Why Do You Think Beast is Good/Bad?

[Yossarian]

Regarding "Teaching Lessons" and some of the stuff about Heroes...

It was a rather late game development shift during the Kickstarter that the developer pretty much put "Teaching Lessons" into the game and reworked that Heroes weren't created by Beasts. Despite this, there are still artifacts in the game that make explicit mention of Beasts creating Heroes by their activities and there's a lot of places where "Teaching Lessons" just don't mesh well with what else is presented.

My point being, if an objection is "This doesn't fit very well", my response would be, "Well, that's because it was shoe-horned in at the very last minute."

Personally, I think the "Teaching Lessons" element is out of place. I don't object to some Beasts following a philosophy of "Teaching Lessons", but it's heavy handed how the game seems to suggest that all Beasts try to do this, when Beasts have no real social structure going on by which to impart such philosophies. Further, there is an absolute absence of any competing philosophies, which only makes "Teaching Lessons" seem more monolithic and even more awkward.

I think you'll probably dig what's coming in the Player's Guide.

[Paradim]

Regarding "Teaching Lessons" and some of the stuff about Heroes...

It was a rather late game development shift during the Kickstarter that the developer pretty much put "Teaching Lessons" into the game and reworked that Heroes weren't created by Beasts. Despite this, there are still artifacts in the game that make explicit mention of Beasts creating Heroes by their activities and there's a lot of places where "Teaching Lessons" just don't mesh well with what else is presented.

My point being, if an objection is "This doesn't fit very well", my response would be, "Well, that's because it was shoe-horned in at the very last minute."

Personally, I think the "Teaching Lessons" element is out of place. I don't object to some Beasts following a philosophy of "Teaching Lessons", but it's heavy handed how the game seems to suggest that all Beasts try to do this, when Beasts have no real social structure going on by which to impart such philosophies. Further, there is an absolute absence of any competing philosophies, which only makes "Teaching Lessons" seem more monolithic and even more awkward.

And you can still find a mention of Beasts explicitly making Heroes stated in the section that details Hero Gifts and powers.

[nalak42]

Okay teaming up with Heroes is not really an interesting point to me. I mean their power set is literally based around killing Beasts. This great if you're goal is to end someone like Luca Rohner or the Cru and as people suggested in a different thread either of those is probably a case where it might happen.If you're playing a Beast who just wants to protect his Changelings friends, or deal with some psychotic methusala class vampire that's causing problems Heroes aren't really helpful for that equation. The thing is it's not really a downside for the book to not go into "Here's how you can be best buddies with your mortal enemies." I mean Ascension Mage didn't do it with Nephandi, I'm pretty sure Apocolypse Werewolf didn't have a lot about being teamed up with Black Spiral Dancers, and the Unchained don't team up with Angels. (Well there is one group, but they're explicitly handled as delusional and serious threat to boot.) The book goes here are the heroes you're most likely to deal with, yes there are others and if you want to use that go for it, but we're focusing on the most common form of antagonist Hero. So the whole complaint about them not giving a lot of word count to teaming up with your natural enemy not really a thing for me. I'm not interested in Heroes who don't give a crap about Beasts most of the time, it's nice to acknowledge them as a thing yes, but one doesn't need large amounts of page count dedicated to the subsection of a threat that is likely to be live and let live. Especially considering that's potentially every other supernatural splat. (We got enough complaints about how Beasts were the Mary-Sue splat with just a power that enables them to have a good first impression with most supernaturals it would have been worse if we'd had page count dedicated to how you can team up with the Heroes and what great allies they can be and such.)

As for the lesson thing. Read over the character descriptions a lot of them don't have lessons attached to what the character does. You get the other angles though, those who don't bother to teach a lesson and feed for their own sake, and family dinner is an entire power based around finding a way out if you want to play a character who can't stomach what your other half wants to eat.

