Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Horrors, Cycle of Magic and Immortal Elves...
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Taki
who says Earthdawn is standard fantasy ??? That you would seriously be overstatement.
To me ED is a satiric fantasy game, with a consistent world. Why heroes are heroes in it ? because people believe in them.
A lot of funny thing like this explanation when something is not logical: TGCM (ta gueule, c'est magique !)*
*shut up, it's just magic!

Earthdawn is both cool and funny. But not standard fantasy anyway !
Kremlin KOA
Critias, are you making the Standard based on the works of Papa Tolkein? or on the older works such as 'Le Morte de Arthur'?

The older fantasy works rarely had the White hat/Black hat thing going. Case in point is Arthurian fantasy, Arthur and Launcelot are the 'good guys' but Incest, mass murder of children and Adultery are committed by these heroes.

SOrry Critias, if you honestly believe standard Fantasy is White hat/Black hat, then you haven't been paying attention

mfb
neither. i'm basing it on the bulk of what's written for the genre. most fantasy is modern fantasy, and involves good guys fighting bad guys. to me, ED fits that mold fairly well--it's got magic, it's got evil bad guys trying to take over/destroy the world, it's got elves and dwarves and assorted fantasy whatnot. that doesn't mean everything's black and white, of course, but it does mean that there are pretty clearly-defined bad guys (the horrors and those who serve them) and good-or-at-least-not-trying-to-take-over/destroy-the world guys (just about everybody else). the fact that some of the "good guys" are pretty evil themselves just means that the morality of the setting isn't based off a Chick tract.
Critias
QUOTE (Kremlin KOA)
Critias, are you making the Standard based on the works of Papa Tolkein? or on the older works such as 'Le Morte de Arthur'?

The older fantasy works rarely had the White hat/Black hat thing going. Case in point is Arthurian fantasy, Arthur and Launcelot are the 'good guys' but Incest, mass murder of children and Adultery are committed by these heroes.

SOrry Critias, if you honestly believe standard Fantasy is White hat/Black hat, then you haven't been paying attention

Ooooh, my own words used against me! I'm wounded.

The grown-ups are talking about role playing games right now. You go to gencon, a comic book shop, a wargamers tournament, or even a large on-line RPGamers forum. You tell me what people mean -- your average gamer -- when they say "fantasy." Ask them what movies they think of. Ask them what novels leap into their head first and foremost. Ask them what role playing game sets the standard. Ask them what game world. Make sure they're honest.

It's not Le Morte de Arthur that sets the standard for fantasy-genre role playing. Sorry to be the one to break it you ya, chief.
Kremlin KOA
You go to those conventions, you talk to the Authors, People like Eddings, Feist, or Paul Kidd (see if ya recognize the last one nyahnyah.gif) You see who they refer to as the standard setting people

Hell Eddings said in Print "Most fantasy authors give a nod to Lord Tennyson and Papa Tolkein, then go past them to the real source."

also even if you only take Modern Fantasy into account, Elric of Melnibone is considered a Standard of Modern Fantasy, As is Magician... and the 'Heroes' in those tales were not White hats by any stretch of the imagination

Sorry man, hate to be the bearer of bad news but Fantasy literature is not inherently moralistic once you step away from Tolkein Tennyson or C.S. Lewis

(Edit to add a Reply to MFB)

Well the apperance of a trlt horrifying evil does not make it good guys vs bad guys it just makes it truly malevolent entity vs protagonists (usually grey hats)

Hell when you look at it, most cyberpunk literature was in that mold, flawed and morallyt ambiguous protagonists, going up against Malevolent entity (usually faceless corporation)

Hmm there's a thought, the Horrors set up a Multi dimensional megacorp and have decided to perform a hostile takeover of earth nyahnyah.gif
Ancient History
Moorcock's anti-hero was based more on mocking the open conventions ascertained by the standard Swords and Sorcery fare of the day, as established by Robert E. Howard. Instead of superstitious barbarian heroes, he had a highly intelligent, cruel, civilized sorceror that needed drugs to do more than sit there and drool upright.

