Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justifications, a more developed beast society- or my first homebrew fluff!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Justifications, a more developed beast society- or my first homebrew fluff!

    So!

    Back when Beast was in its...controversial....phase, I came up with a vague extra axis for beast. I will put it here to be critiqued/insulted/erased from the internet as appropriate.

    Disclaimer- while there's nothing graphic, a lot of these deal with the justifications people come up with for doing horrible things. If that is something that upsets you, you may wish to stop reading.

    So! it began with the idea that Nemesis doesn't quite seem to fit in the rest of the hungers- see countless online discussions. So what if it wasn't a hunger, but a justification? A way for the Beast to say they're not a monster, they only hurt people who deserve it. In the core book, we have another apparent justification, the "teaching lessons" one. You're not a monster because you're not just hurting people, you're giving a harsh lesson so it's ok. Given beasts don't really have a social group on par with Packs or Covenants, I though making more Justifications to form, if not political groups, at least vague associations of similar-minded beasts could work.

    An axis based on justification fits in with the theme of beast quite well, I feel, trying to live as a monster as well as different ways of fitting in the story they're inadvertently trapped in.

    (yes, this means a new hunger needs to be made. I settled on The Hunger For Corruption, personally.)

    Here is what I came up with. I have vague ideas for mechanical benefits/penalties, but am not sure on the exact crunch for them or whether they're a good idea. I put them at the end of each Justification anyway

    The Teachers- See the core book. For this homebrew, assume it's written from their perspective. For a mechanical thing, they can minor minor alterations to the mind of those they feed on, but are bound by their own lessons (e.g. if they teach that material goods are fleeting, they can't hoard things themselves)

    The Nemeses- Those who justify through punishment. They see the Dark Mother as the grim avenger, the monster who shows the consequences of sin. They are the harpies who befoul the profits of the greedy, the demons who drag sinners to hell, the Big Bad Wolf who eats those who stray from the path. At their best, they are righteous avengers destroying the worst of humanity. At their worst, they're capricious monsters tearing people apart for arbitrary and nonsensical crimes. They can sense whether people have committed a specific wrongdoing, but have a certain group of innocents (victims of that wrongdoing, children, a specific religion...) they cannot feed from.

    The Servants- Those who justify through obedience. The servants fall beneath a human authority- maybe a group, maybe an ideal, or maybe something like the genie trapped in a lamp or the demon bound by a ritual. They serve this authority without question, and if they need to feed on those who get in their masters way- well, that's a win-win situation, right? They see the Dark Mother as the primordial darkness. She was bound into coherent form by human stories, and her children are still repaying that debt today.
    At their best, they are loyal friends and allies, at their worst brutal thugs who will kill or worse on their master's slightest whim. They have a bonus to actions directly ordered by their master, but must spend a willpower to disobey anyone with the symbol of that mastery (A uniform of the organisation, the beast's lamp, a lock of hair in the summoning circle, etc)

    The Warlocks- Those who justify through humanity. As far as the Warlocks are concerned, they're still human. Humans with terrifying powers and a need to feed on suffering, granted, but still ultimately humans. They may be bad people, but they aren't nightmares incarnate, and that's what matters. The Warlocks try to continue their pre-devouring lives, having jobs, families and goals, and feeding to support those goals.
    They see the Dark Mother as something like Lilith- a powerful and maybe immortal woman, but still ultimately just a woman. Hopefully, her children can still say the same. At their best, they are parents, friends and lovers who still see humans as something to identify with and care about. At their worst, they're greedy and selfish, using their powers for their own gain and crushing all who oppose them. They have a price break on "human" merits (status, resources, contacts, fame) but have penalties in their lair (as it's hard to argue you're just a weird human when you're a ice giant ruling a forest of blood)

    The Gargoyles- Those who justify through protection. The Gargoyles choose an area- a neighbourhood, a forest, a tenement block- and set themselves up as its guardian. They work to tend it and those within it, promoting its growth and ensuring its safe from those who would damage and corrupt it. When people try to exploit, destroy or corrupt the Gargoyle's territory, the hunt begins.
    They see the Dark Mother as something primal, a last echo of humanity's evolutionary past. Her children remind humanity of what's truly important- the territory and the tribe. At their best, they are beloved guardian angels, defending those under their care. At their worst, they're tyrants, crushing the inhabitants of the area for "its own good" and destroying anyone who tries to unseat them. They can travel near-instantly through their territory, but if the area is damaged or hurt the Gargoyle can be too.

