Semantic Confusion - Fatality v Permavore

by **Doku** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:33 am

Ok, so this has been bugging me for several years now. I have had to correct the misunderstanding on multiple occasions, and it seems to tie in with the trigger that specifically crops up for a few people on the topic of "Permavore," and I confess that I have a lot of irritation over this. There needs to be clarity on this, and the words need to not be treated within this fetish as synonymous, because they are not. So, we're going to have a very short semantics (word meaning) lesson. I'm not going to use a dictionary, because Permavore isn't really a word per se, but jargon created solely for a specific subset of this fetish.

Fatality - An occurrence of death. An occasion where someone dies.

Permavore - The retirement of a character permanently from use in one or more locations, generally after have been eaten by another character.

Fatality =/= Permavore, and in some cases (such as permanent absorption or the like) Permavore =/= Fatality. They are two very distinct things. Fatality scenes happen all the time, but have nothing to do with whether or not you will see the character in a future installment. There are some characters of mine that have been eaten hundreds of times without being "Permavored," and I have done the same to several others belonging to other people. This is handled in a variety of ways, some with reformation, most with not (frequently as one-shot scenes). But the point is, in a scene with Fatality, one or more characters die.

Permavore means that at the end of a scene, a character is retired from use. This may mean retired completely and they are never used again. This may mean "only on X website." There are even a few other nuances, but it actually isn't related to fatality itself. If you want to somehow include teasing about a scene being "more permanent" with the prey, that's fine and dandy, but ultimately the term Permavore only relates to the idea of the retirement of a character from use.

So, if there is a scene where a character dies, it isn't permavore unless that character is meant to be retired as well and never used by the 'creator' again. And if you're playing in fatal scenes, permavore isn't involved unless both parties are specifically interested in seeing a character retired or potentially retired from use at the end. In fact, I would say that 99% of the time, it's not going to be involved in a fatal scene around here, and additional warnings are generally not necessary, because it should be assumed characters aren't retiring from use in a scene on a regular basis. Most people in the chats and forums don't do that. Ever. They shouldn't need to warn that Fatality isn't the same as permavore, because it should theoretically be obvious to all parties.

And I only wish that I was just harping on this for no reason, but I have seen art mislabeled as perma when it was simply a fatal sequence and nothing was retired. I have seen numerous characters with warnings specifically on Fatality "No Perma," as if Fatality somehow meant perma. I have seen people turned off to fatality specifically because they thought someone wanted them to retire their character as a result every time they did a fatal scene, not because they didn't like fatal digestion sequences. And we've had this sort of thing around for well over a decade, so you would think that this would be a little bit clearer but it isn't. I suspect part of the reason is that, at times in the past, there have been people who are just too aggressive and pushy about getting a scene to be permavore, which causes people to get the wrong idea. But it always irritates me, and I think the misunderstanding can cause some real problems for RPers at times.

by **KnightleyPaine** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:20 am

Pretty sure this is mostly a new player deal, because how life works is an intuitive assumption to make and they start off believing that their character has to have a singular consistent timeline, or they need a bunch of god characters to give them reformation ability. It usually doesn't take long for them to realize the logistics wouldn't work out if every prey ever consumed just vanished forever would be incredibly bothersome to actually keep consistent and a vast majority doesn't do that. It also leads to a lot of talk like the more benign belief that any relationship you get into via instant hookup persists forever and you need to make a new character every time you want a new roleplay.

Latroma wrote:I have seen numerous characters with warnings specifically on Fatality "No Perma," as if Fatality somehow meant perma.

Pretty sure this one just means they want you to know they're okay with fatality but needed to emphasize it a bit and there's no actual misunderstanding.

I mean think about it, if you're into it being fatal you'll get around to the conclusion, but there's just going to be some newbie assumptions that form the stereotype like:

-"Surely if I'm open to everything , there is no excuse not to play with me"
-"I don't need a character profile because I can be anything that way"
-"Preds are always able to just grab prey so I better make myself unassailable to ward off all the ones I don't want"
-"I don't like a specific thing, but it would look better if I also justified it by listing a story where people who play that thing behave badly, how else could I justify not liking it?"
-"If I don't accept something people will think it means I hate the people who are affected, not wanting a gender in my fetish roleplay is sexism"

Making those mistakes comes just from average human ignorance, unless signing up involved dragging them to this thread to read all of this it's going to still happen, and until it's explained people will also not fully understand that a perma pred has no real ability to retire another character, it's always the prey's choice, that I believe is the bigger misunderstanding in it all.

But here's something that ticks me off, and I'm not even into the Perma scene per se, but why in the World has there been this 'no perma pledge' going around? Seriously, there's this bunch of weird people touting it like the concept is morally deplorable in some way and need to make a highschool clique around opposing it. I hope one of them checks this thread out because in case there was any confusion around it, there is no actual enforcement in place keeping perma-prey retired, only the players themselves can actually do that.

by **Doku** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:38 am

KnightleyPaine wrote:Pretty sure this is mostly a new player deal, because how life works is an intuitive assumption to make and they start off believing that their character has to have a singular consistent timeline, or they need a bunch of god characters to give them reformation ability. It usually doesn't take long for them to realize the logistics wouldn't work out if every prey ever consumed just vanished forever would be incredibly bothersome to actually keep consistent and a vast majority doesn't do that. It also leads to a lot of talk like the more benign belief that any relationship you get into via instant hookup persists forever and you need to make a new character every time you want a new roleplay.