Modern fantasy really traces its roots back before Tolkein...he just gets credit for popularizing it. Lord Dunsany (yes, the same that inspired Lovecraft), E. R. Eddisson and others provided the groundwork for Tolkein to publish. Jack Vance should at least be nominally important for setting the stage for Dungeons and Dragons.
Cheops
Yeah...but the majority of gamers aren't actually reading all those books and basing their role-playing on them. Movies are a much bigger influence on play styles because it is a lot more common for gamers to watch them than to pick up a 400+ page book and read. And unfortunately, despite the rich assortment of fantasy genres out there play styles boil down to the latest and greatest fantasy moive of the day. This is true in spite of the rpg author's intentions when he wrote the setting.

Tolkien.

Sorry folks
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Ancient History)
Sorry, I broke down at "neigh-invincible demi-god." rotfl.gif

eek.gif What a difference an e makes wobble.gif

No, I wasn't trying to imply that Achilles was invincible so long as he made horse noises.

QUOTE (mfb)
neither. i'm basing it on the bulk of what's written for the genre. most fantasy is modern fantasy, and involves good guys fighting bad guys. to me, ED fits that mold fairly well--it's got magic, it's got evil bad guys trying to take over/destroy the world, it's got elves and dwarves and assorted fantasy whatnot. that doesn't mean everything's black and white, of course, but it does mean that there are pretty clearly-defined bad guys (the horrors and those who serve them) and good-or-at-least-not-trying-to-take-over/destroy-the world guys (just about everybody else). the fact that some of the "good guys" are pretty evil themselves just means that the morality of the setting isn't based off a Chick tract.


But SR has clearly defined "bad guys", as well.

Deus, Bugs, Deus, anything with potency, Deus, Saito, - Did I mention Deus?.

Of course, one can find good qualities in Bugs, AIs, toxics, and etceteras.
One could find good qualities in the Horrors. Chantrel's Horror is eternally loyal to its friends. That is a good quality if I have even known one. Of course, I am willing to give Sauron a chance to rule the Earth before criticizing his leadership abilities and I think that the novel version of Hannibal had the happiest ending.

Unfortunately, it is not presented as so in the source material. Bugs are evil. Sauron is evil. Being brainwashed into becoming the cannibalistic lover of a madman somehow isn't every girl's dream.

Like anything, and and evil are a matter is perspective. The storyteller simply presents to perspective that he or she wishes to convey.

Runners are "good guys" because they are the protagonists of the story. They are no more or less perfect than other anti-heroes.




QUOTE (mfb)
i'm not saying you can't easily throw out variations on standard fantasy or standard cyberpunk. i'm saying that cyberpunk and fantasy, as overarching genres, have themes that are standard for those genres, and that any variations on them are variations. the standard fantasy story is about good guys fighting bad guys. does that mean every fantasy story has to have clearly-delineated good guys and bad guys? no. but it means that a fantasy story which lacks those can be considered non-standard.



And what is wrong with being non-standard?

Genre conventions are silly. They lead to "A fistful of dollars isn't really a western because because all western have perfect honorable heroes fighting against irredeemable villains and savage injuns." This is followed by " The Roy Rogers Show isn't really a western because all westerns have flawed anti-heroes fighting against people who wronged them."


So with the inclusion of Horrors, Dragons, IEs SR is still Cyberpunk. It is just non-standard cyberpunk. Magic powers and spirits also make SR non-standard cyberpunk. I see very few people here advocating a switch to a "purer" cyberpunk game like Cyberpunk 2020 or GURPS Cyberpunk.

Genre labels are for boxcovers. That is where they are useful.


However, in the interest of avoiding any hair-splitting chocolate milk debates I believe that we should just create a new genre label and call SR "Fantopunk"
DrJest
QUOTE
However, in the interest of avoiding any hair-splitting chocolate milk debates I believe that we should just create a new genre label and call SR "Fantopunk"


As opposed to Pantofunk, which involves Widow Twanky and Aladdin layin' down the riffs as to why cross-dressing on stage is da bomb. Word to your pantomime dame mother.
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
And what is wrong with being non-standard?

i didn't say there's anything wrong with it. if i thought there were anything wrong with it, i wouldn't be playing Shadowrun in the first place.

labels are useful because you can use them to quickly describe things. for instance, it's telling that despite the heavy inclusion of fantasy elements, you consider SR to be a cyberpunk game. to you, SR (apparently) isn't a fantasy game with cyberpunk elements--it's a cyberpunk game with fantasy elements. those two things are similar but different. a "fantasy" game is going to be about fantasy things--Harlequin's Back, for instance, was way more fantasy than cyberpunk, despite the inclusion of cyberpunk elements; it revolved around heroes defeating evil. meanwhile, Harlequin was more of a cyberpunk module despite the heavy use of fantasy elements. it revolved around pawns being manipulated for use in a game of revenge.

i'm not saying that labels should straightjacket games and/or stories. i'm just saying they're useful for sorting them quickly. and, anyway, my main point is that the inclusion of horrors (or any monolithic and/or unrepentant evil) general turns things into a good-versus-evil game. i call that "fantasy". whatever you call it, it's not a direction i want the game to go in.
Kremlin KOA
QUOTE (Cheops)
Yeah...but the majority of gamers aren't actually reading all those books and basing their role-playing on them. Movies are a much bigger influence on play styles because it is a lot more common for gamers to watch them than to pick up a 400+ page book and read.

Where do you do your gaming? Where I game most of the Players keep extensive libraries, and a few don't go to the cinema at all...

Cheops your example is the exact opposite of the effect I see in the gaming clubs I have joined over the years
hyzmarca
QUOTE (mfb @ Jul 2 2005, 08:11 PM)
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
And what is wrong with being non-standard?

i didn't say there's anything wrong with it. if i thought there were anything wrong with it, i wouldn't be playing Shadowrun in the first place.

labels are useful because you can use them to quickly describe things. for instance, it's telling that despite the heavy inclusion of fantasy elements, you consider SR to be a cyberpunk game. to you, SR (apparently) isn't a fantasy game with cyberpunk elements--it's a cyberpunk game with fantasy elements. those two things are similar but different. a "fantasy" game is going to be about fantasy things--Harlequin's Back, for instance, was way more fantasy than cyberpunk, despite the inclusion of cyberpunk elements; it revolved around heroes defeating evil. meanwhile, Harlequin was more of a cyberpunk module despite the heavy use of fantasy elements. it revolved around pawns being manipulated for use in a game of revenge.

i'm not saying that labels should straightjacket games and/or stories. i'm just saying they're useful for sorting them quickly. and, anyway, my main point is that the inclusion of horrors (or any monolithic and/or unrepentant evil) general turns things into a good-versus-evil game. i call that "fantasy". whatever you call it, it's not a direction i want the game to go in.

I agree about labels making things easier to classify. That is why they belong on boxcovers. After that, they serve little purpose but to constrain.

I don't consider Shadowrn to be a cyberpunk game. I consider Shadowrun to be a game that takes place in cyberpunk civilization that devolped within a fantasy world.

Both aspects are important to the day-to-day workings of the world and to the world mythology. Take away one aspect and you have an incomplete game. So Fantopunk it is.



I disagree about the Horrors as monolithic evil. They are much more Lovecraft that Tolkein. Rather than representing an evil that all people's can unite against they represent an inevitable and unavoidable doom that sucks even more hope from an already hope-starved world.

Instead of providing an enemy to rally against, the Horrors provide a disaster that people will screw each other over for a narrow chance at avoiding. When they break through the billion who do not live in a specially warded arcology will die the most horrible deaths imaginable. The rest will simply twiddle their thumbs waiting for death to come for them in one form or another.