[tasti man LH]

1E Mage had the entire first chapter devoted to Atlantis, how it was founded, how it crumbled, and how it related to other aspects that were very real things in the setting, such as the Abyss, the Watchtowers, the Exarchs, and the Diamond. So it's no wonder how most would miss the whole notion that it was all just a common myth mages used as an explanation for things.

...which in 2E the devs went out of their way to de-emphasize the Atlantis connection. So that assertion doesn't really hold much water now.

I mean, Mage 2E allows for Seers to be playable characters. Just sayin'.

Which has less to do with expanding PC splats' perspective and more to do with developer preference.

The lead dev for Beast, Matt McFarland, has historically been against having playable antagonists in the games he develops. His other games, Demon and Promethean, he goes out of his way to point out how antagonist entities like angels and Pandorans are NOT meant to be touched by the players. And that they are meant to be ST characters only. Conversely the line dev for Mage, Dave Brookshaw, is perfectly fine with having playable antagonists for the gamelines he develops.

It's a stylistic choice. There's nothing objectively good or bad with choosing/not choosing to do something that other devs do.

(Me personally, I could never see the appeal of playing the Seers aside from "Do you want to play Evil Mages?" The way how the 2E corebook presents them make them out to be utter assholes that enjoy being the stifling oppressors of the world and reveling in it. Nice that the option is there, but for me it doesn't seem to have the same nuance as the Pentacle does, where there does exist enough there to make any of the Orders as Good or as Evil as you want...buuuuutt that's neither here nor there, and this is the Beast sub-forum, and not the Mage sub-forum)

[Satchel]

And considering what the corebook has in it, I didn't have much reason to doubt it.

There's a sort of unspoken heuristic I adhere to when reading the books and things people say about the books; it's served me well enough that I've picked up a minor reputation for understanding the games, but I've clashed before with people who don't keep the same thing in mind because it seems obvious to me and those people seldom have a great social attitude to offset their personal approach to the material.

It runs thus:

Give the writers the benefit of the doubt - if a reading of the material automatically makes you get angry and/or think "that's stupid," consider the possibility that this is not how it actually works.

This goes double for simplified pat readings like the memetic "werewolves are spirit cops" or "mages know everything" strains of thought - if the thing doesn't seem like it could hold up in a setting where monsters work around and amidst humanity, either there's more to it than that or the core of the reading is fundamentally off.

It also applies to readings built entirely on singular chunks of printed content rather than a synthesized understanding of the material as a whole - if there's an element that you like that's not otherwise repeated elsewhere in the book/line, it's understandable to hold onto that, but "something I don't like is mentioned in one place and then never repeated or supported anywhere else in the line" is the complete opposite case.

What I'm getting at is that you had every reason to doubt it.

[Cinder]

Teaching lessons is a "great and noble cause" exactly because it's a thing the Begotten tell themselves they gotta do even if it more or less is nothing more than a social convention. This is one of the biggest points many people here are trying to get across.

[crapcarp]

I disagree, in the same way as Atlantis in first edition Mage. It quite clearly said that Atlantis was a myth mages told (a bit more than a sidebar, it was about half a page of main text). But because it didn't reiterate the fact over and over ever time Atlantis was mentioned, this somehow became the game saying Atlantis was objectively real. I find it the same here.

1E Mage had the entire first chapter devoted to Atlantis, how it was founded, how it crumbled, and how it related to other aspects that were very real things in the setting, such as the Abyss, the Watchtowers, the Exarchs, and the Diamond. So it's no wonder how most would miss the whole notion that it was all just a common myth mages used as an explanation for things.

Likewise In Beast, the teaching lessons concept is treated like it's a great and noble cause throughout most of the text and then we get a single bit saying "Oh, but teaching lessons is a pretty lie Beasts like to tell themselves". And since we don't get any other ways of Beasts managing their condition, it kinda suggests this is a default part of all Beast's experiences and therefore is an integral part of the setting. That, and it also doesn't say a word on how such a perspective is quite a bit like abusers justifying abuse, further suggesting that teaching lessons is integral.

