Why Do You Think Beast is Good/Bad?

[Heavy Arms]

I don't know about them, but I play games to escape reality, not simulate it.

The point is to escape reality with a purpose. Specifically to reach emotional catharsis by fictionalizing real world problems in the forms of monsters to make exploring them more emotionally safe.

I can't speak for everyone else, but this is true for me, and something I see a lot in general. We don't want to play monsters just to play evil things for power fantasy of being evil. We want to play monsters because there's an emotional pay off to exploring the darker aspects of our reality.

I mean, you say you want to take on the role of a monster, by why do you find it fun, if not for the exploration of real issues that it allows?

[nofather]

Honestly, I don't get why people feel the need to place symbolic representation of real world problems over supernatural splats. I don't know about them, but I play games to escape reality, not simulate it. When I look at Chronicles of Darkness, i don't see Beasts as being abusers. Nor do I see vampire as a game about sexual assault; I mean, do you rape a cow when you harvest and drink its milk? I see it as a simple game where I take on the role of being the monster. A misunderstood monster, sure, but a monster none the less.

Because from the beginning, the World of Darkness was meant to explore our world through the eyes of a monster. Even in the new one. From Vampire the Requiem, 'What you hold in your hands is a Modern Gothic Storytelling game, a roleplaying game that allows you to build chronicles that explore morality through the metaphor of vampirism. In Vampire, you "play the monster," and what you do as that monster both makes for an interesting story and might even teach you a little about your own values and those of your fellows.' For a more obvious example, you could look twenty plus years back to things like Werewolf the Apocalypse's dark vision of capitalism run amok and the environment suffering for it.

This is not to say that you're playing these games wrong, escapism is just a valid route to go. But if you're going to choose to ignore the main thrust of the game, you can't really get angry at others for talking about it. And you certainly shouldn't deny that it exists.

Incidentally the arguments about vampirism as a rape metaphor are more about 'vampires' as a rape metaphor, not specifically Vampire the Requiem as a rape metaphor. Just like the Beasts are spawned from primordial fears and our reactions to them, myths about vampires are spawned from more here-and-now fears.

[Nyrufa]

Beasts is a game for people that want to play sadists or a person trapped in the cycle of abuse, either victim or abuser or both. That is why so many people are uncomfortable with the game as part of their gaming experience. It isn't for me, but good for others. Such is life.

Honestly, I don't get why people feel the need to place symbolic representation of real world problems over supernatural splats. I don't know about them, but I play games to escape reality, not simulate it. When I look at Chronicles of Darkness, i don't see Beasts as being abusers. Nor do I see vampire as a game about sexual assault; I mean, do you rape a cow when you harvest and drink its milk? I see it as a simple game where I take on the role of being the monster. A misunderstood monster, sure, but a monster none the less.



These characters are not humans, they aren't supposed to be humans. They have entirely different biology, mentality and philosophies which drive them forward through life. If you want to impose human concepts and morality onto your characters, maybe you should just stick to playing a human character and stop picking on the poor monsters who's only choices are to prey upon humans, or tear themselves apart with civil wars and mob justice.

[Diggs]

I think they had a few "origins" to explain new Beasts in their head and they had to switch out their first choice because the people that loved it so much didn't seem to follow it very well. The character had a definite choice to become a Beast in the Homecoming. Beasts were always like Werewolves in that they come from a proto-version. Werewolves change from Wolf-blooded which through random circumstance are changed from mundane mortals. Beasts always had their "Beast-Blooded" but there were no mechanics to represent them as they are indistinguishable from mundane mortals. It would only be after the Beast "matures" that one could look back and say, "I always knew there was something off about that one."

A person has to have a certain view of the world to see an "othering" angle. Everyone at Onyx Path has that view so perhaps their bias leads similar minded people down that path. However, the book has nothing to do with that. The underlying theme is the cycle of abuse. I can't say that was intended, but that is the book in a nutshell. Some could relate othering to abuse but Others are not all the victims that exist. Beasts represent any victim. Beasts are also victimize others. Beasts then have unstable Heroes come along to further abuse them. The Devouring is a representation of abuse, as was the Homecoming. I don't think people are supposed to look at it and say "cool, I wish that happened to me".

That all forms two parts of the "bad" of Beast, the blurred lines between in-character and out-of-character followed by the playing a victim/abuser is not for everyone. The developer worked to address the first "bad" before the final release. As for the second, there are reasons not to play every game line that apply to some but not all people. I think Beast might have a smaller niche than most, but at least the niche is well served.

If you can follow that cycle of abuse theme then you can understand why the "good" Heroes are not part of the story. They would be people that chose not to be victims because Beasts and the Heroes that hunt them certainly are. They are also both abusers while the "good" Heroes avoid the cycle, and Beasts.