I do agree that the horrors shouldn't make major breakthroughs, but they should always be waiting for an opportunity and their twisted creations should show up even now and then just to scare the bejesus out of people. Their looming shadow serves to illuminate the futility of life in Shadowrun. If they did any more than loom it would be a different story. Once one hits rock bottom their is no where to go but up - Hope Spings Eternal. As it is, things will certainly get worse. The fall is always scarier than the impact.
mfb
yes. that's one way horrors can be used. if they were used that way more often, i wouldn't object to them. instead, however, they're more often used the way Harlequin's Back used them--a global threat that must be thwarted by heroes. if you don't use them like that, great.
Hell Hound
QUOTE (mfb)
...my main point is that the inclusion of horrors (or any monolithic and/or unrepentant evil) general turns things into a good-versus-evil game.

Wouldn't the megacorporations fall into that description as well? They are definately monolithic and unrepentant, and at least from the perspective of outsiders they are generally perceived as the bad guys (Environmental destruction, creation, sale and use of chemical and biological agents, bullying of national governments for preferrential treatment, hiring people to murder anyone that threatens their image or their economic monopoly, and so on).

I can only speak for myself, and I'm certainly not an authority on fantasy or cyberpunk, but for me a fantasy setting is where that monolithic, unrepentant evil is known to the whole world and seen for what it is, or at least seen for what it is by the majority. A setting where the monolithic, unrepentant evil is completely unknown to the general populace seems more supernatural thriller/horror, and I don't think that is completely out of place in Shadowrun.

I concur with hyzmarca here, the Horrors can work as a looming, and almost completely unknown (and thus bewildering and terrifying), threat as long as it's not overdone. But add in regular appearances or a full scale invasion and it wouldn't be SR anymore.
mfb
megas are not monolithic, and not evil. there are any number of possibilities for factions within a megacorp screwing each other over--witness the fall of Fuchi. megacorps are greedy, but greed != evil. megacorps represent the callous extreme of human nature; that's a whole different animal from a mass of creatures that view human suffering as food.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (mfb @ Jul 2 2005, 10:23 PM)
megas are not monolithic, and not evil. there are any number of possibilities for factions within a megacorp screwing each other over--witness the fall of Fuchi. megacorps are greedy, but greed != evil. megacorps represent the callous extreme of human nature; that's a whole different animal from a mass of creatures that view human suffering as food.

Some would take a different view.

In Dante's Inferno the bankers are worse off than both the Glutonous and the Violent.

When a Horror tortures a man to gain sustenance it commits a crime against that man but fulfils its nature. When a banker charges interest for a loan he commits a crime against both man and nature.
mfb
i'm not going to discuss why the destruction/enslavement of the entire human race is more evil than working at a bank. suffice to say that bankers make better cyberpunk bad guys than horrors.
Hell Hound
What counts as evil? Is a wolf evil because it kills a baby deer to feed itself or is a human evil because he kills a full grown deer not for food but because he enjoys the hunt and wants to stick it's head on his wall?

Evil is a very poor and often misused and abused term but it is a term that can be applied to megacorporations, especially by those who cannot see the infighting factions and ordinary workers and/or are on the receiving end of a megacorporations more unsavory actions.

Now the Horrors are going to be labelled evil no matter what perspective you are given of them, unlike a megacorporation. But the point I was making was that for me at least just having that monolithic evil force does not automatically make the game more fantasy than anything else, it depends on how that force is portrayed.
Bandwidthoracle
I'd be prone to arguing that thus far (as far as I can tell) the shadowrun people have worked keep gray morals. Even to the point of saying that the Azetlan vs Ares think wasn't a good / evil battle. The horrors totally break that. They are clealry evil, they are so evil and unwilling to negotiate that it destorys the cyberpunk world (bugs to a lesser extant). There is no logical reason for anything but all humanity banding together to fight off the scourge. Of course, I like my game with magic rare, spooky, and feared, and technology ubiquitous and transparent, your milage may vary. (I should also note that we trated deus more like an incident than a protaganist)
tisoz
Then why are some humans aligned with the horrors?

