|
Post by zholud on Jan 31, 2004 14:52:21 GMT -5
In accordance with tradition, zholud, I disagree with everything you've said ;D I have disagreed only on topics I post and agree on those where I don’t post Deathworlds are deathworlds, regardless of government, technology level or the type of danger that makes it a deathworld. My guess is that you have to define deathworld first. E.g., is Necromunda, where it is almost impossible to live outside the hives (and sometimes within as well ;D) a deathworld? The same question for Mordia, Armageddon. Caliban was a deathworld, on account of the creatures that had been warped by chaos. According to C:AoD, "mere day-to-day survival was a constant struggle". That sounds like a deathworld to me... In several descriptions of medieval Europe you’ll find the same words… Altarra has close to contemporary technology and a democracy. In my book, that spells Civilised world. But I’ve agreed with this!
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 31, 2004 18:45:43 GMT -5
My point is that even though these criteria are very vague, I think it is up to us to add to them, not directly alter them, if possible. I'm not altering them, just saying that it is an inappropriate term and by true definition feudal worlds are a sub-class of 'civilised world'. We will be using the flawed GW version, however. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Feb 1, 2004 17:49:38 GMT -5
I'm agreeing with CELS here, although I have always wanted to put the qualifyer on Deathworlds that they must be ACTIVLEY hostile. Sitting there with a methane atmosphere or lethat radiation levels don't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Feb 3, 2004 8:29:24 GMT -5
So is everyone else, since there was real disagreement in the first place! But if you get the chance then read the book Civilisations... Kage
|
|