The core book is written from the perspective of Beasts, and when Beasts see Heroes, it's because the Heroes are coming to kill them. If there's more to it, the place for that is the storyteller's guide, not the core book, just as expanding the nature of the Pure beyond their enmity to the Forsaken was the job of a supplement. (Conquering Heroes was a Night Horrors book rather than a book about Heroes, so it's not really where I'd look for an expansion of the subject as a whole).

I understand the corebook is written from the Beast's perspective. What I don't understand is why that would exclude adding in the possibility of Heroes wanting to team-up with Beasts, or Heroes that are only targeting reckless Beasts. These would still be aspects of the Beast's perspective as well.

I mean, Mage 2E allows for Seers to be playable characters. Just sayin'.

A group doesn't have to be oppressed for "blanketly murder them for who they are" to be wrong. A group doesn't have to be oppressed to be othered. Again I would point out that most of the ways Beasts make people suffer are not things most people would consider a human should die for. Why then should a Beast die for doing those same things, if the answer is not "they're not human, so it's worse when they do it?" And if that's the answer, is a comparison to oppression or othering entirely wrong?

My problem with Beast isn't that it says "There are bad Heroes out there" but rather "All Heroes are bad". Sure, we're looking at things from the Beast's perspective, so when they see Heroes it's often bad news for them. However, why would a Beast never realize that some Heroes are only killing those that make other's lives a living hell? Why wouldn't there be a Hero who up and said "Oh, I'm not gonna kill you, I just came for that guy who was raping people". Would those Heroes never interact with Beasts? The corebook's answer is a strict "No" when it really shouldn't be. I mean, why deny story potential?

Also, Thaddeus. I don't think I need to elaborate on that (to be fair, Desmond's pretty good).

Too much of your counter points in this come down to how much you feel the book focuses on a topic more than what the book says or how much focus it gets in an quasi-objective way. The book doesn't need to repeat a line a dozen times for that line to be the stance of the book, or the context to judge further lines in the book from. You have no trouble cherry picking a passage and then saying that the entire book should be seen in the light that passage inspires you to read it in, but denounce others for pointing to the book overtly saying something and toss that aside as meaningless.

That's not really the issue. Sure, the book doesn't have to repeat itself to get the overall stance across, but when the section that's responsible for telling us the overall stance, i.e. the introduction, tells us it's this certain way, I'm going to think that's the overall stance. If a sidebar tells me otherwise, I'm going to think that's just another way to interpret it or it's just a minor detail to the whole thing.

No, it doesn't. If you haven't read a book, it's rarely wise to assert what's in it.

The NPC in question is the Blind Man. He's one of the Insatiable, which are not Beasts (their role is more akin to the Strix, something similar and metaphysically connected, but different and generally antagonistic). He also leaves eggs of himself all over the place, they're just similar enough to fish eggs people think that's what they are if they get a cursory examination of them. He also doesn't shit and piss them, because his human body is just a shell without any need for biological function; that is, he doesn't shit or piss at all. His eggs come out of places he otherwise has no use for.

Yes, it's disgusting.. but that's kind of the point. The Insatiable are meant to horrify Beasts with their complete detachment from humanity and the Blind Man does this in a particularly body horror style.

Fair enough. I first heard that it was a Beast, so I thought it was a Beast. And considering what the corebook has in it, I didn't have much reason to doubt it.

Not ignored. The whole point of talking about "othering instead of oppression" as the subtext here is directly addressing this.

I said "mostly". Yes, not everybody was ignoring it, but most were.

You realize that not being accusatory is actually worse here, right? Accusing people is saying, "I think you did X." So if you're not being accusatory, you're asserting this as a matter of fact instead: that people are ignoring things in bad faith as a thing you're pointing out that is beyond the question of being your impressions.

Being accusatory doesn't just mean accusing someone of something, it's also about accusing them of doing something bad. I'm not saying people are ignoring what I've said in bad faith, just that it was being ignored. That's all.

[Cinder]

So essentially all the replies got dismissed as delusional and that people that disagree with you are taking things from the book that aren't there? Very well, I guess we all come to those conclusions because of our inability to read combined with some sort of collective selective blindness.

I'm out. At the very least I accorded you that most of your criticism comes from a legitimate interpretation of the book, you could do the same with those that disagree with you instead of going "lmao, no", especially considering most of us are trying to show from where our opinions are coming from. There are parts of the book that built the opinion you have of the game, and that's fair. but there are also many that undermine part of your criticism. You don't get to pick only what supports your ideas and ignore the rest calling it "not enough".All your "what about...?" are already in there.

This is not a debate, it's you skimming through all the replies, avoiding to address them and then saying all the things you said in the first place again while calling everyone delusional, to say the least.

The tone also does not help, but I gave it a pass during my first reply because I get passionate opinions and such, not to mention having to make a "interesting" opening post for the sake of getting people in. The problem this is not a discussion as much as someone feeling the need to preach about how we're all wrong, bad and foolish just because we're seeing themes and narratives in this game that he does not see. And we've already danced to this music many times before.

[Heavy Arms]

If Beast is indeed about dealing with being caught in a narrative then you're just playing Demon: the Descent, albeit with mythical trappings than techgnositic ones, and 2) while the corebook mentions nuance, it gets buried in mountains of paragraphs of the black-and-white.

And, really, at this point, "Honesty, not uncivility." seems entirely strained (or at least one sided). This isn't honesty, because it's not just talking about your own perceptions honestly. It's actively putting down how others honestly view the game.

Too much of your counter points in this come down to how much you feel the book focuses on a topic more than what the book says or how much focus it gets in an quasi-objective way. The book doesn't need to repeat a line a dozen times for that line to be the stance of the book, or the context to judge further lines in the book from. You have no trouble cherry picking a passage and then saying that the entire book should be seen in the light that passage inspires you to read it in, but denounce others for pointing to the book overtly saying something and toss that aside as meaningless.

...but it also has a Beast who shits and pisses fish eggs so I'd rather not read that, thank you.

No, it doesn't. If you haven't read a book, it's rarely wise to assert what's in it.

The NPC in question is the Blind Man. He's one of the Insatiable, which are not Beasts (their role is more akin to the Strix, something similar and metaphysically connected, but different and generally antagonistic). He also leaves eggs of himself all over the place, they're just similar enough to fish eggs people think that's what they are if they get a cursory examination of them. He also doesn't shit and piss them, because his human body is just a shell without any need for biological function; that is, he doesn't shit or piss at all. His eggs come out of places he otherwise has no use for.

Yes, it's disgusting.. but that's kind of the point. The Insatiable are meant to horrify Beasts with their complete detachment from humanity and the Blind Man does this in a particularly body horror style.

One of the game's major themes is the subtext. It's not even subtle about it, as it uses poor people as an example. But for some reason, this part was mostly ignored.

Not ignored. The whole point of talking about "othering instead of oppression" as the subtext here is directly addressing this.

Not being accusatory or anything, just pointing it out.

You realize that not being accusatory is actually worse here, right? Accusing people is saying, "I think you did X." So if you're not being accusatory, you're asserting this as a matter of fact instead: that people are ignoring things in bad faith as a thing you're pointing out that is beyond the question of being your impressions.

[SunlessNick]

One notable example of this is how supporters claim the "teaching lessons" aspect is clearly stated to be an excuse Beasts make, when it just plain isn't. Sure, there's a sidebar that does discuss how teaching lessons is more a way for Beasts to positively manage their condition, but that's far from the whole book clearly stating that.

