Your opinions on some changes

Well, I suppose I'd best put in my two cents.

*pauses while everyone runs away*


I think these are good ideas. While I still like Felarya, I find there's a lot of unfortunate implications that make it really difficult to enjoy.


The vanishing lands thing, I like. If it were a common occurrence, it would seriously throw the ecosystem out of whack, and we'd probably have alien monsters roaming around, doing who knows what with their bizarre alien biology. Trimming it down helps smooth out that concern.

I also think, as you alluded, it trims down those unfortunate implications I mentioned. One of my biggest problems with Felarya is how, rather than a struggle between various beings, it comes off as humans getting punished for the crime of being humans. And when humans from any universe can stumble in and get eaten.... well, it REALLY leaves the impression that Felarya just outright hates people. I know that's not your original intent, but it's prettymuch been adopted as that. Making the designated victims into explorers who chose to venture in, knowing the risks definitely eases up on that. Plus it gets back into the "savage land" theme that I think suits Felarya. When anyone can just pop in and get eaten, and predators can pop out and snack on people like a Lovecraftian god-beast, it just stops being a distant land of magic and monsters and starts being the multiverse just being a giant douche. I like it better as Monster Island than I do as R'lyeh.


The not eating children thing, I kinda go both ways. I know you don't want to write about it, but the very knowledge that these characters we're supposed to be rooting for can, do and will continue to eat them just makes it very hard for me to get behind them. And really, there could be all sorts of reasons a child wouldn't be appetizing. Too bony, too much effort for too little merit, or they simply have an unpleasant taste prior to puberty, or... fuck! Maybe she just thinks they're too cute to eat? It might seem a little convenient, but personally, I'd rather have a slightly deux ex machina-ish tidbit than have to deal with the knowledge of what Crisis has *probably* done in the past. =P And you know, there's no reason *everyone* needs to be against eating children. But it's certainly something characters who are meant to be likable should consider. I know Crisis is *supposed* to be an upbeat, innocent predator with an alien mentality, but most versions of her(and most clones) wind up coming off more like Complete Monsters.

I know we're all vorarephiles, and Felarya's a very impersonal place, but when you actually sit down and read a lot of the stories, back to back.... it can really start leaving some very bad vibes that make it difficult to approach as the lighthearted, whimsical, gallows-humorish fantasy it's supposed to be. And these aren't hugely integral issues. A little fine tuning could smooth them out. And I think these changes would certainly help.


The immortality thing.... I can honestly say I have no opinion about. I don't really think being immortal but not invincible is in any way cheap, but I do think it's more believable that the soil simply slows the degenerative aging process than sustains things eternally. Really, I'm not leaning one way or the other.

The general feel I get from a majority of the arguments concerning Child consumption is that people tend to be taking it from a morality stand-point, and that characters whom engage in such activity loose alot of their likability due to it. Perhaps I am questionable moral wise, but I just tried to dissect the issue from a sheer logic stand-point.


Furthermore:

GREGOLE wrote:

*Pauses while everyone runs away

Am I the only one that sat down for story time with Gregole?

I heave come to the conclusion that the main cause of 'natural' death in Negav would be illnesses related to brain decay.
The human brain does not regenerate at the same rate of the rest of the body. Therefore it would not be enhanced to the same level as the rest of the body by the soil effect, if anything I think the difference would be more pronounced, making the brain degenerate before the body.

We NEED to define average lifespan here, taking into account the complete lack of pathogenic diseases.

Warrior3000 wrote:

GREGOLE wrote:

*Pauses while everyone runs away

Am I the only one that sat down for story time with Gregole?

I wouldn't call it story time, but I was interested in his opinion.

I listened. After all, GREGOLE's always right. XD One of the few people who can make my rants look brief. The only difference is: people actually quote him in their sigs. >.<

Anyways, in all seriousness, I'm taking it pretty logically, too... although I did bring up morality. But if you don't view humans as people (like Crisis), then why spare children? I mean, when you see ant larvae when you're stomping an anthill (an activity I do not condone, as I respect ALL life), do you show them mercy? Ummm... not usually. Do we not eat veal? Exactly. Maybe children are like veal to predators.

Keep in mind, preds rarely ever eat humans "for survival". Its been stated and confirmed by Karbo that humans are a slightly more rare, less common food item...and that the vast majority of a pred's diet is made up of friut and smaller animals. Humans are more akin to a favorite snack, like a cookie or twinkie (see also: Twinkie theory, by GREGOLE).