Past experience and a few very bad experiences with extremely long-term players that I'm uninterested in outing has informed me otherwise. I agree that this is more frequently an issue for people who are newer, but it's been a problematic distinction for even decade+ members. The other issue you mention, it really varies. There's been definite confusion over the years.

KnightleyPaine wrote:But here's something that ticks me off, and I'm not even into the Perma scene per se, but why in the World has there been this 'no perma pledge' going around? Seriously, there's this bunch of weird people touting it like the concept is morally deplorable in some way and need to make a highschool clique around opposing it. I hope one of them checks this thread out because in case there was any confusion around it, there is no actual enforcement in place keeping perma-prey retired, only the players themselves can actually do that.

"No Perma Pledge" is an unrelated issue to this definition clarification, and I'd prefer not to get us too embroiled into it. Some of those with an issue have honest problems, and some really don't, but that's a topic for another day. If you are really curious, I can send you some of the reasons I've picked up from others over the years via PM.

by **Humbug** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:51 pm

Yeah. I'm not into the perma side of things either (or the RP side, for that matter), but having been on this site for about a decade myself, I have to agree with Latroma that lately there's been some misunderstanding of the term bleeding into the simple fatality side as well, which I AM part of. It hasn't become a serious problem yet, but it would be best if those of us who know better would clarify the difference for those who don't.
Because permavore can be such a contentious topic, it's definitely best to make sure everyone is speaking the same language about it. Otherwise everything gets muddled and things go to hell fast.

This is purely conjecture based on a couple of encounters I've had in the past, but I have a feeling some of the people who mistake the two as synonymous do so because they have some degree of difficulty distinguishing between fantasy and reality, and since permavore is meta by its very nature, that line gets blurred when a character dies in any given scenario and that distinction is fuzzy in the person's mind. "Oh no! They're really dead!" kind of stuff.

by **1ring42** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:01 pm

Or some people know the difference but tend to treat them as interchangeable because of being a continuity whore. Of which I'm guilty.

by **LordStorm** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:07 pm

Not really into the whole Perma scene myself. It's true there can be some confusion, between fatal and perma ,especially among new players. I do love fatal, and in most of my RP's or comics, it's assumed that is the end of that character...in that specific instance! I always reuse the characters because, why would you not want to have a tasty meal again? :lol:

I just assume it's a new continuity,or universe if I have to :-D

by **ArcaneSigil** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:14 pm

I see it from a gamer perspective. Perma-vore, you'd still be able to see your allies, or your, healthbar. You're not dead, just... out of play. Fatal Vore, your health bar would deplete until you had to respawn.

by **Baz** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:23 pm

From a personal point of view, I might put a 'no perma pledge' note on my profile purely to state that I am not interested in such scenes... I've had someone tell me half-way through a scene once that they were going to make it perma afterwards (without discussing it with me beforehand) and... I don't want to do that sort of thing, and they wouldn't accept it. I... had to leave the scene.

by **Liz** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:52 pm

Latroma, I agree with you

One this site and other fetish role play sites people seem to get confused with Perma and Fatality all the time, recently I noticed someone referring to “Feral” as “Unwilling vore” while both pred and prey were human rather than it being Feral predators ie not furry characters but animalistic based mind set . It is easy for people to get confused with such thing.

Personally I see fatality in were the predator kills off the prey thru digestion, absorbing or even other non vore stuff like shooting, hanging, stabbing to death ect ect but being completely fantasy the prey can come back reform or be used in another non-related role plays / story/ image.

PermaVore is the same however the prey character cannot reform or come back meaning the character has been totally killed off and unable to be used into future non-related role plays / story/ image.

I know a lot of people dislike perma and some people live for it so I do it from time to time but it does annoy me how people can bring it up in chat and try to attack people on their fetishes. Same goes with Endo Vs Digestion and other things. I don't like some things that people enjoy but I don't attack or stop them from their enjoyment. Live and let live imo for its all fantasy so just have fun

by **TheBastian** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:13 pm

I think it often happens when someone doesn't really think about the context a scene is taking place in. Is it a one-off, or should it have a lasting effect on a character? You are absolutely right, one does not equal the other. And it <i>should</i> be a given that fatality is considered to just be in that closed off scene canon, not having further effects - unless specifically stated otherwise. I can't wrap my head around those that confuse it, but I can definately say that it happens, and that it can create drama and misunderstandings. It's why I make extra sure to go over it with my rp partners, but it's a shame that some people won't even approach someone because they have that misconception. Just my 2 cents.

by **minakotomoka14** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:51 pm

I`ve never tried permanent vore before. I have done plenty of fatal, but with my OC`s, they have been reused many times, and doing permavore just seems like a waste of a character. I guess it might be useful if you have too many OC`s, but that`s about it.

by **Humbug** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:47 pm

minakotomoka14 wrote:I`ve never tried permanent vore before. I have done plenty of fatal, but with my OC`s, they have been reused many times, and doing permavore just seems like a waste of a character. I guess it might be useful if you have too many OC`s, but that`s about it.