I disagree, in the same way as Atlantis in first edition Mage. It quite clearly said that Atlantis was a myth mages told (a bit more than a sidebar, it was about half a page of main text). But because it didn't reiterate the fact over and over ever time Atlantis was mentioned, this somehow became the game saying Atlantis was objectively real. I find it the same here.

Not to mention, if teaching lessons was a way to manage the condition, then how come it doesn't discuss other methods of doing it, such as only targeting those that deserve it or maybe doing under the notion of strengthening humanity. Yes, those takes have their flaws but so is the teaching lessons angle, and those flawed outlooks make things interesting.

Indeed, that would have been a good inclusion, and is something I've suggested should be in the player's guide. Along with other attitudes to their condition entirely.

What about Heroes that kill Beasts out of pity, seeing them as broken beings who have no choice but to make others suffer?

Remember in my post, I mentioned an RPGNet poster saying she related to the game because that's how she saw herself? (And another poster who essentially responded "You relating to this game hurts me).

The corebook doesn't really touch on any of these possibilities in a significant way, if at all.

The core book is written from the perspective of Beasts, and when Beasts see Heroes, it's because the Heroes are coming to kill them. If there's more to it, the place for that is the storyteller's guide, not the core book, just as expanding the nature of the Pure beyond their enmity to the Forsaken was the job of a supplement. (Conquering Heroes was a Night Horrors book rather than a book about Heroes, so it's not really where I'd look for an expansion of the subject as a whole).

As for the argument that my take on the whole "Beasts=oppressed minorities" subtext is that I only note how there are Beasts who just so happen to belong to such groups. The problem with this is the fact that was only a supplement to my core argument: One of the game's major themes is the subtext. It's not even subtle about it, as it uses poor people as an example. But for some reason, this part was mostly ignored.

A group doesn't have to be oppressed for "blanketly murder them for who they are" to be wrong. A group doesn't have to be oppressed to be othered. Again I would point out that most of the ways Beasts make people suffer are not things most people would consider a human should die for. Why then should a Beast die for doing those same things, if the answer is not "they're not human, so it's worse when they do it?" And if that's the answer, is a comparison to oppression or othering entirely wrong?

[Ameraaaaaa]

2 things
1 demens not about that its about techgnostic espionage
2 even if its about what you say it is mayb its on purpose there made by the same guy maybe he just wanted to try to do a new angle hell demans face a too powerful foe by stoping your machinations now its the opposite your the powerful but a hero can use anthema on you and stop you but how can one hero stop all beasts only if all demans work together they can stop the god machine the same for heros your the badguy as a beast sure not all beasts but most are so both are the badguy hell the mother of all beasts maybe god machine level threat to humanity and like demans not all demans are good hell there demans for a reason for most the good to bad ratio is pretty even but thats just my opinion

[crapcarp]

This seems like it's turning less into what you think is good or bad about Beast and what you think is wrong about other peoples views on the game.

Yes it does, though to be fair, I can definitely see why most are having that reaction. I certainly wasn't gentle in displaying my feelings on the game and I fully encouraged others to do the same, so turnabout's fair play in this instance. That, and getting down to raw emotions about one's opinion can be pretty eye-opening, and this thread is about doing just that.

The main take I'm getting from those that support the game is that Beast is about being caught in a narrative regardless of your consent and how you deal with that, rather than being special, lovely, and important and dealing with people who don't like you because they just don't understand that you're special, lovely, and important. The supporters will say that it doesn't cast things in black-and-white and explores the nuance.

I have two problems with this: 1) If Beast is indeed about dealing with being caught in a narrative then you're just playing Demon: the Descent, albeit with mythical trappings than techgnositic ones, and 2) while the corebook mentions nuance, it gets buried in mountains of paragraphs of the black-and-white.

