Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Beast Nature and Morality

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jacob View Post
    But you seem to be under the impression that it isn't a game about monomyth and Heroes aren't a necessary feature of it.
    You seem to be under the impression that "Heroes are central to Beasts' existences" is a thing that is not at odds with all the ways in which the game makes it clear Heroes that hunt Beasts operate as an imposition on the nature of the Begotten, up to and including how "be more than just the monster in the dark" is one of many reasons Beasts make an effort to do more with their lives than just feed their Hungers.

    You seem to be under the impression that "Heroes are not central to Beasts' existences" is synonymous with "Heroes are unnecessary." It's not. Beasts are not the monomyth itself and that narrative structure's nominal protagonist is not the defining facet of their nature.


    Resident Lore-Hound
    Currently Consuming: Demon: the Descent 1e

    Comment


    • #17
      Well, I'd rather not embark on an intimate rant. But let it be said I know very well how Arcanist feels. I'm sorry you went through all that. I hope you can turn all that pain into the determination to be the best you can.

      As for Beasts and morality...I'll try to be brief. I like more versatile and nuanced Heroes, yes, but the first draft had a very cathartic bite to it. I am reminded of Bruce Banner and all the different Hulks beating against the walls of his mind. Beasts who try to be more than just mindless engines of destruction go through a similar struggle. Glossing over the grotesque, shocking and abominable is to take away the gravitas of the Begotten. To make it their sole reason for existing is equally superficial.

      When faced with the Beast, the Hero says: "I will fear no evil, even as I walk through the darkest valley, for I believe in my cause".

      The Beast replies: "I am that dark valley, and I'll be forever with you, so you will not go blind from the light that guides you".

      They were Yin and Yang long before these words existed, and will always confront each other regardless of what we call them.

      The mono-myth is changed because the Beasts have their own Quest: to go beyond the edges of their darkness and find what lies beyond.


      "I hope you will have a long and happy life, if only so you can realize how stupid and wrong you are."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Satchel View Post
        You seem to be under the impression that "Heroes are central to Beasts' existences" is a thing that is not at odds with all the ways in which the game makes it clear Heroes that hunt Beasts operate as an imposition on the nature of the Begotten, up to and including how "be more than just the monster in the dark" is one of many reasons Beasts make an effort to do more with their lives than just feed their Hungers.
        "Be more than just the monster in the dark" has a huge "so what?" factor attached to it. Other than a tiny amount of info on Lessons we don't really get any substance that supports doing anything other than being monsters in the dark. IMO, this is actually fine but I did like the first draft better than the second too so... YMMV

        The main factor is that people's mileage is varying. Some folks need lessons (and anything else to be a non-monster) to feel any attachment to the game. Since these (CofD games) are all sandbox games, there's no reason to be dogmatic with our interpretations of them. Additional and optional rules that create permutations that they can tailor to their tastes is both a good and necessary thing.

        For the record my personal take on the setting is that humans are all evil (because my own life experiences are much like Arcanist's), either willfully or through neglect, and whatever night terrors Beasts inflict on them they have coming. So morality isn't really an issue to me. That said Heroes are a nerf bat and the game really lacks an antagonist on par with the Strix, God-Machine, or Idigam that Beast's fear. IMO, there should be something that makes them sweat (i.e., "there's always a bigger fish"). I do believe that some of the issues having to do with good/evil fall away as soon as Beasts have some Big Bad(TM) that acts as a true foil to them. Hopefully something like that will rear its head(s) in the STG.

        Originally posted by Satchel View Post
        You seem to be under the impression that "Heroes are not central to Beasts' existences" is synonymous with "Heroes are unnecessary." It's not. Beasts are not the monomyth itself and that narrative structure's nominal protagonist is not the defining facet of their nature.
        Occam's razor. That which is not central isn't necessary. That's just good writing theory. Don't bore us with paper tigers.

        Either I should be using Heroes in my Beast stories or there was a(nother) tremendous waste of space in the book. I'm voting for the former.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Jacob View Post
          IMO, there should be something that makes them sweat (i.e., "there's always a bigger fish").
          They have that. It's the major reason why they're convinced Mom is still out there, for one thing.

          Occam's razor. That which is not central isn't necessary.
          That's not Occam's Razor and we have at least two other gamelines that manage fine without making every antagonist-type central to the game.

          Either I should be using Heroes in my Beast stories or there was a(nother) tremendous waste of space in the book. I'm voting for the former.
          Except that when you say Heroes are either central or unnecessary this statement reads as "If Heroes are included in the book I should have Heroes be the only major antagonist in my Beast stories" and that just doesn't follow anything like naturally from the statement that Beasts are not defined by the monomyth.


          Resident Lore-Hound
          Currently Consuming: Demon: the Descent 1e

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Satchel View Post
            They have that. It's the major reason why they're convinced Mom is still out there, for one thing.
            I must have missed it. Doesn't seem to be in the antagonists chapter of my backer copy...

            Originally posted by Satchel View Post
            That's not Occam's Razor and we have at least two other gamelines that manage fine without making every antagonist-type central to the game.
            Which were these?

            Originally posted by Satchel View Post
            Except that when you say Heroes are either central or unnecessary this statement reads as "If Heroes are included in the book I should have Heroes be the only major antagonist in my Beast stories" and that just doesn't follow anything like naturally from the statement that Beasts are not defined by the monomyth.
            No it doesn't. You're just reading however you want. More to the point though, with mechanics like Legend and Life and the sheer amount of word count spent on Heroes, and Beasts' relationships to them (and Beasts attracting them by feeding) argues that monomyth is actually a central part of the game (which IMO is as it should be). Now invariably you'll point out that if Beasts use Kinship and feed smart they can avoid Heroes altogether just as you have innumerable times in the past but you're rather proving my point about what nerf bats Heroes are.

            We've wandered rather OT here. If you want to continue to discuss feel free to PM me. But at this point (as in the past) I don't think we're likely to convince one another.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jacob View Post
              I must have missed it. Doesn't seem to be in the antagonists chapter of my backer copy...
              Put those goalposts back where they started or so help me.

              Thicker Than Water doesn't eliminate inter-Beast and crossover conflict from the game and "The Begotten widely believe the Dark Mother to still be active on the grounds of their abiding fear of her because she's the type of parent who doesn't hesitate to eat her children" is the apex of the long line of various Bigger Fish that fit the moniker better than a set of debuff-based underdogs with a broken Detect Chaos.

              Which were these?
              Werewolf of the half-dozen antagonist types and Mage of the same.

              No it doesn't. You're just reading however you want.
              In what manner is the false equivalence you present between centrality and necessity meant to be read?

              More to the point though, with mechanics like Legend and Life and the sheer amount of word count spent on Heroes, and Beasts' relationships to them (and Beasts attracting them by feeding) argues that monomyth is actually a central part of the game (which IMO is as it should be).
              Beasts don't attract Heroes by feeding, and in point of fact the exact opposite was long pointed out as one of the reasons Heroes are not inherently justified in hunting Beasts.

              The extent of a Horror's natural concession to mortal narrative is that its Legend is refined and reified by continued exposure to humanity. Heroes aren't de rigueur for monster tales and urban legends and in fact the central characters of those stories pretty much only interact with a "hero" in a story that specifically follows that character. The monomyth is a story structure that not all or even most legendary monsters engage with.

              Now invariably you'll point out that if Beasts use Kinship and feed smart they can avoid Heroes altogether just as you have innumerable times in the past but you're rather proving my point about what nerf bats Heroes are.
              Nope. Pretty much every activity that disturbs the Dream enough to ping Heroic Tracking is an elective activity that high-Lair Beasts are both better equipped to deal with and more likely to make use of. That Low Satiety is not solely the domain of high-Lair Beasts is part of why Heroes are more consistently a threat.

              You further appear to be arguing that the game not supporting your thesis is evidence of the game's failure.


              Resident Lore-Hound
              Currently Consuming: Demon: the Descent 1e

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Satchel View Post
                Thicker Than Water doesn't eliminate inter-Beast and crossover conflict from the game and "The Begotten widely believe the Dark Mother to still be active on the grounds of their abiding fear of her because she's the type of parent who doesn't hesitate to eat her children" is the apex of the long line of various Bigger Fish that fit the moniker better than a set of debuff-based underdogs with a broken Detect Chaos.
                Sorry, still no compelling antagonists on par with Strix, God-Machine, or Idigam. Maybe if Dark Mother had other minions prowling around but they seem to be absent. A notional antagonist is only vaporware.