It takes a certain personality to enjoy permavore, but there are other reasons to do it beyond that.
Some people crave that kind of finality. It's a rush. And the more established the character, the better to some, as it increases that stakes even more.

But this isn't about why people like perma. It's about the semantic differences between permavore and fatal vore. Let's stay on topic, as threads involving permavore often get derailed, and it'd be bad for this one to go the same route. :3

by **minakotomoka14** » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:47 pm

Humbug wrote:
minakotomoka14 wrote:I`ve never tried permanent vore before. I have done plenty of fatal, but with my OC`s, they have been reused many times, and doing permavore just seems like a waste of a character. I guess it might be useful if you have too many OC`s, but that`s about it.

It takes a certain personality to enjoy permavore, but there are other reasons to do it beyond that.
Some people crave that kind of finality. It's a rush. And the more established the character, the better to some, as it increases that stakes even more.

But this isn't about why people like perma. It's about the semantic differences between permavore and fatal vore. Let's stay on topic, as threads involving permavore often get derailed, and it'd be bad for this one to go the same route. :3

Well then, I don`t see what the problem is, it seems like a pretty straight answer. Fatalism is where an OC gets digested and dies, but is used in other stories and RP`s again. Permavore is where an OC gets digested and dies, but they do not come back, and can never be used in another story or roleplay again. I can see how it may be confusing to newcomers, but it`s not that hard to understand.

by **Celestia** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:40 am

okay, I'm gonna throw in my two cents because why not.
not a fan of perma-vore. I don't see a point in permanently retiring a character from all future stories/RPs when they can still be used for a future project. I have no problem with fatal vore though. I actually have a pool of characters I can use specifically for the purposes of fatal scenarios (both RP and for art/writing) that don't really have a continuity or much of a backstory attached to them. I see these more as archetypal characters with names with an infinite number of alternate timelines attached to them. Lisa, a redheaded tomboyish girl with glasses, is usually my first go to as far as my fatal scenario characters go, seeing as I modeled her after myself.

that being said most if not all my characters that I have written backstories for (Celestia, Minako, Caren, Kat, Vixen, Ellen Kleiner etc.) and have a substantial canon behind them are either strictly a pred (never used as prey) or can regenerate so I can reuse them from an in-continuity explanation as to why they aren't dead after being eaten/chewed up/digested/cooked alive/etc. and I tend to treat any RPs with my "staple" characters (preds/regen prey characters) as canon interactions. so whenever I break out Celestia or Minako or someone like them for an RP I view it as adding to their lore and that event may or may not get mentioned in a story I write later.
also it kind of lets me get away with lots of hard vore shenanigans without any of the death usually attached to hard vore. which can lead to some rather humorous or intense pred/prey interactions depending on the tone of the scene. ^^;

by **FanficFetishist** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:23 am

I REFUSE to do Perma-vore. I think it's wasteful. But that's just my opinion.

by **Humbug** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 1:32 am

Annnnnd the topic got derailed as usual. God, every time. XD

But yeah, minakotomoka14. It's not a difficult designation to wrap one's head around, but there are enough people who don't know it to make it a bit of an issue in need of correction when it pops up.

by **Doku** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:36 am

Humbug wrote:Annnnnd the topic got derailed as usual. God, every time. XD

Generally because people don't actually bother to read the opening post. They see one word in the title, and start foaming at the mouth, which is actually part of why I believe that this word definition problem exists in the first place. There is no attempt at paying attention.

by **Celestia** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:49 am

Latroma wrote:
Humbug wrote:Annnnnd the topic got derailed as usual. God, every time. XD

Generally because people don't actually bother to read the opening post. They see one word in the title, and start foaming at the mouth, which is actually part of why I believe that this word definition problem exists in the first place. There is no attempt at paying attention.

sorry, I wasn't trying to derail the topic. I just wanted to share my thoughts on perma vs fatal and why I'm okay with fatal but not okay with perma. sorry again if my ramblings came across as an attempt to derail the thread, that wasn't my intent. ^^;

by **jaggedjagd** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:38 am

.................................

by **EnderDracolich** » Sat Dec 09, 2017 4:07 pm

Ah, semantics! The bane of human interaction since time immemorial. People get words confused; it happens, it doesn't mean that they are stupid, it just means that nobody ever sat down and explain the different to them. This is a fetish site where people just wander in, like myself, and start interacting without knowing all the terms and concepts that the in-group is familiar with. It took me a while to figure out that Endo was different from Soft Vore, so things like this happen all the time. We have the Wiki, but it's not quite the same thing as a proper dictionary of vore terms, and it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, and not everyone uses the terms the same way all the time. Don't get me wrong, I think the confusion is bad, but I don't think there is much that can be done to prevent it from happening. :roll: