Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The astral ideal of monsters and its relation to hunters

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

  • Primordial newcomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Jacob View Post
    Re: The original question in the first post. I would point out that the sidebar regarding Family Ties doesn't specifically disqualify anything that's Fundamentally Human from gaining the Family Ties Condition. It really only says "supernatural creature" and since human characters can have supernatural Merits and things like minor templates exist, I'd say that a great deal of wiggle room exists for troupes to decide one way or the other locally as their games need. IMO, the Fundamentally Human can have the Family Ties Condition. The only things that I'd say are explicitly ruled out are other Beasts (which is weird if you think about it) and anything for which "Kinship Does Not Apply," e.g., Demons, Angels, and the like.
    Minor templates have made me wonder too actually. Perhaps Proximi could be Kin too

    And regarding Kinship with Beasts, I always thought that was weird too. I wonder if shared chambers from the players guide was to rectify that. At least, I think it would make sense if Beasts didnt have Kinship with fellow beasts because of how their Lairs interact and such. Either way, yeah it is kinda weird but that's the only justification I can think of

    Leave a comment:


  • Jacob
    replied
    Re: The original question in the first post. I would point out that the sidebar regarding Family Ties doesn't specifically disqualify anything that's Fundamentally Human from gaining the Family Ties Condition. It really only says "supernatural creature" and since human characters can have supernatural Merits and things like minor templates exist, I'd say that a great deal of wiggle room exists for troupes to decide one way or the other locally as their games need. IMO, the Fundamentally Human can have the Family Ties Condition. The only things that I'd say are explicitly ruled out are other Beasts (which is weird if you think about it) and anything for which "Kinship Does Not Apply," e.g., Demons, Angels, and the like.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    LostLight thank you 😊. Post or send me a link to your new STV title and I’ll defo check it out.

    Leave a comment:


  • LostLight
    replied
    Originally posted by Penelope View Post

    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.
    Like, in the Slasher book I think that Nimrod from the bible was stated potentially being the "first Slasher", with him being "great hunter before God" means he hunted people. Sure, it is only a legend, but the book did lead to the concept that slashers are not a modern phenomena, but something very, very old. If you are interested in very old slashers, keep an eye open for the next few days, as my next STV title may be fitting for your interests (shameless promotion :P)

    As for Kinship as such- as other people have stated, slashers are Kin, because they are monsters. The fact that they are also human does not contradict it. And for hunters, there is that nice little fiction there in the Beast's core book where some Beast enters into what sounds like one of Cheiron's facilities, and while she despise them as the Dark Mother whispering in her ear that they ARE family, just like any other monster.

    Of course, it could refer to the Director Board- but I always wondered on the possibility of a certain hunter becoming into a Kin by stuffing enough monster parts into them. Plus, Cheiron's mythological role as the one to "train heroes" makes that connection between Beasts and that conspiracy feel very.. natural, let's say.

    Leave a comment:


  • FallenEco
    replied
    It was merely suggested, never confirmed. And the text only mentions Heracles by name. Achilles was just another 'hero' trained by the mythological Cheiron.
    Mind you, nothing stops Slashers from being Heroes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    Hmmm. That is a cool idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Primordial newcomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Penelope View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • FallenEco
    replied
    Originally posted by Penelope View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    Originally posted by Primordial newcomer View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • FallenEco
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Primordial newcomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Penelope View Post
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Primordial newcomer
    replied
    Originally posted by Penelope View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X