It's like asking why there are Devil worshippers (not that it is wrong).
FrostyNSO
Heh, unable to find a way to shelter themsleves from the scourge, the leaders of the Big Ten megas negotiate a settlement with the Horrors to establish their arcologies and extraterritorial holdings as non-suffering zones.
hyzmarca
If you believe the Dragon creation myth, which is as good as any, then Horrors are redeemable.

If they are redeemable then killing them is no more or less moral than killing a human who murders to survive.

It would be more moral (and perhaps more prudent) to break bread with some more progressive Horrors, such as Nemisis, and tell them about The Good News.



QUOTE (Bandwidthoracle)
There is no logical reason for anything but all humanity banding together to fight off the scourge.


Because they would ultimatly fail. Fighting off the Scourge is equivilant to fighting off an earthquake. No matter how many times you shoot it you won't accomplish much. All you can do is try to survive it till the end and help rebuild when it is over. Of course, not everyone can live in fortified underground bunkers when the big one hits. Most people have to take their chances with certain death. All you can do is work and hope to be one of the lucky few.
Kremlin KOA
MFB a couple of points and questions for you

the only point I would make is that the Horror could be considered less evil because it Needs to cause that suffering to live... while the Banker creates suffering when it isn't necessary

Second is a genuine Question: DO you consider 'Chronicles of Riddick' to be more Fantasy or Cyberpunk in nature?

Reason I ask is that if you consider it cyberpunk.. then Horror stories could be more like it Evil vs 'a different kind of Evil' (Or to put it like in that other game LE vs CE)

If you consider it more fantasy... well is Evil vs Evil standard fantasy to you then?

When I ran harlequin's back style runs, the PCs were by no means Good, they were opposing this great evil because it would interfere with their plans.

Hell in my current game, the PCs are trying to bring down a sadistic and evil Blood mage... why? because they want payback.
Cheops
I play at a university where time is devoted to going to class, playing games, and doing homework/readings for class...it is much easier to watch a movie while doing homework than reading a novel. Plus tastes go a lot more along the Pratchet lines not the deep fantasy type stuff.

Chronicles of Riddick is neither...it is sci-fi. That's like asking is Dune more fantasy or sci-fi. Both are probably better classified as space opera.

Bankers are seen as evil in Dante because the pope said so because Jesus threw a hissy fit at the moneylenders and changers who had stalls in the temple. Although Judaism only saw usury as evil if you charged it to other Jews--but it is fine if you charge interest to non-Jews. Modern perceptions of bankers have changed considerably. In fact, perceptions of bankers, even in Dante's time, were very mixed. Nobles, kings, and merchants had no qualms borrowing from bankers and Jews but then had no qualms quoting scripture as a reason why they shouldn't have to repay said members of society.

Certainly banks and corporations can be seen as immoral in their actions. They seek to increase profits by any means necessary in SR. However, the suffering and misery is a by product of the process and is actually very beneficial for those in the corporation--bad for everyone else. However, suffering and misery is THE goal of the horrors. It is no byproduct, no misguided intentions, no alterior motives.

People willingly help them because they get rewarded for doing so. There's a power called Thought Worm. A horror marks its target and then gives it suggestions as to courses of action. If the target agrees it gets Legend Points (like good karma). If the target disagrees then the good karma award goes up and keeps going up until the target agrees. Sooner or later the award hits the right amount to buy the individual. The individual certainly isn't irredemably evil. The horror is.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Cheops @ Jul 3 2005, 01:49 PM)
Bankers are seen as evil in Dante because the pope said so because Jesus threw a hissy fit at the moneylenders and changers who had stalls in the temple.  Although Judaism only saw usury as evil if you charged it to other Jews--but it is fine if you charge interest to non-Jews.  Modern perceptions of bankers have changed considerably.  In fact, perceptions of bankers, even in Dante's time, were very mixed.  Nobles, kings, and merchants had no qualms borrowing from bankers and Jews but then had no qualms quoting scripture as a reason why they shouldn't have to repay said members of society.

