[w/Princess] Odd Friends-Don't Mess with a Princess and Her Dragon

[Malus]

The same could be said for humans. I'm not denying how alien their minds are, just that in many ways, we are also creatures of hunger.

The difference is that we don't feed on say, literal warfare bloodshed or say, domestic violence.

[The Kings Raven]

I dunno if I'd call Spirit Essence hungers endless any mor3 than I'd call our need for air and food an endless hunger just because we'll eventually need more. Sufficiently smart spirits can feel full and delay gratification to garner greater Resonance in the future. I think the same goes for infernals, but I don't know enough about them

So can Beasts and the smarter Dark Creatures.

[Master Aquatosic]

So can Beasts and the smarter Dark Creatures.

And insatiable too, I guess

[Wormwood]

Master Aquatosic You are welcome, glad it provided some amusement.

So what I am getting, when all's said and done, is that Beast's and Princesses might get along, but that would be very uncommon + one of the two is likely to play against, betray or outright ignore one of their splat's core themes, that about right?

Didn't know much about Princesses so far. I'll be honest, the name wasn't intriguing for me. I might give it a look now though, seems kinda interesting. I'd be obliged for a link to a more or less up-to-date version =)

[ArcaneArts]

Beast's victims don't get a choice. There's no sign here if you consent to let a Tyrant to oppress you forms to fill out.

If Beasts get sympathy for hurting people because they didn't get a choice. Why don't Beast's victims get sympathy for turning around and hurting a Beast in self defence because they didn't get a choice either?

And if it's ok for a Beast's victim to act in self defence, it's ok for a Princess to do so on their behalf. That's the whole point of having Princesses (and police). To do self defence on behalf of people who can't fight for themselves.

Hey, so I realized this thing I had written off had come back to life and am catching up on things and seeing if I care to hop in, but of course because Raven is Raven, I need to comment on this. And, being perfectly honest, it's kind of stupid that I do? Because this is such an infantile response, and it's why a significant part of why the first post is basically a "This is stupid" rant.

SO, let's take a step back here.

The questions of whether one should have sympathy for Beasts or not is a largely individual matter, and I will in fact muddy that by reminding everyone that Beasts actually DO get a choice-accepting their psychospiritual lineage is literally the entire point of the Devouring-but I feel like the question of "Why don't Beasts victims get sympathy?" is kind of stupid because that is the base from which the Chronicles is built on.

Changing gears here for a second, it's like asking why we have no sympathy for the Vampire's victims, and those who turn around and hurt them in self-defense.We don't ask that because we already have sympathy for the victims. We understand the victims of a werewolf's vision or mage's whim or a changeling's manipulations or a demon's malice. We know, and Chronicles DOES explore the horror and the response of victims. Hell, that's a lot of Hunter. But as Hunter itself points out, the response of defensive harm is itself a problem, a basis for monstrosity, and it invites the question that is equally integral to Chronicles, which is "Why do people become monsters?". Chronicles is about the humanity in monstrosity and the monstrosity in humanity, the balance, push-and-pull, and ultimately the reconciliation of these two forces, at least as that subject goes and how the horror works as that final point is often lost or ignored.

NONE of the victims of monsters get a choice. You cannot get on a high horse about Beast's victims in particular being ignored without getting pissed about the victims of Changelings or Sin-Eaters, particularly after the revisions. This does not mitigate the factors any given monster deals with.

That Raven has a problem with Beast* does not change textual realities or the most logical conclusions there in.

Minor unrelated note, a Beast could actually probably feed of most of a Princess's Wisp intakes, since it is still a form of predacity-even with as harmless as it seems. They are still supping on the embers of the human spirit and will for good, and the discussions between a Beast and a Princess on the nuance of that would be fascinating.

PS: Raven, I still have you blocked, so direct responses are of course useless. In case you forgot.

*I mean, we're talking about a guy who tried to argue that Leviathans weren't kin with Beasts. Think about that for a second.

[Malus]

ArcaneArts if you'll keep The Kings Raven blocked for the duration of this thread, this is a waste of time, and I request it be locked.

[The Kings Raven]

I have no idea what's up with that.

Changing gears here for a second, it's like asking why we have no sympathy for the Vampire's victims, and those who turn around and hurt them in self-defense.

There are two key differences between Vampire and Beast.

1) Beasts are the subject of this thread. Vampires are not.

2) When you say that Princesses look at the average Vampires' feeding and culture as abusive and something to oppose nobody disagrees. But bring up the idea that Princesses see the average Beast's feeding and culture is abusive and something to oppose and people will say Princesses should give them more credit for trying to do teach leassons, or have more sympathy for the fact Beasts need to feed, as though either is a good reason to hesitate before preventing abuse.

