The astral ideal of monsters and its relation to hunters

[Primordial newcomer]

So hunters. They (most) are fundamentally human, but have twisted their morals into the Hunter "Codes". Codes that often lead to some alien ideas of morality.
Is it possible that if a hunter were to have a very altered Code, they would begin to fit into the Astral idea of monsters, thus allowing for Kinship? Or must they have a supernatural quality (unless the only way for non supernatural hunters to gain kinship is to become a Scourge).

I've just been wondering this, because as far as I know, Kinship is connected with the astral, which means it's not necessarily literal monsters that connect to Beasts, but simply those that can be considered monstrous. Is it not possible for a hunter to gain that?

[wyrdhamster]

I would reverse question - Can Begottenhave Kinship with Slashers? Slashers are the most inhuman hunters, having their own Code that lead them to killing people. If Slashers are treated as Kin, then you have your answer.

[Guest]

I would say no because I interpret Kinship literally: creatures that are either literally descended from the Dark Mother or that she claims are descended from her. Hunters are created specifically to destroy her other children, so it’s unlikely she would see them as her Kin any more than the Unchained are.

OTOH, it is a really interesting idea from a gaming perspective. It’s possible that as with the Uratha, I’m taking the idea of Kinship too literally by requiring a biological parent-child relationship between a creature type and the Dark Mother.

Sorry. I’m kind of rambling here. If you think making certain hunters Kin is good from a gaming perspective, go for it, but I think the answer is no. Not every CoD creature is Kin, and hunters (like demons) are not no matter how monstrous.

wyrdhamster Slashers, maybe. I haven’t read H:tV 2e, so idk anything about the origin of Slashers.

[Satchel]

I would reverse question - Can Begottenhave Kinship with Slashers? Slashers are the most inhuman hunters, having their own Code that lead them to killing people. If Slashers are treated as Kin, then you have your answer.

Slashers are specifically listed in the "Fundamentally Human" classification alongside mages, psychics, mediums, and ghosts. Chapter Five's section on Hunters further notes:

But where vampires and witches and their ilk share a common descent from the Dark Mother, hunters are by and large pure human. Even hunters with surgical augmentation, such as the Cheiron Group's Thaumatechnology, or induced psychic phenomena, like VASCU's telepathic agents, aren't inherently monstrous enough to count as anything but human. That largely bars them from forming Kinship bonds and fully joining a Brood — at least without drastic actions. Beasts tell stories of dream-quests and sacred hunts deep into the Primordial Dream that awaken just enough of a human's Bestial aspect to become Kin to Beasts. Hunters with Endowments stemming from their bloodline, like the Lucifuge, can form Kinship bonds without the ordeal — and more disturbingly, so can slashers, even if they were born as bog-standard normal humans.

[Guest]

Slashers are specifically listed in the "Fundamentally Human" classification alongside mages, psychics, mediums, and ghosts. Chapter Five's section on Hunters further notes:

Thanks. That answers the question, at least from an official perspective. I also totally agree with it. I think Slashers should be considered Kin, as should Hunters like the Lucifuge whose powers are derived from their bloodline (hence the idea of Kinship being a literal familial relationship).

[Guest]

I also agree that “normal” Hunters are fundamentally human and should not be considered Kin.

[Primordial newcomer]

I also agree that “normal” Hunters are fundamentally human and should not be considered Kin.

Kinship does not translate to literal children. Mages, Slashers, and Hunters like the Lucifuge are considered monstrous enough that they are considered "related". Fundamentally human simply mean to where vampires and such are seen as half siblings, fundamentally human kin is seen as cousins more than anything.

wyrdhamster yeah I realize that. But I wonder if their Code MUST become that of the Slasher in order to become Kin. But it seems entirely reasonable they must. The dream quests to awaken inner beastie qualities interests me though.

[Guest]

Primordial newcomer thanks. I didn’t understand that.

Also, are Hunters and Slashers related? I haven’t read H:tV 2e (though I defo want to when it comes out).

[Primordial newcomer]

Primordial newcomer thanks. I didn’t understand that.

Also, are Hunters and Slashers related? I haven’t read H:tV 2e (though I defo want to when it comes out).

So Slashers arent necessarily related with hunters. Any regular enough human could be on. However, being a hunter increases the chances you become a Slasher

A Slasher is a person who becomes addicted to the impulse to kill and gains almost superhuman ability (Ripper) to completely supernatural (Scourge). Many hunters become Slashers because being a hunter is a good way to lose all Integrity and become addicted to murder (Slashers are people with 0 integrity who are addicted to murder)

[FallenEco]

As noted above, Slashers are considered Kin in the same way ghosts are.
I do find it interesting that some Hunters are by default, depending on on their Endowments. it does make sense but I find it amusing the play around with expectations in the grey area. AkD and TF:V should not be considered Kin by their splat alone...but if enough other Hunters believes that they don't count as human for the Code...

[Guest]

So Slashers arent necessarily related with hunters. Any regular enough human could be on. However, being a hunter increases the chances you become a Slasher

A Slasher is a person who becomes addicted to the impulse to kill and gains almost superhuman ability (Ripper) to completely supernatural (Scourge). Many hunters become Slashers because being a hunter is a good way to lose all Integrity and become addicted to murder (Slashers are people with 0 integrity who are addicted to murder)

Thanks. My personal theory is that Jack the Ripper was the first known Slasher (except for maybe the random mention of one in the Scandinavian witch hunter era in Dark Eras 2), but that could change once I read H:tV 2e.

[FallenEco]

Thanks. My personal theory is that Jack the Ripper was the first known Slasher (except for maybe the random mention of one in the Scandinavian witch hunter era in Dark Eras 2), but that could change once I read H:tV 2e.

Personally I prefer the old plot hook from the original Slasher book and how the Cheiron Group doesn't go after Slashers because of they learned all they needed from Achilles, Herakles, etc, back in the day.
But you do you.

[Guest]

FallenEco I never read that. Are they saying that Achilles and Heracles were Slashers?

[Primordial newcomer]

FallenEco I never read that. Are they saying that Achilles and Heracles were Slashers?

It's possible. While generally thought of as heroes (Heracles as a Hero sometimes), the Slasher book posits that they were instead possibly Slashers, mad killers who by the grace of warrior society were able to get along fine enough in society. Heracles killing his family in a rage is a good example.

Of course, you can still have that and still have Jack be the first widely agreed upon first recorded Slasher

[Guest]

Hmmm. That is a cool idea.