Now, I don't know about you, but when I go have some cookies, I dont pick the tiny ones.

I think the main reason a pred would spare a child is that, well, they just aren't worth the effort of eating them. The average human is shorter than a pred's finger....children would be really tiny to them. Hardly a snack of any kind, especially if there are other, more grown-up humans to choose from.

Personally, I think a decent number of them would abstain from eating children because of reminds them of their own childhoods....tiny, scared, always hiding and trying to keep away from a million larger things that would try to eat them.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Maybe children are like veal to predators.

Except that they don't actively seek out babies to eat because they like the taste.

I can understand the logical aspect. but i HAVE to look at it moraly. I'm obviously human and the way i been raised, I just cant ignore the issue with kids when its brought up. Do i think eating baby animales and totureing bugs is wrong? of course I DO, I respect all forms of life. What seperates people from everything else in the world is the power and freedom of choice we can make in our lives.

I wont babble anymore of my dumb morals.

I'm just showing my justification for being $%@@# off.

which is why i dont feel comfortable being apart of a fantasy world where the main characters potentially eat kids, i've done pretty well ignoreing it up until this thread was made -__-

Through spareing kids just so they can reproduce, to eat their family... i mean... that to me is the final straw of everything, thats something i just cant bring myself to ignore, and Karbo before said in the past if you dont like something with felarya just leave. Which at this point i will consider doing,

Claire wrote:

I can understand the logical aspect. but i HAVE to look at it moraly. I'm obviously human and the way i been raised, I just cant ignore the issue with kids when its brought up. Do i think eating baby animales and totureing bugs is wrong? of course I DO, I respect all forms of life. What seperates people from everything else in the world is the power and freedom of choice we can make in our lives.

I agree. I have the same morals. But in Felarya, the morality doesn't stop the predators.

rcs619 wrote:

Keep in mind, preds rarely ever eat humans "for survival". Its been stated and confirmed by Karbo that humans are a slightly more rare, less common food item...and that the vast majority of a pred's diet is made up of friut and smaller animals. Humans are more akin to a favorite snack, like a cookie or twinkie (see also: Twinkie theory, by GREGOLE).

Now, I don't know about you, but when I go have some cookies, I dont pick the tiny ones.

However, I still think that if a child was alone, most sentient preds wouldn't pass up the chance. That's just me, since I've never rooted for the preds ever. I've always sympathized with the human side. If you have to choose between a small cookie (or Twinkie) or none at all...

Now, we're concentrating on sentient preds. What about the non-sentients, like tonorions or kensha beasts? They're likely to eat anything they can get, and I think children would be an easy target.

I think the issue of eating children is less about the realism or the fact that it happens than it is the fact that *the protagonists are usually the ones to do it*. There's a difference between an animal killing someone and a main character doing it.

^ Yes this is true. if it wasnt the main characters i wouldnt have THAT much of a problem with it.


[quote="ZionAtriedes]I agree. I have the same morals. But in Felarya, the morality doesn't stop the predators..[/quote]

i know that.. i'm just showing why i cant look at it logically and why i'm =

Don't forget to discuses the other suggested changes, don't completely focus on the moral thing, it wasn't listed as one of the major changes anyway.

GREGOLE wrote:

I think the issue of eating children is less about the realism or the fact that it happens than it is the fact that *the protagonists are usually the ones to do it*. There's a difference between an animal killing someone and a main character doing it.

Which is why Felarya's a little crazy. The protagonists are highly questionable. Even a lot of the main humans are dickweeds. But I know there's a movement on this site to forge some sense of realism into Felarya, and any realist will tell you age wouldn't mean shit to a predator. Maybe sensual ones like Vivian, who add a bit of kink to it (unless she's also a pedophile XD), but as for most...

ZionAtriedes wrote:

(unless she's also a pedophile XD)

That would not surprise me. At all. She strikes me as an omnisexual.

FalconJudge wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

(unless she's also a pedophile XD)

That would not surprise me. At all. She strikes me as an omnisexual.

If "Even Evil Has Standards", then there needs to be a Felarya trope of "Even The Horniest Have Standards", A.K.A. the "Vivian Rule".

Put on your headphones, guys, I'm offering my opinion.

