Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[Aberrant] Is Cestus Pax a Superman figure?

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

  • Penelope
    started a topic [Aberrant] Is Cestus Pax a Superman figure?

    [Aberrant] Is Cestus Pax a Superman figure?

    Or are the differences between them too great to really say that?

  • Queen Anne Country
    replied
    I do like Transcendence as a concept too - the White Wolf/Onyx Path games are great at tragic flaw esp Exalted IMHO - but what I really love about it is that it seems like it has to be fairly intentional. Becoming a monster is probably worth it to survive certain death but probably not for a show of power - or a gamer who likes playing Grand Theft Aberrant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    Originally posted by Mateus Luz View Post
    The idea of Transformations (aberrations on 1e) was not part of the deconstruction per se, but part of the super hero genre since the 60s or so, with X-men and their negative mutations, or even before with some characters having weird appearances, like sharp teeth or fiery hair (honestly I don't know when most of the characters were invented). So, it’s almost impossible to build the complete cast of superheroes with out rules for their transformations.

    Transcendence was a much better term (not just for the giggling) as it is “neutral”, no devilish, no corruption, not destructive at all, actually it’s even a bit positive, “I am Transcendent” is very egotistical (bizarre, but not negative). Breaking the transformations from the transcendence made it even better, to the point I almost would make the increase in Transcendence cause only the extra difficulty to interact with non transcendent people, with no extra transformations.

    Also, if you have a scene of hanging out with your friends every once in a while, you can just spend the bounds to get rid of flux with no need of “powering down” for a week. It makes that scenes of the heroes hanging out in the beach or having fun in the club more than just fan service.

    Anyway, the point here is, new Aberrant is pretty much non deconstructive, except for the little tendency of loosing themselves to power if push it hard too often with no fun (between you and me, it would make you a real life psychopath even without quantum powers).
    Totally agree with your second to last paragraph.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mateus Luz
    replied
    The idea of Transformations (aberrations on 1e) was not part of the deconstruction per se, but part of the super hero genre since the 60s or so, with X-men and their negative mutations, or even before with some characters having weird appearances, like sharp teeth or fiery hair (honestly I don't know when most of the characters were invented). So, it’s almost impossible to build the complete cast of superheroes with out rules for their transformations.

    Transcendence was a much better term (not just for the giggling) as it is “neutral”, no devilish, no corruption, not destructive at all, actually it’s even a bit positive, “I am Transcendent” is very egotistical (bizarre, but not negative). Breaking the transformations from the transcendence made it even better, to the point I almost would make the increase in Transcendence cause only the extra difficulty to interact with non transcendent people, with no extra transformations.

    Also, if you have a scene of hanging out with your friends every once in a while, you can just spend the bounds to get rid of flux with no need of “powering down” for a week. It makes that scenes of the heroes hanging out in the beach or having fun in the club more than just fan service.

    Anyway, the point here is, new Aberrant is pretty much non deconstructive, except for the little tendency of loosing themselves to power if push it hard too often with no fun (between you and me, it would make you a real life psychopath even without quantum powers).

    Leave a comment:


  • Lady Gray
    replied
    I really adore the way Transcendence works hoenstly, even as someone who also finds the deconstruction of superheroes tiresome. I think what I like about it the most is that it's not inevitable, which makes it tie into the theme of Sacrifice really well. A nova has to actively choose to push their powers to the limit regularly before they start to increase their Transcendence, and even then there's a fair amount of leeway with building Transcendence before things start to really get negative, doubly so now that transformations are more disconnected. So you're in a position where a nova can either sacrifice their human perspective in pursuit of more power, or sacrifice the full breadth of their potential to keep that human perspective. And especially now that RAW don't make Transcendence 10 nova's overtly hostile monsters, neither option has to truly be bad. It's just a matter of making your choice and accepting that you can't have everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • LordHeru
    replied
    Originally posted by Aliasi View Post

    The current rules for it, though, are actually pretty good as a simulation of 'chasing after power above All Else tends to make you a jerk to other people'. Even a Terat doesn't *have* to increase Transcendence with the new Chrysalis rules, but they'll almost certainly acquire more transformations over time as they channel the flux away, and acquiring transformations isn't even necessarily a negative thing. Some people would pay you to have funny colored skin, glowing eyes, or the like, after all. Even Power Lock can be as much a blessing as curse - a Power Locked Quantum Agent is basically a full-time henchthing/ally, for example.

    Aside from the bit you'll get by raising Quantum(and there's an argument that even a benevolently-inclined person is not going to be thinking on human terms if they can grow to the size of a Literal Mountain, or launch nuclear-strike fireballs) you'll generally only get Transcendence if you're playing it fast and loose.

    If I ignore the whole not a fan of Taint or Transcendence or Corruption or Flux at all and take the rules as is, yeah, I actually don't really mind how its written in the updated book. Between the way they changed how Transcendence is described and the way that Flux is gained and how Chrysalis is lost I was like "oh, nifty, cool."

    I am probably going to have it so Quantum in Flux is lost per time unit (day or week) naturally and a single point of Transcendence is naturally burned in Quantum time units (be it week or month) but that is something that would work on top of the rules rather than gutting them.

    So yeah, while I am not a fan in concept the way they implemented that element of the game is actually quite good and even fun, so I am grateful about that.

    I actually have an idea about powered edges that would raise how much Flux can be earned before it turns to Transcendence and would also raise the Quantum minimum before auto-Transcendence is gained. But this is just ideas in my head.