Abusers who think they're helping are a dime a dozen. It's still abuse, and when it happens someone needs to stop it. Even if a Beast is successfully teaching a valid lesson it's still abusive to terrorise someone "for their own good" without without getting informed consent. Naturally Princesses who see abuse will oppose it, and when that results in a thread on the forums I'll be there.

So that's why I spend this thread talking about why people should side with the victims of Beast; but haven't talked about siding with the victims of Vampires.

They are still supping on the embers of the human spirit and will for good

Factually untrue. Apart from Tears' harvests, Wisps are generated internally by Princesses. Princesses are no more supping on human spirit and will than a mortal who spends and regains points of Willpower.

*I mean, we're talking about a guy who tried to argue that Leviathans weren't kin with Beasts. Think about that for a second.

What?

I never said anything like that. I did say that Leviathans' ridiculously powerful psychic defences would apply to a Beast's supernatural First Impressions bonus, and I said that Leviathan and Beast both have family as a core theme in mutually incompatible ways* so if you're playing a game of Leviathan it's interpretation takes precedence. I said that Leviathans would be able to tell that Beasts' Horrors are astral phenomina associated with mankind, and could display all sorts of prejudices in regards to that.

But I never said that Leviathans weren't Kin. Of course they're kin. The idea that they're not is ridiculous. (Princesses are Kin too, same level as Mages, but only when Transformed)

* In a nutshell, Beast has mechanics that place family a supportive and beneficial thing, Beasts can give Kin power boosts, and benefit from Family dinner or Kinship Nightmares: Family makes you stronger. Leviathan's idea of family is like the Greek Gods. A seething cesspool of petty jealousy, rivalries, and general dickishness who you're stuck with.

[HelmsDerp]

Beasts hunting other supernats despite kinship can't possibly be all that uncommon. Supernats are frequently their own worst enemies, and you'll never make close friends without consequently making bitter enemies. A friend of the Summer Court is no friend to loyalists and Huntsmen. An open servant of the Seers will never be a trusted confidant of the Diamond. Fall in with a pack of Forsaken and there will come a time when you have to choose between breaking with your pack or fighting the Pure. That's life for a Beast. You can pick your family, but if you try to pick "All of the Above" it isn't likely to have a happy ending.

I see Beast as a game of spectrums and choosing where you fall. A Beast who chooses to hew very close to the human morality he grew up with is just as much a Beast as one who chooses to feed with no regard to the consequences for his victims. The latter might be more what Heroes expect when they think of Beasts, but that's the point. Heroes don't see a spectrum, they see a binary.

Beasts as a whole won't predictably side with any faction, but there will certainly be individual Beasts who pick sides with as much conviction as the splats who have a direct stake in the conflict.

[ArcaneArts]

ArcaneArts if you'll keep The Kings Raven blocked for the duration of this thread, this is a waste of time, and I request it be locked.

I can still talk to the rest of you on the subject once I'm caught up. I did not create this thread to talk to him, and not really about him, but to explore nuances of the Princess/Beast relationship that challenge this arbitrary idea of ABSOLUTE enmity.*

The problem is that a significant part of that conversation stems from Raven's viewpoints and approaches, because he has cultivated authority within the community over the years, particularly as fangames goes, and what he says is easy to treat as near as certain as any open source projects can go-and among the many problems of that as it's wrapped up in Raven's flaws, the most pertinent one is that Raven a) has vocally disliked Beast from the beginning and through every adjustment, WHICH is not a problem in and of itself-you can not like games- and b) has as a result, made several decisions before as regards his interpretation that gear towards "Beasts will have nothing to do with the fansplats I have various levels of curatorship over", which includes Leviathan, Genius, and Princess.

Because of the clout Raven has, I can't discuss a challenge to this notion without having to at least point out that Raven has an extreme bias against Beast and will always frame things in such a way that there is no interaction between them except for enmity, because while, YES, it is superinstinctual to assume Beasts and Princesses do not relate well to each other, IT IS STILL ALSO TRUE that a big part of the reason any of you have that in your head is because Raven made it a point of conversation and pushed it hard when he pushed it forward. This has been his pattern from day one. If I am going to get anything more out of this conversation than absolute enmity, I need to at least discuss the points he raises that distract from the nuance that occurs, particularly ones that miss the points of the entire franchise.

I should note that I do not need to unblock Raven to address issues he raises, because issues he raises invariably draw discussion and I see them anyways. I've been doing this since the Meet the Huntsmen thread with him, and it has in no way impaired my ability to read his stuff and reach the same conclusion I have done over and over again-that Raven's opinion is not one I take seriously, and do not need to make easy subjection to. I bring up him being blocked as a minor courtesy after a long while of us not talking around each other so that he can, you know. Not waste his time trying to speak to me directly.