    And my villain justifications! (because beast needs more antagonists, and because I came up with various ones that seemed unplayable so they're here now)

    The Chained- those who justify through stories. The Chained have almost completely lost their human lives. They are totally subsumed by the Horror and the monomyth, with only a few scraps of memories keeping them from undergoing the merger. They act exactly like the monster they were devoured by, and follow its story to the letter. They track down and kill those who don't reblog chain posts, or stalk the woods looking for teen couples, or climb through mirrors when their name is said three times in the dark.
    Their justification, such as it is, is that they are simply fulfilling their role in the story- they didn't write the tale, they're just playing their part as well as they can. They see the Dark Mother as the primal antagonist, the incarnation of everything humans work against, the enemy in every tale. They aren't her children, they're her minions. They can tell when someone fulfils the requirement of their story nearby, but also suffer a permanent anathema laid on them by the human subconscious.

    The Ravenous- Those who don't bother to justify. The Ravenous don't see why they should justify their feeding to anyone. Do humans justify themselves to cattle? They are monsters, and they act like it. They feast, endlessly and indiscriminately, spreading destruction and misery before moving on to new hunting grounds.
    They see the Dark Mother as simply the biggest predator in the woods, a savage thing that is nothing but teeth and hunger and gave her children only one command- try and out-do her. The Ravenous are ruled by their hunger, even more so then other beasts. While they never get the slumbering condition, they lose satiety twice as fast, and if ravenous they take aggravated, not lethal, damage.

    The Prophets- those who justify through authority. The Prophets believe beasts are the ultimate creature- shepherds of humanity, first among monsters, walkers of every world. And they want everyone to know it. They build cults to their glory and feed on those who join, as is their divine right. They send out missionaries to spread their glory and inquisitors to purge those who will not worship them.
    They see the Dark Mother as The Goddess herself, the queen of reality, and the Beasts as her dark and terrible angels. They don't need to roll to use nightmares on their cultists, and can see/speak through them, but their power is tied to them- each dot of lair requires 10 cultists, and collapses if the cult drops below that (down to one- a Prophet doesn't die or lose their template if they lose all cultists)

    The Hydes- those who justify through denial. The Hydes have split from their Horror entirely. While the Warlocks know they are supernatural, the Hydes see themselves as just humans possessed by a terrible thing, a monster that makes them hurt people and tempts them with terrible powers. They work living normal lives, avoiding things that might spark the hunger, but it never works. The Tyrant puts someone down, the Ravener starts a fire, any beast bumps into kin, and the Horror takes over completely, feeding wildly until the Hyde can reclaim control. Hydes search far and wide to find a way to banish their Horror, and rarely react positively to other beasts reveling in their "tormentor's" power.
    Hydes see the Dark Mother as a Satan figure, a horrifying thing come to ruin them and steal their life. They can, at least partially, take on the form of their horror physically when it claims control. The "possession" is downside enough.

    The Kinslayers- those who justify through monster hunting. The Kinslayers reason it's wrong to hurt humans- but a beast has lots of potential prey that isn't human. The Kinslayers track down the supernaturals of the area and attack them, feeding on those the other beasts call brethren, and sometimes even those other beasts themselves. Some will only go for the truly inhuman, some will go for anyone so much as touched by the supernatural, but all can devastate the relationship between beasts and their kin.
    The Kinslayers see the Dark Mother as a mother of abominations, unleashing horrifying creatures that her true children must now deal with. The Kinslayers have a bonus to resisting supernatural powers, but they invert Thicker then Water, and always start with a hostile first impression unless they manipulate events otherwise (luckily for them, other kin-based powers work normally)

    So there you go! Opinions? Suggestions? Wild Ad Hominims?

  • #2
    hum... it's seems something nice. But I think they choose the concept everyone it's family so there are no sub groups.
    But really have the problem that even in a family we have sub groups. At least in a huge family.
    Don't have a solid opinion yet because it's 4:22 AM and i have made two homebrew atavism and read a lot today

    Comment


    • #3
      four questions:

      1) What really separates the Nemeses from Beasts in other groups with the Hunger for Punishment?


      2) What really makes the Ravenous or the Prophets any more villainous than any other Beast if they just pragmatically hold back enough to not be connected to their crimes?