Beasts is a game for people that want to play sadists or a person trapped in the cycle of abuse, either victim or abuser or both. That is why so many people are uncomfortable with the game as part of their gaming experience. It isn't for me, but good for others. Such is life.

Dave Brookshaw The way you view Mages is exactly how I read them to be.

[nofather]

Hmmm, well it was my understanding that Chronicles of Darkness has no metaplot and no concrete origin story for everybody.

It doesn't have a metaplot, but it does have a setting. The developers seem to have a concrete origin in mind for things, some point this out by telling people when their 'cosmology' theories are way off base, though I do suspect more or less work has been put into origins of some games. But since most supernaturals originated in the way, way distant past the modern ones aren't aware of the truth of it. Helpfully, this allows Storytellers to use a toolbox approach and easily say 'That is wrong, this is right,' when putting in their own origins, but that doesn't mean the setting doesn't have origins of its own. For an example of concrete and well known origin stories you could look at Hunter. As some of the conspiracies and compacts are fairly modern, their origins are well recorded.

[Nyrufa]

I'm afraid I don't see that as being very relevant towards my criticism. It was a change made that required severe rewriting of important sections of the book that introduced problems with the very narrative that was also trying to be presented.

Also, I would argue that presenting ambiguity towards certain topics, such as origins, can be helpful for providing Storytellers options, it is important to remember that there is an opportunity cost that exists. In this instance, it would be the cost of providing the structure of shared experiences and common understanding among Beasts. By removing the supporting structure of a significant degree of certainty that Beasts know of their own personal beginnings, the themes Beast: The Primordial is built upon suffer even more. It removes an important common ground by which Beasts can connect with which serves the important theme of "You Cannot Choose Your Family".

With the Devouring, it can be argued that Beasts do choose their family.

Some elements to a game Storytellers are best served by having ambiguity and other elements, certainty. ALL of the Chronicles of Darkness games have elements of certainty to them, and I think you'll often find that those elements of certainty are strongly tied to each game's premise and themes. Because those are what help provide structure for telling particular stories that those games are meant to assist in telling.

Hmmm, well it was my understanding that Chronicles of Darkness has no metaplot and no concrete origin story for everybody. In fact, some of the origin stories directly clash with those of other splats. Each of the splats has their own ideas on how they came about, but nobody knows for absolute sure because that knowledge has become lost to the ages, or warped throughout the generations. Nobody chooses to become a Werewolf, or a Mage, or a Promethean it just happens to them. Conversely, somebody might choose to become a Sin Eater, or a Vampire, or a Changeling; but anybody who would voluntarily subject themselves to that is probably not a very healthy individual.



The common ground Beasts share is that they believe all supernatural life (except demons / angels) stems from a single progenitor, making everybody part of one collective family tree. If you look at a family tree's network, you can see that the ancestors have a tendency to branch off into new families; changing their names, cultures and nationalities as they diverge from the main path. And there are many cultures throughout history who believe in a mythical progenitor for all monsters. So the Beast's story, while it might have some holes here and there, is plausible to an extent.

[Ameraaaaaa]

beast is intreging i've never played beast but i want to but im have to say beast can suck at times
so pros
1 a few good ideas
2 easy to make characters
3 versatile
now the cons
1 problematic meaning
2 not alot of atavisms but can be fixed with homebrew
3 bad writing
and thats beast in my opinion

[Paradim]

Again, the book is intentionally vague about the subject and leaves it up to the players's decision. Even the Beasts themselves do not fully understand what causes the Devouring. Some believe they were born human and became monsters, while others believe they were born monsters but raised as humans. Either one of these could be the case depending on what the story teller chooses to go with.

I'm afraid I don't see that as being very relevant towards my criticism. It was a change made that required severe rewriting of important sections of the book that introduced problems with the very narrative that was also trying to be presented.

Also, I would argue that presenting ambiguity towards certain topics, such as origins, can be helpful for providing Storytellers options, it is important to remember that there is an opportunity cost that exists. In this instance, it would be the cost of providing the structure of shared experiences and common understanding among Beasts. By removing the supporting structure of a significant degree of certainty that Beasts know of their own personal beginnings, the themes Beast: The Primordial is built upon suffer even more. It removes an important common ground by which Beasts can connect with which serves the important theme of "You Cannot Choose Your Family".

With the Devouring, it can be argued that Beasts do choose their family.

Some elements to a game Storytellers are best served by having ambiguity and other elements, certainty. ALL of the Chronicles of Darkness games have elements of certainty to them, and I think you'll often find that those elements of certainty are strongly tied to each game's premise and themes. Because those are what help provide structure for telling particular stories that those games are meant to assist in telling.