                Originally posted by Satchel View Post
                Werewolf of the half-dozen antagonist types and Mage of the same.
                Idigam? Also Mage isn't out yet so I'm not sure what it's antagonists chapter looks like. It's possible that Paradox itself might be a compelling antagonist. I'm a wait and see.

                Originally posted by Satchel View Post
                Beasts don't attract Heroes by feeding, and in point of fact the exact opposite was long pointed out as one of the reasons Heroes are not inherently justified in hunting Beasts.

                Pretty much every activity that disturbs the Dream enough to ping Heroic Tracking is an elective activity that high-Lair Beasts are both better equipped to deal with and more likely to make use of. That Low Satiety is not solely the domain of high-Lair Beasts is part of why Heroes are more consistently a threat.

                You further appear to be arguing that the game not supporting your thesis is evidence of the game's failure.
                We agree to disagree. There is no compelling, "make them sweat" antagonist in Beast. The game supports that thesis (by the dearth of evidence that there is one). This isn't evidence of the game's failure. Those are your words. It's evidence of the game's incomplete narrative and overall lower quality than the products that preceded it.

                You seem to think that elective choice is "the thing" but we're not talking about high-Lair Beasts. We're talking about the game from an external "what does this text do?" perspective. No one chooses to get mugged. No one chooses to get cancer. No one chooses to get abused. Those are all life risks. There are things in the dark that we should fear. What do Beast's fear? Right now, it looks like they fear nothing because they have a swiss army knife tool for everything. There's always something they can do to avoid x, y, z. I'm sorry you think that's good design. But that doesn't make for very compelling stories. Compelling are the villains you can't avoid. Compelling are the things that are imposed on your life by external forces. Compelling is when you can't maintain control. Why does the old guy die in the Shining? Because he knows too much. If he could head things off at the pass there'd be no story. Right now, Beasts are just like that old guy.

                I'll point out again how this no longer has anything to do with Beasts' natures or their morality. Feel free PM if you want to continue this OT quibble. Also feel free to keep moving the goalposts around all you like. I'll just keep moving them back to their start position. Your debate technique of switching the focus to your own questions rather than addressing mine is good for the audience but loses every time I say "no." Call me a positivist if you like but, I'm still waiting for some evidence of a Chronicle-level antagonist on par with those we've been given in other games. Something dark and mysterious like Strix, God-Machine, or Idigam. You've just said Dark Mother fulfills this role but Beasts' relationship with the Dark Mother is hardly antagonistic and even if it was, there are no mechanisms that support it. I'd have to hack some dark gribbly thing up. I could do that. But frankly it's easier to simply tweak Heroes, Incarnates, and Unfettered into things that Beasts can't easily manage or overcome. And of course, at no time have you managed to showcase how Heroes are other than nerfbats.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The argument that some antagonist is or not "compelling" is entirely subjective, YMMV type of argument.

                  In beast you play the thing under the metaphorical bed. They're explicitly stated in the write up, as far as I followed it, to be beyond the Mortal notion of fear. To them it's sustenance.

                  To portray them differently would have been a disservice

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Ironically, all this jabber about heroes and stuff brings me around to one particular topic, but it's clear I need to get there by way of meandering.

                    So, let me start off with something obvious.

                    THIS GAME IS NOT ABOUT MONOMYTH.

                    Monomyth is the danger of this game, deeper than Heroes, Hungers, the Primordial Dream, anything. This game is not about the indulgence of it. In trope-y, write-y terms, it is about the subversion and deconstruction of it, but let's get honest here and just call it the outright defiance of the heroes journey and it's supposed dominance over not only narrative but human history.

                    In a strange fit of irony, this defiance of monomyth and it's imposition creates a new skewed angle on the entire argument for/or against the teaching culture of Beasts. Monomyth tries to assert it's vision of understanding over a wide variety of things in the world that don't fit under it's line of argument, and the lessons are an attempt to create meaning from basic facts. Clearly there's a distinction here, in that monomyth tries to assert a singular form and a finite series of lessons while the Beasts can be conceived as artists of the self, but both are attempts to create meaning where there isn't inherently any, just in different ways. This'll matter in a particular way soon, but for now, it serves as a nice wrench in the old discussion.