One notable example of this is how supporters claim the "teaching lessons" aspect is clearly stated to be an excuse Beasts make, when it just plain isn't. Sure, there's a sidebar that does discuss how teaching lessons is more a way for Beasts to positively manage their condition, but that's far from the whole book clearly stating that. Not to mention, if teaching lessons was a way to manage the condition, then how come it doesn't discuss other methods of doing it, such as only targeting those that deserve it or maybe doing under the notion of strengthening humanity. Yes, those takes have their flaws but so is the teaching lessons angle, and those flawed outlooks make things interesting.

But no, there's just several paragraphs that state how Beasts are teaching lessons and how Heroes are interfering with that. A sidebar and a few sentences buried in all that doesn't make me believe that nuance was the main intent. Same deal with Heroes and their portrayal. There's no reason why only the maniacal Heroes would confront Beasts. Am I supposed to believe the moral Hero is going to look at a Beast that's burning buildings and think "Y'know, maybe I shouldn't interfere,", even though they can clearly see the Beast's Horror and they can sense the disturbance this would cause in the Primordial Dream? What about Heroes that kill Beasts out of pity, seeing them as broken beings who have no choice but to make others suffer? What about Heroes who only kill Beasts that feed too recklessly?

The corebook doesn't really touch on any of these possibilities in a significant way, if at all. Maybe Conquering Heroes explores some of that, but it also has a Beast who shits and pisses fish eggs so I'd rather not read that, thank you.

As for the argument that my take on the whole "Beasts=oppressed minorities" subtext is that I only note how there are Beasts who just so happen to belong to such groups. The problem with this is the fact that was only a supplement to my core argument: One of the game's major themes is the subtext. It's not even subtle about it, as it uses poor people as an example. But for some reason, this part was mostly ignored. Not being accusatory or anything, just pointing it out.

[Jakondite]

Off topic - or perhaps, slightly on it. I know one of the complaints is that the Heroes who are not mindless psychopaths are the ones with high integrity, and that you won't really see them. But... that's not really true, is it? I mean, think on it - Heroes, unlike Beasts, do not get the benefit of being able to embrace the world the way it is. They have integrity as a trait defining their mental health - a trait which can degrade anytime you experience a traumatic event, -especially- a supernatural event. The fact that they are heroes does not mean that they get some kind of mental health resistance to it - far from it, in fact. Because the Hero -can- see more, he can also devolve faster than any normal person - especially if there are Beasts about who are not cautious in their hunting habits, or who let their Horrors run rampant.

So I don't think it's really right to say that you will not run into a Hero who is open minded. The problem is, that you (or the other Beasts around you) can weather that hero without even realizing what it is you are dealing with and likely -will- without even meaning to - so in many a case, if that Hero was sane to begin with, the Beast may well make it otherwise by it's very nature.

[nofather]

This seems like it's turning less into what you think is good or bad about Beast and what you think is wrong about other peoples views on the game.

I think the concept's pretty interesting. The developer, I think, spoke about it being inspired by this book on fears, Stephen Asma's On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears. And if you look at the book you can see where a lot of the ideas came from, though they kept some more problematic influences out. Like a million years ago I was watching one of Gentleman Gamer's videos and he did an interview with Matthew McFarland and I remember the question about what kind of game you want to make or play come up, and McFarland responded something like Werewolf or Assassin, the party game not the Forsaken one. Where you sneak up behind people and 'gotcha' them, but instead of killing them you sort of just scare them. And that always sort of skewed my view on the game itself, in what I think is a positive game. To me, it's a game about being the scary monster. And like others above have pointed out, there's nothing really wrong with that, just how you go about doing it.