    The point is that I would like to be able to play superman like characters (or iron man or whatnot) that doesn't have to worry about suddenly going mad.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aliasi
    replied
    Originally posted by LordHeru View Post
    I'm actually so over the whole heroes can't be heroes and everything needs to be negative that the whole idea of the deconstruction theme, including in Aberrant with the transcendence element and whatnot, just annoys me to high heaven. Especially as no other power group in Trinity has a negative element to their power.
    The current rules for it, though, are actually pretty good as a simulation of 'chasing after power above All Else tends to make you a jerk to other people'. Even a Terat doesn't *have* to increase Transcendence with the new Chrysalis rules, but they'll almost certainly acquire more transformations over time as they channel the flux away, and acquiring transformations isn't even necessarily a negative thing. Some people would pay you to have funny colored skin, glowing eyes, or the like, after all. Even Power Lock can be as much a blessing as curse - a Power Locked Quantum Agent is basically a full-time henchthing/ally, for example.

    Aside from the bit you'll get by raising Quantum(and there's an argument that even a benevolently-inclined person is not going to be thinking on human terms if they can grow to the size of a Literal Mountain, or launch nuclear-strike fireballs) you'll generally only get Transcendence if you're playing it fast and loose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    Originally posted by Queen Anne Country View Post

    I appreciate that there is some Flanderization BUT I'm a little yawn about - I don't know - Homelanderization/Warren Ellisization of heroes too. I think one thing that makes The Boys so fresh for people who aren't as steeped in nerd culture as we are is that Homelander seems fresh to them. I feel like the rest of us have seen pastiches (etc) of Superman and Captain America (and Batman etc) for some time. A plain old good guy - with realistic and reasonable human flaws - is a really compelling character. Possibly even more interesting and tragic.
    I like RPGs, but I’m not steeped in nerd culture, which is probably why I got a little frustrated last night not knowing what all those words meant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mateus Luz
    replied
    Well, as the subject was raised, the new rules for Transformations and Transcendence (mainly Chrysalis) are much better!

    And you can make Transcendence much lighter, with no transformations related to it, just the distancing (or the opposite, no distancing, just transformations).
    Last edited by Mateus Luz; 11-05-2020, 01:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LordHeru
    replied
    I'm actually so over the whole heroes can't be heroes and everything needs to be negative that the whole idea of the deconstruction theme, including in Aberrant with the transcendence element and whatnot, just annoys me to high heaven. Especially as no other power group in Trinity has a negative element to their power.

    So the idea of a hero being a hero, while sometimes being a normal human level jerk, is good for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mateus Luz
    replied
    Originally posted by Queen Anne Country View Post

    I appreciate that there is some Flanderization BUT I'm a little yawn about - I don't know - Homelanderization/Warren Ellisization of heroes too. I think one thing that makes The Boys so fresh for people who aren't as steeped in nerd culture as we are is that Homelander seems fresh to them. I feel like the rest of us have seen pastiches (etc) of Superman and Captain America (and Batman etc) for some time. A plain old good guy - with realistic and reasonable human flaws - is a really compelling character. Possibly even more interesting and tragic.
    Agree with every word. The deconstruction theme is a bit over explored by RPGs and I really prefer the more human aspect of the characters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mateus Luz
    replied
    I didn’t know that. Thanks for the explanation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Queen Anne Country
    replied
    Originally posted by Aliasi View Post
    I feel like a good way to write Pax might be a bit like Major Havoc, from Empowered. He's an self-aggrandizing, self-promoting asshole... who still believes in going out and saving lives, and was the very first to stand up against a villain who'd depowered an entire room of heroes.

    The 2e version isn't even necessarily incompatible with this, although there's more emphasis put on "yes, he really does try to be a role model and do the right thing" that I'd feel is necessary to cope with the inevitable Flanderization of any character among the fanbase. Pax isn't Superman, but he's someone who is trying to be Superman without it being a false front (like Homelander).
    I appreciate that there is some Flanderization BUT I'm a little yawn about - I don't know - Homelanderization/Warren Ellisization of heroes too. I think one thing that makes The Boys so fresh for people who aren't as steeped in nerd culture as we are is that Homelander seems fresh to them. I feel like the rest of us have seen pastiches (etc) of Superman and Captain America (and Batman etc) for some time. A plain old good guy - with realistic and reasonable human flaws - is a really compelling character. Possibly even more interesting and tragic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Penelope
    replied
    Originally posted by glamourweaver View Post

    Flanderization as a term refers to the tendency, particularly in sitcoms, but found in other media as well, of a character who is initially relatively fleshed out turning one-note over time, usually as one particular funny element gets played to increasing extremes.

    In Ned’s case the original point of the character was that he was the ideal family man contrast character from Homer, of which his faith was just one point - but over time this got played up to more and more ridiculous extremes until the character was specifically a joke about religious fundamentalism with his other traits buried.
    Interesting. Idk that. Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • glamourweaver
    replied
    Originally posted by Mateus Luz View Post


    Flanders is the ultimate good guy, a fervorous Christian that want to help everybody and always see the bright side of life. But he is also annoying as hell (or heaven...)
    Flanderization as a term refers to the tendency, particularly in sitcoms, but found in other media as well, of a character who is initially relatively fleshed out turning one-note over time, usually as one particular funny element gets played to increasing extremes.

    In Ned’s case the original point of the character was that he was the ideal family man contrast character from Homer, of which his faith was just one point - but over time this got played up to more and more ridiculous extremes until the character was specifically a joke about religious fundamentalism with his other traits buried.
    Last edited by glamourweaver; 11-04-2020, 11:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X