                    But yeah, back onto the other function of defying monomyth in this game. Firstly, it can't namely be about Heroes. A game that monofocuses and gives too much credence in the larger sense to them is a game that risks giving too much credence to monomyth, even if it's the other way around. Subvert the Hero is proof of an Incarnate's inherent wrongness because it ostensibly does this, as do the other methods of Control the Hive and Spawn the Legend. No, Beast needs to tell stories that break and deviate from monomyth and challenge it's inhernecy. It also needs to occaisionally have the terrifying implication that it has some gravity, and it has to have that in ways that imply it beyond it's own heroes, since Beasts are creatures that see the entire Chronicles world far more than most do. All of this means a deliberate non-focus on Heroes as the all important feature of the game. Heroes work best as a cart upsetter, at the narrative points that most intrinsically speak to the nightmare that monomyth might be right, when it has the most gravity.

                    Before talking about conflict, it should be noted that the 'friendly crossover' side of Beast is the first approach of this game to breaking the reliance on monomyth. Namely, it breaks the idea of violent conflict as norm, even the desire for violence as narrative as norm. The Kinship system and the Storytelling Chapter incentivize stories that break going in and busting shit up, trying to instead find where the tangle in the weave is and work that out. Beast actually is much more about setting problems than character problems, in a way that ironically echoes mortal investigators, and this makes sense Beasts are supernatural investigators, in a similar fashion to Mages. It's important that Beast games take the time to avoid an refrain from the more brutal stories, because down that way lies the conqueror's attitude of monomyth.

                    One of the things that Matt explicitly called out as going into the revision process of Beast mid-Kickstarter is Beast versus Beast, and honestly you don't get more naturalistic than that. At it's basic level, it's the world moving and shifting coincidence, predators fighting over territory for family and resources. At more complex levels, it's an ideological battle of what meaning can be created out of the world. And it comes in differing and unstable scales and points of perspective and meaning and brutality. Beast versus Beast is as Primordial as the game implies, conflict that evokes the bedrock of early mythology. It's important that we have these fights to break down the highly complex ideas we have and get them back down to basics, ironically grounding our high and mighty ideals back into the animal urges.

                    As a similar affair, conflict with other supernaturals is also an inherent part of life. Despite the incentives, Beasts aren't perfect, and indeed they shouldn't-after all, this is where you can really let the fear of monomyth settle in, by having it incarnate in spheres beyond Beast's specific realm of influence. It's also important to create this push and pull of inclusion and exclusion-Beasts should always feel capable of getting inside but at risk of permanently being the outsider-being the outsider, after all, is something that consigns them to the doom of monomyth. Conflict with other monsters is important and integral to the ideas and themes that make Beast mythically non-mythic.

                    At the center of this idea of being the outsider, of a world system that is beyond Beasts and rejects them and consigns them to a doomed role time and again, that asserts great man theories because such confluences serve it perfectly, is the God-Machine and It's Angels.

                    We've meandered our way to the rant I wanted, though it's not quite the point.

                    Every once and a while I see arguments that angels shouldn't have been included in the corebook, and that goetia should have been used instead. Disregarding how viable it is to put goetia into Beast at the time it was coming out, this is one of those points that is so head-bangingly frustrating to read that I am forced to I can't even. What, did people think the "All of Us Against the Stranger" sell of buying both Beast and Demon was done for kicks and giggles? No!

                    The first and most common reason I hear why angels shouldn't have been included is because a Beast can't bond with them, which is patently absurd. A Beast needs conflict with beings outside of it's sphere to lay down the fear of the setting, to settle down the singularity of doom on their lives while also making a viable case for dubious questioning, and who the fuck better than the world controlling outsider of the God-Machine and It's Angels? The GM does this shit all the time, casting people merely as roles in narratives without giving a care-the God-Machine can be so paint by the numbers that honestly it could be behind A1 Pictures*. It does Great Man Prophecies, castings into the underworld, Boons from the Goddesses, all of this as a matter of course, and it wouldn't look twice at a Beast before saying "Hey, you need to die because that's what makes the world go around like clockwork." At the same time, it's so sacredly apart that it's abundantly clear that the Beast has a chance. Conflict with angels can be a great way to set up a Hero, because angels create the thematic tension Beast needs so well. Angels weren't a waste of space, they were a clear and present opportunity to deal with a midground between actual Hero conflict narratives and the rest of Beast's slew of mainstay stories. They bridge ideas and allow for more dynamic stories than just "Oh, time to fight another Hero so I don't fall into fate."