During the Kickstarter I argued a lot about it, I didn't like the original depiction of Heroes, that changed, but one thing I also had trouble with was the whole 'what do you do' aspect of the game. And to me it's sort of a mish-mash of ideas that don't really fit together well. Scare people, great, but also maybe become an Apex or Incarnate and befriend or study other monsters. Maybe explore the Astral plane? On its own, just Beast, it seems sort of aimless. These are things a player might want for their character, not something an entire game should be built around . If you attach it to another game, that's fine, but Beast also comes with a lot of baggage and, frankly, power. The powers are interesting, which is a big enough plus for me, but don't seem to fit what the game is trying to do necessarily, which is a negative. I'm not sure what the goal was when it came to powers but for a crossover I think you would want something that would supplement or otherwise mesh well with others while going their own way and not overshadowing the original, which doesn't seem to be how things ended up.

There's good and bad in it, I guess. One of the worst parts to me is the negative aura around it. I mean, I don't like some games, I get it, but you deal with that by playing other games, not going on and on about the ones you don't like. Having thought about it a lot it seems like ideally, to me, it would have been heavily toned down in power scale and be part of a blue book on mini or micro templates to come out with the Crossover Chronicle. But I'm hopeful that further supplements will flesh out the game as is into a more palatable state.

[HelmsDerp]

Why do I like Beast? When the kickstarter draft became available I was clawing my way out of a really dark place and in so many ways the game was an eerily accurate metaphor for the things I was struggling with. I'm a sadist and I'm prone to violent intrusive thoughts, especially when stressed, and I didn't know what either of those things were, just that the inside of my head was an increasingly and acceleratingly awful hellscape. See, having a violent intrusive thought and not knowing what it is or having any effective strategies to control or cope with it is pretty damn stressful, which creates a sanity shredding feedback loop. That's the Horror, that voice telling you to hurt people just because you can, even though you like them and you don't want to and it would destroy your life and not benefit you in any way whatsoever. Beast is a game about living with that, with no way to turn it off or escape it, and you don't even have the option to just ignore it like most humans learn to do. Do you just surrender to those whims, no matter how vile, no matter how much trouble they get you in? Do you find some compromise, some way of indulging both you and the Horror can live with, if grudgingly? Do you decide you can't live as a monster and must therefore die? Heroes will make that third choice for you, if you let them. I came way too close to that.

Imagine, if you will, getting turned away from donating blood because your blood pressure is 150/110, emergency hypertension levels, and thinking: that's good, I probably won't have to keep this up more than a decade before I have a fatal heart attack. It will make my friends and family sad, but they won't blame themselves for unexpected heart failure the way they would for an obvious suicide. That's the best I can do so that they never have to know what I really am.

So I get Heroes, I get seeing a monster nobody else sees, and being absolutely certain to the core of your being that even though this thing looks like a regular person on the outside it has to die, and that burden falls on you. And being horrifyingly batshit crazy wrong about it. Anxiety and bad social conditioning will do that to you.

I think that ends up being one of the biggest problems for people trying to engage with Beast. I see so many complaints about the heavy handed presentation of Heroes as Bad and Beasts as Good and the thing of it is, while the book goes to significant lengths to make it clear that Heroes are NOT the Good Guys they think they are, I don't see it making a strong argument that Beasts are really the Good Ones instead.

What I do see is people making the logical leap that if Heroes aren't the good guys then Beasts must be the good guys instead. Which is completely missing the point. There are no good guys, or at least that falls to individuals rather than this faction or that. This isn't the Hero's Journey just with the factions swapped. The book could be clearer about this, it's definitely written from a slanted pov, but I never saw the simplistic black-is-white, white-is-black take so many others seem to get out of it.

I see a game about deciding what you're willing to do to stay alive, about learning to cope with your hunger, about finding ways to reduce your impact, or even do some good, and finding people to help you do it. It can also be a game about cutting loose and giving your id free rein, and for some people that's a welcome dark catharsis, but for me there's a lot of power in a game where it's easy to be the monster people expect and hard to be the good guy, and doing your damndest anyway. A lot of power in a game about finding communities of people with similar problems, who understand, who can help, who can teach you it doesn't have to be all or even mostly bad.

And sometimes you just gotta personify your anxiety and punch it in the face for making you feel like shit.