To better ask my question.

When you watch horror movies, What exactly about the villain are the people not liking?

Werewolfs, whats so bad about chaning every full moon?
Vampires, what so bad about not having a soul?
Swamp thing, whats so bad about a slimy guy in your living room?
etc.

The answer is allways either.. its scary, or its different and your afraid it might do nasty things to you.

If you want to play a character of reasonable intelligence, I believe it is. Hard to go to war over something just because its different.

That is hardly the point of what I just said, however.

People have feared hated and destroyed people who were different for thousands of years - it isn't that hard to use that as a reason in-game.

Name me a war that got started over something more reasonable than "I don't know what might happen but its different and I don't like it"

Werewolfs kill people.
Vampires kill people.
Swamp monsters... well I assume they kill people.

The fear is driven by rational thought. Vampires aren't incredibly frightening because they have waxen skin. Werewolfs aren't frightening because they're furry.

Give me some specific names that did?

If I recall, Magnagora had quite a few citizens in Lacostian's order. While Magnagora wasn't too thrilled at the idea of this, those citizens weren't forced to leave the order because of it.

I mean, duh. HELP LACOSTIAN pretty much says He isn't for or against taint, non-taint, etc. He just IS the Mysterial Lord.

Yeah, I did say 'reasonable intelligence' though. Not sure if human history is shining with that.

That is irrational Monsterism.

Werewolfs are missunderstood, and if people didn't try to hunt them, they wouldn't need to fight back and kill people.
Vampires, if they were allowed to be accepted in the population could easily set up a way to feed without killing.

They do not necessarily kill people.

Or if you like the inverse...

Viscanti kill people.

I do believe that countries that start and win wars have above reasonable intelligence. But they all boil down to 'they are different and we don't like it.'

When your argument hinges on werewolves being misunderstood, perhaps it's time to find a new argument.

Loboshigaru.

*sigh* Why must we descend into these tangents?

Look, I just hope for something that I can work with. Why shouldn't Celest declare its purpose is to eradicate the colour purple? Or Serenwilde base its hatred of cities on the fact they are square?

As I said, I have resolved to continue on the path that makes sense to me, and I'll just have to hope they don't further undermine my beliefs. Further understanding would be nice, but its not essential.

What is taint? Taint is what happens when Kethuru has REALLY bad gas...

Told ya so.

What makes the Taint/non-Taint debate so great is that it is a very grey area, and there aren't any clear-cut Admin-defined answers to the tough questions, and while I could be wrong, I would imagine that was Estarra's intent. The Taint is the embodiment of controversy: is the "power" given by the Taint worth the "costs?" (I use quotes for both because some would argue the Taint is weakness, and others would argue it has no costs)

Nokraenom very much sees the Taint as evolution. In a world of survival-of-the-fittest, Magnagora was the only city to survive the Taint Wars. In his eyes, this is due to the adaptability provided by the Taint and its transformation. Those cities that were too static to adapt were swept aside (Celest was destroyed by Marilynth's refusal to accept the Taint, Gaudiguch/Hallifax were locked in time due to infighting spurred on by an irrational fear of the Taint). So, to a Magnagoran or Glomdoring-oriented person, the Taint could indeed seem highly natural and even desirable.

However, it's just as easy to come to the conclusion that the Taint isn't necessary for survival. Serenwilde has perservered without the transformation brought about by the Taint. It would be very easy for a Seren to view the Tainted peoples as misguided, at best, and insane or corrupt at worst. Nature can clearly survive without the Taint, so why should it submit to its changes? Mother Moon and White Hart, the "gods" of the Serenwilde, clearly are opposed to the Taint in the former case, and possess a vast hatred of cities in the latter case. One could argue that, from White Hart's perspective, the Taint is the embodiment of cities: unnatural change, the subversion of the natural order, and refusal/inability to hear the Great Spirits. The patron of Serenwilde is also highly opposed to the Taint. The Taint of yesteryear (e.g., Kethuru's Taint) brought about the "destruction" of Ackleberry Forest (since we are unsure whether or not it survived), imperiled the Great Spirits and the Fae, and corrupted Mother Night, Raven and the Glomdoring Commune. While a more moderate approach might not view the Glomdoring Spirits as mortal enemies, they have certainly been subverted from their natural path by the Taint, which is an embodiment of the cities' arrogance and failures. So, I wouldn't say that even though Nature and the Taint can coexist means that there isn't a reason why the Seren shouldn't distrust, dislike or reject the Taint and the corrupted Glomdoring Spirits.

-Nok

My argument was not hinging on werewolves being missunderstood.

I was saying that every single conflict in history is based off of thing just 'being different' or being scared of them.

If you were afraid of the color purple, then yes you would hate celest. Its really not that complicated.

Greed/money has played a large part in some conflicts. You are right though, about fear of difference/unknown being a factor in many conflicts.

Greed and money is just another form of 'you are not me' syndrome.

Not true, it's a form of 'gimmie gimmie gimmie more' syndrome.

You can only ask for more for yourself, if you feel that the other is different from you and thus does not need what you need. Especially if your going to use that desire for what they have to escalate to the level of violence or war.

If you recognize others as something as equal to yourself and not different with unkown feelings, then you would not be greedy towards them.

The number one excuse for people to not give money to beggars is 'He might use it for drugs.' Its the unkowns that you don't understand that make you act certain ways towards others that are normally not to the benefit of the other person. When you emphasize and lose that 'Me/Others' perspective, then are less prone to cause conflict with them.

Or so says all those philosphy type people.