                    Putting aside other reasons, There's a great game of contrasts with pitting Beasts against angels. I mean, c'mon, masculine vs feminine principles, religion vs spirituality, reason vs intuition, naturalism vs futurism, desire for inclusion vs desire for exclusion, serenity vs passion, all this and more is made ready and available by having angels available, but not bondable. They're a clear and present tool that has more than enough reason to be there, since a lot of this stuff is intrinsic in the mind of people reading it even if they don't have the larger context of the Chronicles of Darkness. Played well with some of the other elements of the Chronicles of Darkness, you can weave an incredibly rich game of complex ideas and challenges. And in fact you should!

                    This is because that incredibly rich and complex tapestry is the thing that Heroes tear apart. When a Hero does show up, at the culmination of this complexity and uncertainty, they act in a way that renders the complexity of the story down to nothing. There is only Monomyth. There is only doom. All ideals of the freedom of a meaningless world crumbles, there is a meaning. All ideals of a complex and rich world of a myriad of stories crumbles, there is only one story. All hopes for a happy life crumbles, there is only dying as the fulfillment of another person's arc.

                    I get people saying Heroes are underpowered and need a few tools to make them a consistent threat, and I don't disagree with that sentiment-while I will still claim that a lot of this involves playing Heroes intelligently and brutally with overwhelming tactics, it definitely would not hurt for them to get a boost. But I think one thing people forget about is the way a Beast reacts to the above paragraph. It can only be cheapened by mechanics, for the most part, but the presence of a Hero should mean fatalism for a Beast. A part of the Beast should be ready to give up when a Hero shows up simply because they can't escape this feeling of inevitability. A good game creates a real atmospheric sense of doom around the idea of the Hero. You don't do that by throwing Hero after Hero at the Beast. Heroes are only all-important as an illusion cast on themselves and on Beasts who lose sight of the world. In a lot of ways, they should be as weak as they, they should be unimpressive, because in the end, they don't actually mean anything inherently of themselves. They're skalds, warriors-poets who interpret the world for others, but in and of themselves on a method of translation, a bringer of meaning, but not the meaning itself. But the fear of Heroes is the fear that their self-importance matters, that it speaks to truths inescapable. They are the nightmares of Beast-as fleeting and transient, but all consuming and terrifying in the moment of having one.

                    Beast is a game about defying a destructive, singular view of the world. By necessity, it's also a game about the fear of that view being true. The tension of the game comes from revealing the truth of a vastly more complex and rich world as well as showing forces that make the lie seem plausible. Players need to explore all facets of the game to make this really work in the beautiful, brutal, bloody, ancient way it's supposed to. An over-reliance on heroes just turns it into Monomyth of another color. So really, play the game, explore the world, make friends, fight with vampires, share a movie with a True Fae.

                    And for the love of god, use angels to great effect, because god damn, that's not just in the book for sake of ease. It's there for a reason.

                    *That's an anime joke, for those of you not familiar with the McDonalds of Animation.
                    Last edited by ArcaneArts; 10-22-2018, 11:54 PM.


                    Kelly R.S. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                    The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                    Feminine pronouns, please.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post
                      Putting aside other reasons, There's a great game of contrasts with pitting Beasts against angels. I mean, c'mon, masculine vs feminine principles, religion vs spirituality, reason vs intuition, naturalism vs futurism, desire for inclusion vs desire for exclusion, serenity vs passion, all this and more is made ready and available by having angels available, but not bondable. They're a clear and present tool that has more than enough reason to be there, since a lot of this stuff is intrinsic in the mind of people reading it even if they don't have the larger context of the Chronicles of Darkness. Played well with some of the other elements of the Chronicles of Darkness, you can weave an incredibly rich game of complex ideas and challenges. And in fact you should!
                      Thank you for framing the bold section this way instead of religion vs science! Anyhow, you've sold me on Angels vs Beasts Arc. I know not everyone will agree with Beasts vs the God Machine, but it sounds awesome the way you've written it. Matt, if you are reading, give this man a spot on the Storyteller's Guide!


