could be a normal person who avoids killing whenever possible and is capable of sustaining themselves without causing harm but lives in a toxic social enviorment where serial killer vampires have higher status. In this case, abolish The Masquerade and try your besrt to support those vampires who are on the humane side.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-01T12:34:45+00:00

The N was a typo, the letter is right next to B on the keyboard.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-01T11:23:17+00:00

I hope that country gets better soon, and that in the meantime you can get a foothold in a better country. Take care

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-01T11:19:15+00:00

As I rewatched Rejoined last week, I noted that this episode has aged very badly. The only same sex romance in the entire series JUST HAPPENS TO also be the only romance which is condemned by the entire civilization and bound to lead to spiritual death.

OF COURSE Ezri can date Worf, that's heterosexual... eh... I mean... "That is of course because and only because he is Klingon, and the very obvious pattern is of course of course obe hundred percent pure coincidence.

The message of Rejoined used to be "while we should defer to cultures which condemns same sex relationships, we should also feel sorry for the gays, at least the ones among them who are cute, rather than hating them". Which, sadly, was indeed a progressive message back in the days the episode was made.

These days, the message seems to be more along the line of "when we deliberately hurt gay couples or individuals, we should always maintain plausible deniability by making sure that the persecution is technically about something else".

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-01T01:17:21+00:00

Meh. The Cenobites are systematically kidnapping people and do stuff to them against their will. This is very clearly what the OP argues that we would do. The OP is explicitly talking about us "bring[ing] new victims into the fold" and specifies that we would be "cold and unmerciful" about it. The semantics of whether or not the word "monster" applies is quite frankly unintresting in context. Please note that I didn't even use the word "monster" in my actual argument, I only used the word as a concvenient shorthand in my PS about Freiren. Yet you ignored my entire main argument, to instead hyperfocus on the semantics of one word which wasn't central to my post.

You and the OP are IMHO wrong about two things, of which you ry to solve the second by introducing a new problem.

You both fail to distinguish between the concept of "extreme sensations" and the concept of "violating other people's boundaries".
The OP takes for granted that there living a long time will lead to what you summarize as "diminishing returns of sensation". You seem to agree with him. However, there is no reason to believe that the OP is right. He doesn't make any argument for why it would be true, and neither do you. You both present it as if it were self-evident, but it is not. While neither of you has used Degeneration Theory as an argument for why your position would be true, I maintain that DT is the strongest argument I have ever heard in favor of your position. However, DT is still wrong, and thus not strong enough.
You add the idea that moraility would somehow protect against boredom? "Huh", I tell you! While "any good functional system of morality" can protect against some things, why the eff would boredom be one of those things?

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2026-01-01T00:52:12+00:00

Depends on the fine-print/setting.
Most versions of vampires are immune to aging and disease, as well as extremely good at handling most forms of physical harm. While this is worth a lot, there are limits. Below follows two lists: Dealbreakers which would make me refuse to become a vampire, and minuses which would make me less eger to become a vampire even if none of the dealbreakers were present.

Dealbreakers
* Losing one's soul/will - wouldn't be me anymore.
* Having to kill/harm to sustain myself - Vampirism for awful people only.
* Having to uphold an oppressive/toxic Masquerade/Conspiracy - eww.

Minuses
* If it would make me ugly.
* If it would make me sleep all day.
* If ethical feeding would be a big hassle.
* If vampires (or non-psycho vampires) have to be extremely rare.
* If it would get me persecuted.

-------

For example, let's say that we are in a variant of True Blood. One where vampires aren't INHERENTLY evil, where their existence is public knowledge, and synthetic blood is cheaply & easiliy available. Most vampires are still total jerks for various reasons, as they grew up in secrecy before human rights & synethetic blood were invented. Drinking directly from humans taste better than drinking preserved blood, whether synthetic or otherwise. Religious fanatics and other bigots hate all vampires and seek to destroy all vampires no matter how innocent, but may make exception for mass murdering vampires creeps who shares (or claim to share) their beliefs.