      3) Who is providing these social group powers?

      4) Wouldn't it be kind of hard to tell the difference between a really tyrannical Gargoyle and a Prophet?
      Last edited by Master Aquatosic; 04-08-2017, 11:16 AM.


      A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"

      Comment


      • #4
        (i am sorry for any spelling errors, my spellcheck is broken)

        Originally posted by Master Aquatosic View Post
        four questions:

        1) What really separates the Nemeses from Beasts in other groups with the Hunger for Punishment?

        In this...I guess alternate setting now, The Hunger for Punishment isn't a thing, as it didn't really feel like it fit in with the other 5 (hence the original idea for the splats)

        2) What really makes the Ravenous or the Prophets any more villainous than any other Beast if they just pragmatically hold back enough to not be connected to their crimes?

        You could have a ravenous who holds back enough, in the same way you could have a banisher who only hunts genuinely evil mages or a pure who is just a snobby jerk rather then a genocidal monster. It's just unlikely. The Prophets are villains because of their desire to ultimatly transform everyone into their slaves/cultists (whereas a tryant wants to demonstrate their power, the prophet wants to control everyone for life)

        3) Who is providing these social group powers?

        Like I said, I am unsure about whether powers are a good idea. If they are included, then as Beast are fundementally dream-beings, the archetypes they draw on subtly alter their legend, and thus their supernatural capacities.

        4) Wouldn't it be kind of hard to tell the difference between a really tyrannical Gargoyle and a Prophet?

        Kind of! The main difference would be the typical Gargoyle wouldn't care about what happens outside their domain, while a Prophet is trying to spread their influence as far as possible. But yeah they could be very similar, what do you know?

        Comment


        • #5
          I feel weird getting rid of the Hunger for Punishment. It's such a classic monster motivation, and I thought up a few ways it could fit in in different ways for these social splits if you want to hear them. Yeah, I know you made this to get an alternate to it, but what if they could be combined?


          A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"

          Comment


          • #6
            I would indeed be interested to hear them! More options for things are always good!

            Comment


            • #7
              All of these are stereotypes partly. Your character does not have to follow them if you can find another angle for their combo

              Teacher Nemeses don't just hurt to punish, they make an example of their victims. Through their punishment, they set an example of why society has rules that you must follow. Often, they go for ironic punishments to highlight the original sin if they can. At best, they are stern teachers. At worst, they are Light Yagami.


              Nemesis Nemeses (one of these needs a name change) could care less about teaching a lesson. In their mind, there will always be sinners, and just as well, there will always be someone to punish them. They see themselves as agents of karma in a way, keeping a little bit of moral balance in the world. As the purest expression of the Nemesis philosophy, they are often found working as leaders and spiritual guides to Nemeses with other hungers, helping them channel their Hungers constructively and policing them just as harshly as they do mortals. At best, they are philosophers of pain and retribution with wisdom that all should at least give a listen to. The worst are those who see sinners as free toys for them to break.


              Servant Nemeses come in two flavors: reactionary and inquisitor. Which one a Beast follows at the moment can change quickly with their Satiety. Like many other Servants, they care little about what happens to anything not related to their literal or ideological master, but the first type are far less proactive than other Servants. Reactionaries realize that they get no satisfaction from proactively taking out threats, so they wait and punish those who work against their masters (or themselves if it's an ideology) after they've made the first move. No one has ever proven it, but there's always at least one rumor going around at any time about Nemeses Hungry enough to purposefully let their master get hurt or set back when they could have prevented it. Those who act as the "genie in the lamp" tend to lean towards this role. Inquisitors are those who set themselves up as a sort of internal affairs, punishing other members for stepping out of line or betraying the group outright. In groups, they go after anyone who has bent the rules of the group, which can range from embezzlers to informants to even someone stealing office supplies. If they follow an ideal, they seek out others who claim to strive toward that ideal and judge them for any deviations. In general, they are valiant protectors and passionate firebrands at best and bloody guard dogs and conformity police at worst


              Warlock Nemeses are often found in the business of law and protection. A Warlock acknowledges what they hunger for, but often believe enough in the rule of law to want to do it within the
              system as much as possible. This is where you'll see people trying to feed their horrors through arrests and intimidation, or getting offenders sentenced to the worst prisons or the most degrading punishments. This of course, is not always more moral, but the Beast feels it is more human. Other Warlocks think they are Batman and work outside the law, seeing it as too slow. Whether theyas protectors or avengers, the fact remains that they are big believers in vigilantism and scary masks. These Warlocks tend to get along with the Nemesis (whatever we end up calling this social splat) fairly well, even if they think of them as the weird cousin and the Nemesis sees a monster still in the closet. At best, these Warlocks are Batman, Dirty Harry, and the guys from Law & Order. At their worst, they're the head of the lynch mob and the prosecutor who is the reason the recidivism rate is sky high.