The Immortality:I never saw this as an issue per se in Felarya. Why? It's not often that we actually have things living out even a conventional lifespan due to the nature of the world. Someone gets eaten by something. Characters actually able to take advantage of this Immortality would be rare if they existed at all. An age freeze (after an approximate age) could be an option if it really seems an issue. If you're past a certain age when you arrive, you no longer get older. Otherwise, when you get to that respective age, you stay there. Species still have age limits, and you still die when your time's up. Layman's terms are used here..

The random connections:
I'll put in a vote towards "Zone Limitation". Focusing such random appearances to mainly occur in places like the Miragia Forest and Fairy Kingdom. I still think that pulling things from outside worlds should still occur in other places, but more rarely. I'm sure a lot of species of Flora/Fauna from other worlds have come to Felarya and adapted to life, becoming newer species. And actually... it should be possible for some "Vanishing Lands" to not vanish on occasion becoming new regions within Felarya itself. Again, I'm still for toning down the frequency of such occurrences.

Ah yes...the "900 LB Gorilla":
Really, predators in the wild will typically not hesitate to get a free meal, regardless of its age. Unfortunate, really, but that's just the way it is. Most writers (myself included) usually don't write this into their characters, leaving it a trait unmentioned usually because it can demonize a character. Also, since Vore is a sexual fetish, connotations with Pedophilia can be drawn. Writing it seems like school on a Saturday; it's got no class. The idea of all predators sparing children by default sounds nice, but besides the moral implications that have been listed, what about the plants?

Saironthis wrote:

Ah yes...the "900 LB Gorilla":
Really, predators in the wild will typically not hesitate to get a free meal, regardless of its age. Unfortunate, really, but that's just the way it is. Most writers (myself included) usually don't write this into their characters, leaving it a trait unmentioned usually because it can demonize a character. Also, since Vore is a sexual fetish, connotations with Pedophilia can be drawn. Writing it seems like school on a Saturday; it's got no class. The idea of all predators sparing children by default sounds nice, but besides the moral implications that have been listed, what about the plants?

Exactly what I've been saying. You don't have to write it, but you don't have to write that it doesn't happen, either. Because logically, it would.

Quote :

Exactly what I've been saying. You don't have to write it, but you don't have to write that it doesn't happen, either. Because logically, it would.

That doesn't work for everyone. I *know* Crisis has eaten babies before and would do so again, so I have a hard time rooting for her.

Eh, there shouldn't be babies in the wilderness anyway. Natural selection at work.

...Huh, that was remarkably a lot less nice than I usually am.

Of course, how a bleeding-heart creampuff like me could write about a character who swallows innocent people and digests them alive in the first place is up for debate. D:

GREGOLE wrote:

Quote :

Exactly what I've been saying. You don't have to write it, but you don't have to write that it doesn't happen, either. Because logically, it would.

That doesn't work for everyone. I *know* Crisis has eaten babies before and would do so again, so I have a hard time rooting for her.

Yeah. Why do you think I'm not the most pro-pred guy around? It's a fact of life. As long as Felarya remains wild, this will happen. As long as those pesky Guardians exist, it will remain wild.

Yep, you heard me. The damn Guardians support baby-killing.

AisuKaiko wrote:

Eh, there shouldn't be babies in the wilderness anyway. Natural selection at work.

Actually, if everyone thought that way, we wouldn't have Crisis, now would we? XP If I remember, she was almost devoured as a child. So if the fairies can interfere with "natural selection", why can't humans?

I thought the immortality made sense as 'eventually the danger of the world will do you in' and as such it was one of Felarya's main ironies: that even though you've found yourself where you 'could' potentially live forever, it's really only borrowed time due to the extreme dangers. Can't think of how that's unbalanced, requiring changing as long as each day is still a gamble. Maybe it does only grant an extended lifetime, yet very few live long enough for anyone to be sure of how long exactly :V

For the connections, why not meld 'connections with other worlds' and 'vanishing lands' into one phenomenon? It could grant the transported people a bit of leniency besides 'you are absolutely here now, and have no choice in the matter' by meaning if they wandered just past the point of no return from their 'lifeboat' of reality, they'd then be trapped, with their way of entry being snapped back to their own world without them. On a grander scale and potency, vanishing lands.

'Not eating children because they could grow up and expand in numbers/be more filling' seems like it could be a line of logic that works for a predator situated in a territory and can recognize this potential future benefit. For those roaming or just wanting food for the moment, I can't really think of a reason why they wouldn't, although really it's up to the writer to have children appear in a story and let the predator 'shoot the dog' in the minds of the readers.