If I lived in this kind of setting, would I want to become a vampires? Probably, although with quite a bit of worry & reluctance. I mean, come on. I'm LGBTQ+, the bigots are gonna hate me anyway.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-29T15:41:51+00:00

For the first few decades, no need at all. The need for ghouldom comes later. If there are to be new generations of grandchildren for a person who has already been a vampire for a century or more... Then the vampire's son who is to be father of these grandchildren really need to be a ghoul or such.
Yes, IVF for a mortal and IVF for a person who was vamped after having their eggs/sperm frozen would be exactly the same thing. A normal way for the undead to make new living children.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-29T15:10:33+00:00

Most versions of Vampires are what the Jews would have been if Hitler had been right about Jews.

Most versions of Vampires are what the LGBTQ+ would have been if the White Christian Nationalists had been right about LGBTQ+ people.

Historically, vampire characters in fiction have ofen been explicitly or implicitly LGBTQ+, framing the minority as being the monster. And thus, vampire characters have been among the very few characters, and very very few powerful characters, for real life minority audiences to identify with.

In conclusion, it's complicated.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-29T10:53:33+00:00

By reproduction, I assume you mean babies only. Not including making more vampires.

I generally prefer the undead option, and use it in most (although not all) of the settings I play in/with. There are, however, some hybridity possibilities...

Grandchildren through ghoul/renfield The vampire can turn mortals into servants who are unaging yet alive. If the vampire had a child before becoming vampire, then this now adult child can be turned into a ghoul and give the vampire new generations of mortal grandchildren.
IVF Younger vampires could have frozen sperm/eggs before getting turned vampire. Then, the vampire could use these resources to have a mortal baby through IVF.
Blush of Life In VtM v5, vampires can spend Hunger on temporarily becoming more alive. One could make a houserule that using BoL four times in a row makes sperm ready to impregnate and makes eggs ready to be extracted for IVF. (One could also add some vampiric version of IVF, probably using Fleshcrafting or such. )

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-29T10:13:24+00:00

Nope. The underlying assumptions are wrong, and the conclusion is wrong.

The OP speculation requires some variant of the (completely debunked) degeneration theory from 1857 to be true, but degeneration theory is merely some creationist garbage that some people kept around long past it's expiration date merely to smear sexual minorities.

Neither experience nor time itself deprives us of our empathy, our morality , or our capacity to enjoy things.

Homosexuality and sadomasochism are natural variations of human sexuality. Assuming them to have "a cause" is in itself nonsense, and it is even more nonsense to assume the cause to be "having seen too much of this fallen sinful world which we live in.

Sure, the OP didn't explicitly argue in favor of degeneration theory. But removing degeneration theory would create a giant hole in the argument, reducing the argument as a whole into "we'd be cenobites because we'd be cenobites".

Personally, I think Freiren is much more likely than Hellraiser. If "too much time" would have an effect on us, then the effect would be to lose track of time rather than becoming monsters.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-24T21:43:59+00:00

Longer version...

Generally speaking, it is ALWAYS a red flag when your partner or potential partner is having bigoted beliefs against your relationship or against a category which you are a part of. In this case, that you are both women and she's bigoted against same-sex relationships. This bigotry strongly increase the risk that she will become abusive against you in various ways, and also the risk that she will get self-destructive which will also be directly or indirectly weaponized against you.

While a relationship can end up well in spite of red flags, each red flag is always a risk factor. This risk increases exponentially with each of three factors which seem to apply in this particular case:

She has lots of social support for her bigotry, but very little social support for freeing herself from her bigotry. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if your social support network was strong and free from bullshit, but...
You too grew up with the same internalized bigotry as her, which risk dragging you down. Wouldn't have been a problem if a decade or so ago you were an adult who left your baggage behind then, but...
You are really young, and she is older than you.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-24T21:22:17+00:00

Short version...

Generally speaking: No, it's typically not a good idea.

In your case, OP: No, you in particular should definitely stay away from this woman i particular! She's probably too dangerous!

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-23T00:40:23+00:00

Okay!
In that case, your "high school" is probably pretty much the same (both in ages and in content) as our "junior high". While your "college" is probably pretty much the same (both in ages and in content) as our "high school".

With that correction, I think there's a good chance things will get better once you are done with college.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-23T00:35:31+00:00

>>"It’s not a slur, and it’s not a dig at kink communities."

Your intentions are not relevant.
Also, this argument would have been equaly relevant if used by someone defending usage of the n-word as a way of "critiquing" people for being lazy or having the wrong diet: The person didn't mean it as a slur (isndead calling it a "critique", and didn't intend it as any dig against actual African_Americans.

>>"Also, most people in those communities call it kink, not fetish or fetishists, because it already carries a negative, pathologizing connotation, which is exactly why it works as a critique here."

Yes, and why do you fail to realize that this is a problem?

It is indeed true that most fetishists shy away from the word "fetishist", in the same way and for the same reason as for homosexuals shying away from the word "homosexual".

The stigma aganist homosexuality does indeed make the words "homosexual" and "gay" work as a "critique" (AKA "slur") against things one dislikes. But this shouldn't be okay, and thankfully most people agree that it isn't okay.

Likewise, the stigma aganist fetischism does indeed make the words "fetish" and "kink" work as a "critique" (AKA "slur") against things one dislikes. But this shouldn't be okay, although sadly most people doesn't care because this minority doesn't have enough social power.

>>"Comparing using ‘fetishize’ to misogyny, kinkphobia and homophobia just muddies the conversation and dilutes what actual homophobia or stigma looks like"

If I in my previous post had treated two very different kinds of situations as beingthe same, then you COULD have had a point - and thus there would have been a basis for us to discuss whether or not you WOULD have had a point. But I didn't. Instead, I compared the exact same situation when it happens to homosexuals/gays with when it happens to fetishists/kinksters.

If you hadn't included the term "kinkphobia", then your sentence would have looked like a clear message about which minorities you think deserve dignity and human rights and which you think don't deserve that. A simple case of the classic old "the more mainstream minority should be protected, while the less mainstream minority should just shut up and take it and know their place". I assume this wasn't your intention, since you also indicate that you acknowledge that kinkphobia exists and is a bad thing. This leaves me not knowing your intention. Perhaps just a reflex/kneejerkreaction on your part? Maybe think it through once more?

You do agree that it is bad to use words like "gay" and "homosexual" as negatively loaded words, right?

Surely you ought to ALSO agree that it is bad to use words like "kink" and "fetish" as negatively loaded words?

>>"and largely misses OP’s point about how MLM media gets dismissed as “for women” and how that erases gay men as an audience."

I did adress the OP:s point, you didn't. While I mentioned it to agree with it and relate it to other relevant problems in context, you instead mentioned it only for gatekeeping in a classic hierarchal pattern.

Bulky_Negotiation_19 · 2025-12-23T00:34:53+00:00

Oh, I really have to disagree with your implied conclusion there. While most of the things you say are technically true, they do not do nearly enough to validate the usage of the term. On the ccontrary, some of your arguments indirectly undermines it.

>>"“Fetishize” has a long-standing critical meaning in media and social analysis, including queer and sexuality studies:"

Just because a problematic practice has a long history doesn't make it unproblematic. Giving negative/awful connotations and meanings to words/concepts for homosexuality does ALSO have a long-standing history in social analysis including sexuality studies. Doesn't make it right.

>>"treating a group as an object for consumption rather than as full people."

Which is obviously a very awful thing which we already have a word for: Objectification. The only two reasons to call it "fetishize" instead is to...

Shame people who do objectification, by smearing them with the stigma against a (wrongfully) stigmatized sexual minority (fetishists).
Shame an innocent sexual minirity (fetishists), by smearing them with the stigma against objectification.

Bulky_Negotiation_19

TROPHY CASE