[Nyrufa]

At least, that's my interpretation of reading the text. I can see a contradiction with the text, in what's being presented as what Beasts are and what the themes of the game are meant to be about. And it's not an interpretation that requires mental hoop jumping or twisting the text apart.

Again, the book is intentionally vague about the subject and leaves it up to the players's decision. Even the Beasts themselves do not fully understand what causes the Devouring. Some believe they were born human and became monsters, while others believe they were born monsters but raised as humans. Either one of these could be the case depending on what the story teller chooses to go with.

[Paradim]

If i recall the Lessons part was added because alot of people were asking "Well this is all well and good, I got these neat powers and all.. but what do i DO with them?" The lessons part was added to say "Here do something constructive with them." (Atleast that's what it felt like) I don't have a problem with that part at all. I just like i said previously dislike the rework of Homecoming into Devouring. I can get why, just don't like it asmuch as Homecoming.

My criticism of the Devouring is that the concept as described in the book fundamentally betrays and cripples the themes presented as what Beast: The Primordial is all about. The book presents that being a Beast, in the section titled Devouring, is an affliction put upon her. I interpret it as a very problematic section with some very powerful assertions, such as "Anyone can become a Beast." which is the very first line you see for the section, and further says "One day, though, a real Beast finds her.", which has serious implications to consider. That's further reinforced with a line like, "Instead, she will become the nightmare that teaches the harsh lessons. She will become the Primordial incarnate."

When a fundamental theme of the game is "You Don't Choose Your Family", the Devouring as presented... just undercuts that. Statements of "becoming" something have a strong implication that you weren't that thing before. That Beasts choose to be monsters. And if you "choose" to be a monster... Then they are indeed choosing who their family is.

At least, that's my interpretation of reading the text. I can see a contradiction with the text, in what's being presented as what Beasts are and what the themes of the game are meant to be about. And it's not an interpretation that requires mental hoop jumping or twisting the text apart.

And I think that weakens the premise of what is otherwise a very promising game.

[Nyrufa]

Okay, I have to wonder if you actually read Beast: the Primordial at all, or if you're just going by snippets you managed to skim from the internet. Most (if not all) of the arguments you brought up are false, and contradicted within the rule book itself



Beasts are not portrayed as the good guys, the vast majority of the different splats are portrayed as anti-heroes at best. The reason why Heroes are bad is because they are glory hounds. They don't care about saving people's lives, they care about satisfying their own egos. They aren't the Justice League swooping in to stop the evil monster, they're Captain Ahab, who's willing to sacrifice his entire crew to satisfy his personal vendetta against the white whale. The book even states that Heroes and Hunters don't get along very well for that very reason.


And sure, Beasts may torture and terrorize people, but they have a legitimate reason for doing so. They are trying to impart wisdom onto them. Don't do stupid shit or bad things will happen to you. Only desperate or careless Beasts go so far as to kill their victims, for wisdom is useless if there's nobody to comprehend its lessons. A Beast who tortures people simply for the fun of it is going to receive an intervention from disgruntled family members who want them to cut that shit out before it attracts trouble for everybody else.

"Eat to Live, Don't Live to Eat"

As for making people's lives a living hell, I don't know how scary your dreams are personally, but unless a Beast is specifically targeting the same person every night (which would be incredibly foolish), most people aren't going to be crippled for life after having a few bad dreams. At worst, they'll probably get some counseling who can help them decrypt the meaning behind their nightmares and discover whatever message the Beast may have been trying to tell them.


As for the whole monsters not choosing to be monsters thing, that is also completely optional. It even says that the Beasts themselves don't fully understand the reason for their Devouring; all they have to go on is speculation and faith. The book is intentionally vague about how / why somebody becomes a Beast and leaves it up to the player's imagination. If you want to retcon the whole "I was born a monster" angle, then you're totally free to do so!


I have no idea what you're talking about with the oppressed minority thing, because I haven't come across any evidence of that in the core book. In fact, Beasts are portrayed as being immensely helpful in regards to the other splats, and can obtain new powers and traits from prolonged interaction between them. The other monsters are coming to the Beast for help and advice, not the other way around.


As for the Slumbering condition, I don't remember it saying you don't lose Satiety, just your supernatural powers. In fact, I think your Horror wakes up again once your Satiety drops below gorged, the speed of which depends on how powerful your Horror is. The most powerful Horrors need to feed their Hunger every day, meaning even if you go on an all you can eat terror buffet, you're just going to be hungry again in 24 hours.