              A neighborhood guarded by a Gargoyle Nemesis is a safe and lovely haven that still somehow has multiple police investigations going on for mysterious incidents. He's the park ranger who always seems a bit too dedicated. She's the night owl on the Community watch who does things to preps when no one can prove it. All that really connects these disparate people is a desire to guard their territory and a general reactionary instead of proactive attitude.

              How are these so far?


              A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"

              Comment


              • #8
                From the other angle, other Hungers in the Punishment Justification:

                Nemesis Tyrants: At the centre of any system of rule and punishment are those empowered to judge. And by definition the judge must stand above the judged - at all times they must embody the fact that there is a greater power that stands among the sinners.

                Nemesis Collectors: These Beasts go after those with too much, especially if that comes at the expense of others. It's an irony, certainly, given their own Hunger, but they justify it by saying that it grants them understanding of the truly greedy - and among Collectors, they are the most likely to hide their acquisitions away after gathering them, and not attempt to benefit from them further.

                Nemesis Predators: It's not the punishment people truly fear, but the likelihood of being caught. And Predators see everything, can find anything, and can catch up with anyone. Their Hunger ensures that those who deserve punishment will not escape its reach.

                Nemesis Ravagers: These Beasts concentrate on institional crimes. Communities that commit collective sins, and thus deserve collective punishment that destroys their illusions of safety and righteousness.

                Hunger for Secrets: (I don't know what they're called, just that they'll be in the Player's Guide - their shtick isn't learning secrets so much as making sure someone with a secret realises that someone else knows). Those who commit crimes usually do it in the dark - these Beasts show them that there is light in that dark, that their crimes are known - they don't inflict direct punishment, they drive the miscreant to ultimately punish themselves through their paranoia and denial.

                (So I agree with keeping Punishment as both a Hunger and Justification - though of course renaming one of them).


                I faction I've had in the past was something I called Raveners, similar to your Ravenous. However mine, while they fed without shame or guilt, didn't necessarily feed without conscience. In essence, Hunger was a "right thing," but not necessarily the only right thing. Perhaps there's room for both factions, those who balance their embrace of their Hunger with other mores and morals and those who don't.
                Last edited by SunlessNick; 04-09-2017, 03:42 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I want to point out that although some Begotten may see it that way, Lessons are not a justification but a way for Beasts to make something out of their irrevocably harmful needs and feel at least a little better with themselves*. Existence doesn't need justification, and justification doesn't make it okay or Beasts any less monstrous. Self-aware Beasts know this, but the conflict of ethics and survival is at the heart of the Begotten's struggle with themselves.

                  *(This is well-laid out in the book, despite its controversial and often misconstrued presentation flaws.)

                  Orienting a whole splat axis explicitely around the concept of justifying your wrongs flies in the face of something integral to the hardship of the titular characters of Beast The Primordial, and easily veers into abuse apologia. If you're married to the underlying idea of a major social axis and want to develop it as something that doesn't skew nor excuse the nature of Beasts, I suggest framing it as a set of philosophies or lines of thought that give Beasts a reason for their predations beyond simple survival, and don't shy away from the truth of what they do.
                  Last edited by YeOfLittleFaith; 04-09-2017, 03:43 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    YeOfLittleFaith- Firstly, I admit that "Justification", which can imply "see, things are ok now", isn't the best choice of words. That isn't the intended purpose of this- all of the splats I came up with can be unquestionably horrific and monstrous despite, or indeed because of, how they justify their actions to themselves. The feel is meant to be a lot more "whatever helps you sleep at night" rather then "look, the nightmare fear-monsters are great really". I am genuinely sorry if this got mixed up, and would happily take advice on how to avoid that

                    (to be honest, "justification" was chosen mostly because "excuse" or similar words seemed a little too on the nose. If you can think of any words that capture the idea without either that problem or the borderline-apologia problem, I would actually be quite grateful)

                    As to the problem of the underlying themes of the game, perhaps my issue is I find it hard to see the difference between "This is the good from what I've done, so now I feel better" and "Look,here's how I'm excusing what I've done". Beasts are genuinely monsterous in a way that no other splat (bar perhaps vampires) are, and the fact that the lesson-learning thing is put in almost without discussion irked me even in the final product. Vampires have complex ideologies and social groups and beliefs and power games to distract them from their monstrosity. Beasts have a vague, nebulous idea of "teaching lessons" and very little else.