The immortality change is a good thing if you ask me. The only thing that people would need to adapt their characters to is their age/appearance if it took place, which is good. And a question (didn't read the majority of the thread so I don't know if it's already been answered, sorry), would the lack of immortality mean that you live a bit longer or a lot longer than you usually would? Like for instance, by a little longer I mean like 10 years or so longer, or a lot longer like 30 years? Sorry if I don't make any sense, this post was typed up in a rush.

The random connections I don't see any problems with. The only thing people would need to adapt is a few minor things at most and voila!

Also, the child eating thing would actually depend on the predator in question and how hungry they are. The hunger factor is obvious: if they're too hungry, they'll eat the kiddies too. If they aren't hungry, they'll let them go. Some predators might not realize what could happen if they eat the kiddies and eat them, and some might be merciful enough to let them go.

I'm not the guy whose got a full page on the subjects. Just stating personal opinions.

Immortality: I always liked the concept, it was believable. My only problem with it was personal. I've always like the Old Wise Man characters, but the way the land played out. There was no real definite way for someone to age. They always aged into their prime and that was that. If someone wanted to make a character like that they had to bring them in from another dimension. The only problem is, thats not what the Old Wise Man is about. He should have an almost absolute knowledge of the world. Again this was just personal matters.

The connections: These don't really concern me.

The children being killed: This comes from personally doing so myself in a story. I made a story in which a child was killed in cold blood by a fauna. And i described it very dark and bloody detail. I don't think it should matter one way or the other be it adult or child. Everyone should be a target, hell even the preds themselves should be a target. I've made a Dridder character that will eat like a real spider does. Therefore it means she'd have to kill something big, and yes I'm going to kill another pred so that she may eat. (Not any of ya'lls, just random fodder) I honestly don't see any problem. And that is my opinion, everyone should be a target.

Ya'll won't care, and I'm not important enough for you to care.

VenomX3000 wrote:

I'm not the guy whose got a full page on the subjects. Just stating personal opinions.

Immortality: I always liked the concept, it was believable. My only problem with it was personal. I've always like the Old Wise Man characters, but the way the land played out. There was no real definite way for someone to age. They always aged into their prime and that was that. If someone wanted to make a character like that they had to bring them in from another dimension. The only problem is, thats not what the Old Wise Man is about. He should have an almost absolute knowledge of the world. Again this was just personal matters.

The connections: These don't really concern me.

The children being killed: This comes from personally doing so myself in a story. I made a story in which a child was killed in cold blood by a fauna. And i described it very dark and bloody detail. I don't think it should matter one way or the other be it adult or child. Everyone should be a target, hell even the preds themselves should be a target. I've made a Dridder character that will eat like a real spider does. Therefore it means she'd have to kill something big, and yes I'm going to kill another pred so that she may eat. (Not any of ya'lls, just random fodder) I honestly don't see any problem. And that is my opinion, everyone should be a target.

Ya'll won't care, and I'm not important enough for you to care.

Surprise A

Spoiler:

Surprise B

Spoiler:

Surprise C

Spoiler:

/Fish/ wrote:

I thought the immortality made sense as 'eventually the danger of the world will do you in' and as such it was one of Felarya's main ironies: that even though you've found yourself where you 'could' potentially live forever, it's really only borrowed time due to the extreme dangers.

This.
This is why I'm slightly against changing the immortality thing,it removes a lot of the reason for people to come to Felarya.


Another thing concerning the connections:
Can't think of how that's unbalanced, requiring changing as long as each day is still a gamble. Maybe it does only grant an extended lifetime, yet very few live long enough for anyone to be sure of how long exactly :V

/Fish/ wrote:

For the connections, why not meld 'connections with other worlds' and 'vanishing lands' into one phenomenon? It could grant the transported people a bit of leniency besides 'you are absolutely here now, and have no choice in the matter' by meaning if they wandered just past the point of no return from their 'lifeboat' of reality, they'd then be trapped, with their way of entry being snapped back to their own world without them. On a grander scale and potency, vanishing lands.

Hm, I think I agree partly this.

We need to keep the possibility oof individuals being transported her, so I think tehre should be 2 types of connections:
Minor:
A small portal, about big enough to drive a large car though. These last a little while, so people can go back if they do realise in time.
Example:
They walked in between these 2 trees and come out from in between to trees in Felarya but if they look behind them they can still see where they came from.

Major:
Basically what we've got for vanishing lands already.