You wanna call a lock, that's on you. I won't tell you that you don't have ammo. But I'm not here to talk to Raven. I've never been here to talk to Raven. If I could, I wouldn't even talk about Raven. To his credit, I kind of have to as these subjects go-but only in as far as he has effect, which is more than perfectly captured in other people responding to him.

I think it would be best if we dropped this line of conversation all together. While I did need to square this out, any more would probably be crossing lines. In the mean time, I will catch up on the thread and, if I have anything to add, I will do so. If you really must continue this conversation, send it to my PM, but, uh, no promises I'll respond.

*Reinforcing, I mean, yeah, enmity is an easy response and it's not like I don't think that conflict wouldn't happen between the two-but I still maintain that they have enough grounds for both that conflict is not always a given, or even an immediate preference. Not to say conflict is unlikely, but certainly alternatives have higher chance than most give credit for. People seem to think otherwise though, and that's fine. Kind of why I left the thread alone for so long.

[The Kings Raven]

has as a result, made several decisions before as regards his interpretation that gear towards "Beasts will have nothing to do with the fansplats I have various levels of curatorship over", which includes Leviathan, Genius, and Princess.

Also untrue. I've never vetoed or opposed crossover with Beast. Quite the opposite, I've always been willing to offer advice and answer questions to anyone who's interested. For example: In this thread where Mangaholic13 asked me about Tears/Beasts.

I think Arc's got the idea I'm trying to push Beast away from fangames because I said Beasts don't get a First Impressions bonus on Leviathans. But that was just a straight reading of a rule that was in Leviathan since before Beast came out. They have an automatic and very powerful defence against "anything that effects a Leviathan's mind, emotions, or soul".

(I don't have any curatorship over Genius and never did.)

Because of the clout Raven has, I can't discuss a challenge to this notion without having to at least point out that Raven has an extreme bias

Given the reaction on RPG.net when Beast first came out. I'd say my views aren't particularly extreme.

YES, it is superinstinctual to assume Beasts and Princesses do not relate well to each other, IT IS STILL ALSO TRUE that a big part of the reason any of you have that in your head is because Raven made it a point of conversation and pushed it hard when he pushed it forward.

The logic chain is simple:

1) Most Beasts are abusers. (Don't take my word for it. Look up Yuri's Group in Hunter. It's an officially supported reading of the Beast text)
2) Most Princesses oppose abusers.
3) Therefore: Most Princesses will oppose most beasts.

My views on Beast don't come into that logic chain.

It feels weird to reply to someone I know won't see it. But in the end Arc is addressing me directly here.

[Wormwood]

I first wrote something about this weird exchange between two people whose stuff I like to read generally, but decided to cut it out, because eh, not my place, and I really, really do not want to know/get drawn in. Just wanted to throw that out, though.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. From what I have gathered, Beasts and Princesses are about as likely to interact as Demons and Beasts. It can happen, and there can be cases made for how and why, but those are probably the exception, as there are quite logical reasons for them not to get along - this does not necessarily mean "WE FIGHT TO THE DEATH UPON SIGHT!" and can easily include any relationship from "trying to support them in stopping their habits" to "trying to make them stop their habits" to "trying to make them stop" to "trying to not get into each others way" to "respectfully disagreeing with each other".


Other than that, I find myself agreeing with Malus (is this a first? I feel like it is, which is strange) in that I think this thread is close to being ready to be locked, as most things have been said/worked out. Unless someone comes along with a wildly new idea, there is not really much to discuss left, right?

[ArcaneArts]

Meh. Having caught up, I found myself not caring about it.

[Mangaholic13]

What about once the Player's Guide comes out? Since that supposedly will cover things like teaching lessons and feeding strategies.

[Vent0]

What about once the Player's Guide comes out? Since that supposedly will cover things like teaching lessons and feeding strategies.

Barring dramatic changes or options, I doubt it will impact much.

[Paradim]

Factually untrue. Apart from Tears' harvests, Wisps are generated internally by Princesses. Princesses are no more supping on human spirit and will than a mortal who spends and regains points of Willpower.

....

But I never said that Leviathans weren't Kin. Of course they're kin. The idea that they're not is ridiculous. (Princesses are Kin too, same level as Mages, but only when Transformed)

I don't really know much of anything about Princess, but when you add this stuff together, it seriously makes me wonder why you think they're Kin at all when you seem to define ways that they can't interact with Beasts as Kin.

Why should they be Kin then?

It's confusing, honestly.