                    The "justifications" can be done as reasons for predation without changing much ("I hunt to enforce the law" "I hunt to promote my mundane actions" "I hunt to support my cause") but I do feel that, beneath the monomyth and the crossovers and the dream-realms, not enough effort is put into discussing how people who were at least nominally human deal with transforming into creatures that have to cause misery to exist. That is at least partly my reasoning behind this homebrew (that, and the general slightly-anemic fluff of beast in general)

                    Well, now I've possibly started a flame war, onto the other posts!
                    Master Aquostic- I like those! (maybe "Judges" as a name change, for the social splat?)

                    SunlessNick- I also like those! The Raveners and Ravenous could be different factions of the same group, one more approachable then the other. It could add some depth to an admittedly somewhat one-dimensional group.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      A Beast doesn't have much personal need to Justify themselves-we're talking about a group of folks who chose their monstrous nature after experiencing what they will do to their victims in a way that makes for a visceral comparison to them(remember that even if the dream horrors they commit to other people doesn't amount to more than a shock because, for them, it's a shock, for the Beast the harms and traumas they experience during the revelation of their Devouring is as real to them as anything we experience in the flesh since their existence is half-psychospiritual, and therefore is comparable to the things they might do to people in the world of the waking). A Beast doesn't lack for place- satisfying Hunger and building their Lair is intrinsically satisfying, a base fulfillment of self that is actually a minor actualization point each time it's done, a re-affirmation of the rightness of place. They are the world, the mighty and terrible of it's nature, whole and true in a way saints could only hope to be. The only lack as regards their Legend is that the Legend can always be more, which, hey, both Hunger Feeding and Lair Building deal with.

                      There's a variety of reasons that tie into why teaching culture, but the heart of it is has to do with control of the narrative and refinement of the self-things that are one and the same to the Beast. This can get a little weird to get into fully, so it's worth breaking it down into defying their enemies and satisfying their Life before talking about how this relates back to the refinement of Legend/Lair/Satiety.

                      Beasts stand between two worlds, and they are beset on both sides with adversaries who impose their own stories on them. Heroes are the more frequent of the two, and while a Hero theoretically doesn't care what the Beast's case is, a) they might-some Heroes are more on the edge of persuasion than others, or at least on the edge of inner conflict about all of this that can be exploited, and b) Heroes might hog all the glory, but they often rely on both their own followers and just the simple layout of society to reinforce itself around them, and those more normal elements can be stopped/slowed by a Beast who is more than the simple monster. A Beast who teaches is a harder target to kill, particularly if they build that complicated identity to fullness. There's also just something really damn satisfying of bucking the trends laid out by Heroes, and if it covers the territory they theoretically were supposed to cover(imparting wisdom from the depths of naturalistic nihilism, or in relation to that), it's all the sweeter. It's about ripping the meaning from the Heroes and controlling their image, which for creatures like Beasts, is controlling their extended self. The teaching culture makes them more than mere Beasts, and gives Beast's a mythic battle script to fight on that isn't monomyth.

                      By contrast, the rarer Insatiable hit from the opposite route, trying to rend any meaning from a Beast and their existence down to a living portent of fatalism. For as much as Beasts embody the fragility of the concepts that society is built on, they also do reinforce it by utilizing it themselves, and as such are creatures that push the refinement of societal elements through opposition. The Insatiable want Beasts to abandon that notion and become as base and degenerate as they are, and they assault their pretense at meaning, value, and place on every front, from subverting the Lair to matching the Primogenitor against the Dark Mother, trying to make Beasts symbolize the utter defeat of not only themselves, but humanity through surrender. Beasts, in their already precarious positions, might be able to fight them off by embracing that notion of fatalism, that utter senselessness to even existence itself, but in doing so they have to ask the question if they are setting themselves or future incarnations up to become the next Insatiable. Beasts defy this vision of despair as much as monomyth because, let's be honest, it is in itself a sort of monomythic structure.

