Forums of the Megaverse®

Recently a GM I game with has allowed a player who is a brony make up and play a My Little Pony morphos.

Question one, as a GM would you allow such an annoyingly cute morphos?

Question two, as a player how would you gank the annoying thing and get away with it?

I would allow it in a heartbeat. After all this is a game of horror...... No seriously the Morpheus is unlikely to be any worse than any of the other player ones. And the in game social ramifications could be....amusing. It will be hard to get into a club freak as a MLP for instance. I would assist in creating the actual morph but I suspect that would cross the No Conversions rule.

Club Freak excludes kens/barbies, those are guys who look like human supermodels and stuff.

Being a talking horse doesn't qualify you as a barbie, Club Freak would accept you. Being a beautiful animal freak doesn't mean you're not a freak, you still can't fit in and have nowhere else to go. It's not like your necessarily need stigmata to get in.

I don't really see it as a conversion, a Nightbane appearing like a MLP char is not actually giving stats to the char, just approximating a feature.

It's pretty basic: all of them are full equine, and if they're adults, add a tattoo for their cutie mark. That's it for Earth ponies. Add a horn for unicorns, add bird wings for pegasi, and if a princess, add both.

Obviously a bane who resembles a cartoon character they knew about would not have the character's personality or abilities though they might try to emulate them to some degree.

eliakon wrote:I would allow it in a heartbeat. After all this is a game of horror...... No seriously the Morpheus is unlikely to be any worse than any of the other player ones. And the in game social ramifications could be....amusing. It will be hard to get into a club freak as a MLP for instance. I would assist in creating the actual morph but I suspect that would cross the No Conversions rule.

The only thing in the same genera as MLP ....two things are having a Barny morphus or a SpongeBob morphus.

It would not cross the "No Conversions" rule unless he tried to share it here.

I would hardly class MLP in the same class as barny, not even first gen. Like Spongebob, it has stuff adults can enjoy too.

Barny is like Teletubbies, it only applies to the narrow lower range, it lacks versatility like MLP/Spongebob.

Only a few Club Freaks will bar a Ken or Barbie from entering their door. Most don't care what you look like, so long as you are a Nightbane and drop your façade at the door.

As for the idea of a MLP morphus... well, it isn't the strangest or most disturbing idea I've heard for a Nightbane to take.

It says "some" which could mean more than "a few"

Now you're arguing semantics... some... few... the point is you were making the claim that if you are a Ken or a Barbie, you would not be allowed into ANY Club Freak when that is not the case. It is like saying that you can't join the Nocturne or the Seekers unless you are a Sorcerer or a Mystic (as these are the more magically adept factions).

why does the morphus have to be annoyingly cute? I played an anthro mlp unicorn in a rifts game. it was just a colorful unicorn horse-man with a tattoo on his flanks. as a matter of fact he was pretty bad @$$

It is all a matter of preference. The MLP idea the Morphus drew inspiration from are meant to be cute, hence it is likely that this character will be likewise. With all the possibilities there are for Morphus shapes (how many different tables are we upto now?), such things are not out of the question (though thankfully rare).

Razorwing wrote:Now you're arguing semantics... some... few...

Yes, problem? It makes a pretty big difference when estimating the proportion of Club Freaks that discriminate against Barbies/Kens.

Razorwing wrote:you were making the claim that if you are a Ken or a Barbie, you would not be allowed into ANY Club Freak

I said "Club Freak excludes kens/barbies" which is true, because some do, but since I did not apply a pronoun, my statement was vague and easy to misinterpret. That said, I didn't say "not any" either

Razorwing wrote:It is like saying that you can't join the Nocturne or the Seekers unless you are a Sorcerer or a Mystic (as these are the more magically adept factions).

Similar but different... those groups don't have a practice of excluding people for lacking magic powers, although people who do lack them would need wanted traits elsewhere.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I played an anthro mlp unicorn in a rifts game. it was just a colorful unicorn horse-man with a tattoo on his flanks. as a matter of fact he was pretty bad @$$

But did he tap some? Dat flank...

Tor wrote:

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:I played an anthro mlp unicorn in a rifts game. it was just a colorful unicorn horse-man with a tattoo on his flanks. as a matter of fact he was pretty bad @$$

But did he tap some? Dat flank...

lol no. the chars back story had him exiled from his pony dimension for getting caught in bed with a princess who it turned out was carrying his love foal. His motivation was to prove himself honorable and be allowed back to his dimension before the birth. So no, no getting any flank from the soft feet.