Next, you claim "once a hero, always a hero", when the book explicitly says the opposite. It actually says that some Heroes have been known to lose the urge to hunt monsters and retire back to civilian life.


Finally, the subject of Family Dinner is only a way to make feeding attempts easier, and if the meal doesn't fall in line with the Beast's primary Hunger (prey, hoard, power, destruction, punishment) then it's not as satisfying to them as if they had gone after what their Horror really wanted. Family Dinner is an emergency option, when everybody in the group needs a pick me up, but nobody can agree on what they want; it's not a primary means of getting through the day.


-------------------------

I was going to talk about reasons why I like the game, but honestly, countering these statements went on a bit longer than I expected, since there were so many of them. But the point is, I think you missed the mark of what exactly happens in setting and should go back and give the book another read through if you haven't already.

[Vent0]

Oh, what I meant by that was that with the Seers, based on their write-up in the core book, that they're all evil, oppressive dicks and enjoy every bit of misery they cause. Not a whole lot of variance to make them anything but that.

The Seers keep the Bound contained, otherwise they might run rampant, devouring souls in their endless hunger for Mana. Sometimes, you need a whole lot of eggs for that omelet.
The Seers stand watch against the Abyss, preventing too many spell-happy, Paradox-causing Awakened from chiseling away at reality.
The Seers have really aggressive recruitment and nice benefits. Hey, a Mage has to eat too. Even the Exarchs need their punch-clock minions.
The Seers are like a crime family (high or low) - you might join because you weren't given a choice, or because it really was your best choice at the time. By the time you know different, you are already in too deep.
The Seers are working for the legitimate ones in charge. Not like those filthy Pentacle criminals/terrorists.

[amechra]

The mechanics give me hives. That, I cannot forgive.

As for the other parts...

I'm sorry to say it, but Beast feels childish to me. It's the kind of thing I'd have enjoyed and identified with when I was eleven (I was a fucked-up kid) - but now, it just feels like meaningless, grinning noise.

[nofather]

Oh, what I meant by that was that with the Seers, based on their write-up in the core book, that they're all evil, oppressive dicks and enjoy every bit of misery they cause. Not a whole lot of variance to make them anything but that.

You sort of already explained how to do that. Like you said, you believe the Pentacle orders have enough nuance and wiggle room to make them as 'Good' or 'Evil' as you please for your chronicle. If every mage that Awakens and remains outside of the domain of the Exarchs is evil, then the Seers have a lot more versatility. They are still supporting the oppressive paradigm of the Exarchs but they are saving the lives of all those Sleepers that the Pentacle normally screw around with, and screw around with more if you make them evil. Expanding that outward and placing the spotlight on all the other supernaturals, including the Beasts we have in this thread, and the Seers are downright mundane. Sure the threat of insurance companies not paying out after dedicated payment is awful, but a Seer's not going to chase you into an alley and force you to believe you were abused by a relative decades ago. And a Seer's likely to do something about it in the first place, as keeping magic and Awakening-style events away from Sleepers is their job, while the Pentacle may just leash the Beast and send him after people who they suspect might Awaken in a high tension situation.

It's like the TSA. Sure, the bored fascism sucks, but the nastier the terrorist threat, the more palatable the TSA is. It's a comparison that was made early in the Beast process. People looking at Beast, noticing what they do, and saying, 'How are Heroes bad to try and stop this?' And at some points its valid. Some of the sample Beasts in Night Horrors are pretty awful. But as others have pointed out, just because you feed on fear doesn't mean you have to pick completely innocent bystanders and wreck their lives to live a 'normal' Beast life, and your hungers can be focused into less detrimental directions.

[tasti man LH]

By contrast, the thing that jumped out at me about your post was "Do you want to play Evil Mages?"

They.. Uh... They kinda all are. The Awakened are, barring a few saintly and Wise exceptions, Right Shits. I'm firmly in the camp of "anyone who has a gameline about them in the Chronicles of Darkness is morally dubious at best," which bleeds into writing for other people's lines. Like Beast - I've done a few things for the gameline now, and I always approach it from the standpoint of Begotten being, well... Not particularly nice.

Oh, what I meant by that was that with the Seers, based on their write-up in the core book, that they're all evil, oppressive dicks and enjoy every bit of misery they cause. Not a whole lot of variance to make them anything but that.

The Pentacle Orders, to me, they have enough nuance and wiggle room to make them as "Good" or as "Evil" as you please for your chronicle. Maybe the Silver Ladder are egomaniacal assholes that think they're the most qualified to lead all mages, or maybe they as benevolent as the recruitment pamphlets make them to be and genuinely want to help humanity achieve enlightenment, with magic being the way to do it. Or maybe they do a little bit of both.