                      Beasts are comfortable with their self being, but their self is under assault, and the lesson teaching is a method of reclaiming that from their enemies and creating an ascendancy that will trump the lot of them and the human world-but we'll come back to that. Let's go to Life for a second.

                      While Beasts are monsters by informed choice and are now the world in a deeply personal and primal way, the simple fact is that they were human personally, and also are humanity in a very large way still, as a living piece of the shared base human experience real estate. Simply put, their Life does matter to them, and while they aren't human, they have a relationship to humanity that demands some sort of manifestation. And, sure, really that could just mean go out with your mates for a burger once in a while instead of just going out to munch on shock-but Beasts are kind of the collective Jungian Shadow of the species in various ways(not an entirely accurate comparison, I admit), and it's missing some of the point of their existence. Simple put, monsters are the cause of revelation, of insight, of learning and growth, they are the concept we pit ourselves against and sandblast ourselves into ever-improving states with. A Beast doesn't have to be an active participant in that, and obligation to do so is non-existent-but it is satisfying to still be part of the human experience by shaping it. And hell, it doesn't even have to be big-a Beast can fulfill their relationship to humanity by realizing two people should hook up and shoving them into doing just that by kidnapping one and having the other come to rescue them.

                      Yes, I just accused Beasts of possibly sometimes being matchmakers. It's adorable and cute and you want to tell that story now, don't you.

                      Putting that aside, this comes back to the control of narrative and refinement of self. As I said, a Beast generically starts off surprisingly actualized, but they can be more. Not only can the story be bigger, but it can be fully theirs, the whole of their psychospiritual self fully claimed. By claiming the moral, they inject humanity into their monstrosity and deny it from others, and by their actions make it real and manifest. Incarnation is actually a wholly terrible thing from the one angle, but it's also important as a hyper example of this being fully and wholly yourself, to be that proper and fully realized synthesis of the world within the gourd we call self, to be vastness untouched and unclaimed by anything other than themselves-to be so fully balanced as to be integral, unchangeable to the world they represent or the humanity that symbolize it, to be unassailable, whole, unchallengeable. A Beast might not always want that-again, strains can go too far into the inverted Monomyth crimes enacted by the Incarnated-but even the most relaxed of Beasts wants very much for people to stop telling them how the story goes, and by claiming the themes and putting them into action themselves, they slowly claim a world beyond what is said, and drag it into the world that is.

                      TL;DR, teaching culture is the middle finger to a world that tries to tell them to be the enemy outsider and nothing else. Alternatives to that don't have to answer that, but they must offer options of the same weight.


                      Sean K.I.W. Steele, Freelance Writer
                      Work Blog Coming Soon
                      The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I really don't understand the 'controversy' to being a Beast. You don't explicitly have to physically harm your victim to feed, you just need to extract fear from them. And unless you're feeding on the same person over and over again, nobody is going to be traumatized from having the occasional bad dream. How many people do you know who have a nightmare and decide to pick up a rifle and go slay the next door neighbors? That sounds like a paranoid schizophrenic, not a common victim of a Beast's feeding.


                        I think people took a cursory glance at the theme of Beast and jumped to conclusions about it being a game that glorifies the rape, torture and killing of society; which is not at all what the game is about! Or if it ever was, that's not what it's about now. Each of the Hungers have a way in which they could be played from a beneficial standpoint, which is ultimately what most Beasts try to do.


                        Power - There's always somebody higher than you!

                        Hoard - Don't be so materialistic!

                        Punishment - You aren't above the law!

                        Destruction - It's not worth your life!

                        Prey - This is not your area of expertise!
                        Last edited by Nyrufa; 04-09-2017, 06:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Would this all be solved by calling them Philosophies instead of Justifications? Or making them into full-on organizations?

                          ArcaneArts Out of all of them, I feel like Nemesis (maybe Judge), Prophet and obviously Teacher do the best job on the alternative place in the human story angle
                          Last edited by Master Aquatosic; 04-09-2017, 06:31 PM.


                          A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Maybe "Causes" might be a better name? Or even "Accords", signifying some kind of compromise between the beast and the horror, thus giving both the "reasons to predate" and "salve for the conscience" room (luckily there are no other splats using that!)

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X