The Oh So Amazing Nate wrote:exiled from his pony dimension for getting caught in bed with a princess who it turned out was carrying his love foal.

I think that's why we never heard from this colt again.

Just what do you think people are going to think when you make a statement like "Club Freak excludes Kens and Barbies"? You are intentionally misleading them to think that ALL the Clubs are like this. True... you are technically true in that some do exclude them... but you are also glossing over the fact that not all the Clubs are like this.

This is a Hasty Generalization fallacy... where you have presented Club Freak as being a group that discriminates against Kens and Barbies when the truth is that only a portion of the group behaves in this manner. Yes... you are technically right in that some Clubs are discriminatory, but you are presenting it as the Rule rather than as the exception (even if that exception is a significant portion).

Defending yourself as being technically correct doesn't excuse the fact that you were being misleading in your statement. Your statement wasn't vague or easy to misinterpret... it was intentionally misleading as it basically states that the entire group behaves in this way when it is only a small portion that does. That makes the statement wrong despite the fact that it is true for a small portion of the Clubs.

Um no, it's not intentional misleading, it's a poor choice of casual phrasing. I often complain to others when they leave out pronouns, but I also make the same mistake and am glad to have that pointed out.

That and... I might have possibly misremembered Club Freak policies and inflated their exclusion policies in my mind at the time I made the comment. I don't remember which mistake I made at this point.

I had no intention to mislead, that I misled was an accident either of prose or memory.

I do not agree that a lack of pronoun = basically stating 'entire'.

I also do not agree that the portion that does this is necessarily 'small'. You say 'small' and 'few' when it actually said 'some' which has a bigger feel to it.

Okay... I can accept that you may have made the statement without the intent to mislead. The statement itself is intentionally misleading, but you could have made the statement without realizing just how misleading it is.

As for the words "some" and "few"... they really do mean the same thing... as in a portion of a whole. Your perception that "Some" is greater than a "Few" is just that... a perception. They are more or less interchangeable. A few members of a group is still some of the group and some of the group does make up a few members of it; both are vague as to the actual numbers the represent. The real problem is that the description of Club Freak is vague in how prevalent the discrimination is.

In any case... I'd say the number of Clubs that are this exclusive are not many... somewhere between a quarter and a 3rd of them. It is a significant portion of the clubs... though wether you consider it a few or just some is a matter of opinion. Then there is another possibility of a less overt discrimination within the Clubs... namely allowing Kens and Barbies to enter, but give them a lower quality of service (at a higher price for said services). This latter form of discrimination may be a lot more prevalent than outright exclusion... as it maintains the illusion that they are allowing these 'Bane to use the Club while at the same time making sure they realize they are not entirely welcome.

In the end one has to take into consideration what the goal of the faction is. For Club Freak that goal is the Business of Influence. They want to link all the influential 'Banes into a web that they can use and manipulate in whatever way they need. If such a 'Bane happens to be a Ken or a Barbie... then they will want to make sure they can use that 'Bane's influence should the need arise. Should they learn that the local Club has alienated that particular 'Bane simply because they are a Ken or a Barbie, they may decide to convince the manager of that Club to change his policy (or replace him with someone who will). It really depends on how influential the Ken or Barbie is in the area and how much the Trustees want to use that 'Bane's influence. In the end, it would seem that the leaders of Club Freak care more about what a 'Bane has or might accomplish than what a 'Bane might look like; though the managers of a particular Club may feel differently.

Statements lack intent, only people. It was misleadingly phrased, but by accident.

As for the words "some" and "few"... they really do mean the same thing... as in a portion of a whole. Your perception that "Some" is greater than a "Few" is just that... a perception.

They've more in common than most/all but I don't consider them synonyms any more than I would few/several. Though all deal in vaguaries they have histories that sometimes apply differing sense of ranking or frequency.

Although it is true that 'few' means 'some', I do not agree that 'some' means 'few'. It's sort of a square/rectangle issue. I believe 'few' has a narrower meaning denoting a smaller amount whereas 'some' is more flexible in meaning and could denote larger numbers.

Just glancing at wiktionary, 'some' gets "An indefinite quantity." while few gets "An indefinite, but usually small, number of." for example.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/few [Old English fēawa ; related to Old High German fao little, Old Norse fār little, silent]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/some confusing but appears to be based on "sum"

I do agree with your explanation of CF's priorities, the number who discriminate would probably be of the lower-ranking sort concerned with petty fuedalism and jealousy rather than bigger-scale stuff. Hadn't thought of that until you mentioned.