                      Chris H | Patreon | He/His | Currently Writing: Daughters of Hera (Scion, Nexus) | Rome 2e (CofD, Vault)

                      CofD booklists: Beast I Changeling | Demon | Deviant (WIP) | Geist l Hunter l Mage | Mummy | Promethean | Vampire | Werewolf

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'll admit I hadn't given Beasts Vs The God-Machine much thought other than as an outside context problem/antagonist to reinforce some other themes, but I concur with Second Chances. Put like that, it sounds very rich in its own right.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post
                          Heroes are only all-important as an illusion cast on themselves and on Beasts who lose sight of the world. In a lot of ways, they should be as weak as they, they should be unimpressive, because in the end, they don't actually mean anything inherently of themselves. They're skalds, warriors-poets who interpret the world for others, but in and of themselves on a method of translation, a bringer of meaning, but not the meaning itself. But the fear of Heroes is the fear that their self-importance matters, that it speaks to truths inescapable. They are the nightmares of Beast-as fleeting and transient, but all consuming and terrifying in the moment of having one.
                          Why not give Heroes the power to do that direclty?

                          Rework the Anthema system so that rather than Anthema being a generic weakness, they become an ever tightening net that forces a Beast to adhere to the Hero's meaning.


                          “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
                          My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
                          Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I'm not saying I don't have a system in mind for that. I'm not saying it would hurt to have something like that.

                            But regardless of mechanical backing, it's still a truth. It's a thing that should be remembered when roleplaying. Whether or not it is backed by mechanics, it is a true and substantial factor in the lives of Beasts. It matters, in that way only stories can.

                            And again, there's always this danger of it backfiring. Heroes don't have legitimacy in the way they think they do.

                            Currently, the mechanic in my head works something like Plans, in that the system applies until it fails, at which point it's gone until the Hero can build it up again. But even then, how mechanical should something be when it's just fear? On the other hand, how can something that has a psychospiritual/flesh existence not build up something?

                            it's one of those things to wrestle with. Maybe by the time we get an ST Guide in the works, it'll be something substantial. For now, it's not really that important.
                            Last edited by ArcaneArts; 03-23-2016, 03:48 PM.


                            Kelly R.S. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                            The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                            Feminine pronouns, please.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by ArcaneArts View Post
                              But even then, how mechanical should something be when it's just fear?
                              On this point, my opinion has always been that the entire purpose of mechanics is to reinforce thematic ideas like this.

                              I mean, from my perspective. Why are the Beasts afraid of the Hero's self importance being correct in the first place? It's not coming from the Hero as a person, because they're unimpressive from a supernatural, moral, and personality perspective. When compared to the stories of old, Heroes resemble Eurylochus more than Odysseus. In short a Hero isn't just a nobody with delusions of grandeur. They're obviously a nobody with delusions of grandeur. So why can't Beasts see the obvious?

                              To me that's where mechanics come in. A good roleplayer can easily roleplay a Beast being scared that maybe a Hero is right; but it would be much easier to do if the setting gave you something to build upon.
                              Last edited by The Kings Raven; 03-23-2016, 04:26 PM.


                              “There are no rules. Only Principles and natural laws.” - Promethius
                              My Homebrew no longer fits in a signature, you can find an index of it here.
                              Full length fan-books I contributed too: Princess: the Hopeful, Leviathan: the Tempest, Dream Catchers

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                For one, when Heroes have the power to inflict mythological and fairytale-like weaknesses on you that feel violating and depowering and wrong, it's hard to dismiss them as nobodies with delusions of grandeur or avoid fearing them on some level. Even if your overall puissance, awareness, or moral stance should make them unimpressive by comparison. When you consider what they represent and the roles they play towards the Begotten, their self importance becomes a palpable omen of the unforgiving fate they might pull you down to.
                                Last edited by YeOfLittleFaith; 03-23-2016, 05:37 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X