Certainly, Dante's view of usury didn't come from any Pope. He did not hold the papal office in high regard. Quite a few Popes suffered eternally for their sins, in fact. Dante was especially harsh on those that promoted simony but didn't pull punches for any pope.

Many of Dante's ideas, especially those about usury, came from Aristotle by way of Thomas Aquinas.


Aristotle got his inspiration from Plato, who also condemed lending money for interest. So did Cato, Seneca, and Plutarch all considered usury to be equivilant to murder. It isn't just a Christian thing.

Dante held that animal in nature works for a living. The deer spends its time and effort searching for food to eat. The wolf spends its time and effort tracking and hunting the deer. The squirrel spends a great ammont of effort getting food to store for the winter. The beaver works to build its home. Nothing in nature gets by without effort.

The same is true for humans. The farmer works to create food. The craftsman creates tools that can be uses by the farmer. The poet writes. The painter paints. The sculpter sculpts. The politition politicks. All of these people work for a living.

The banker does not work. He just stis on his butt letting his money work for him. Ultimatly, he prospers be leeching off the works of others. This is contrary to nature and an abomination in the eyes of God. Capitolism is evil for the same reason. If there had been corporations and capitolists in Dante's time he would have certainly condemed them.

Thus, Megacorps are more evil than Horrors. Horrors hunt and work, which is natural. Megacorps leech off the labor of their employees. If a corporation can make a profit after paying the exployees then it is not paying them a fair wage.
Cheops
Wow...I didn't realize I was epileptic until I just went into the seizures I went into while reading that post. I don't even know if I want to start picking its fallacies apart. You were saying what those thinkers were saying and not what you think right?
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Bandwidthoracle)
There is no logical reason for anything but all humanity banding together to fight off the scourge.

There's also no logical reason to use up natural resources at unsustainable rates. People aren't logical. The Horrors have power, and power is one thing people dearly love. Take the Giftbringer. The Giftbringer amplifies natural tendencies, certainly, amplifies them greatly, but they were there before. Tempter does nothing it isn't asked to do except stay around. Cauthrunne also just gives people what they desire, power to fight the Horrors. Bone Crown may ensorcel those immediately around it, but the ones below follow orders of their own free will. The Horrors are no more evil than a reflection in a looking-glass—they serve humanity by giving it what it most deeply desires. Even Verjigorm itself seeks to free the world from the grasp of its draconic overlords.

The humans call the Horrors to punish and reward them, and the Horrors oblige. You call them the evil ones?

~J
Cheops
I'd say you've got some good points there but I see it a little differently.

The mythology of the ED/SR universe is that magic is cyclical and when it hits a certain level the horrors begin to come back into our world. They will come no matter what and feed off of emotions that we have regardless but they do act to amplify them. They hunt namegivers and I can't think of any prey that doesn't think that their predators are evil or against their best interests.

I definitely don't see the SR world banding together to fight off the horrors. certainly no one has in previous ages and odds are it would be nigh impossible to stop them. The horrors aren't just the big Named horrors that work in more subtle ways. There are also the lesser ones such as Gnashers that are just here to phsyically eat and destroy things. And there are LOTS of them.

And I'm pretty sure that Verji isn't going after the dragons for any noble purpose such as freeing the mortal namegivers from draconic overlords--he probably just needs to feed off of draconic emotions and not mortal ones. Plus the draconic creation story given in Horrors is the draconic story of it if I remember correctly.
hyzmarca
Verjigorm is to Dragons as Captain Ahab is to the White Whale. Revenge is what he seeks.

The comparison to preditors and prey is a good one. The deer fear the wolf, yes. However, the wolf is necessary. Without it to cull the weak and old the deer population would grow to an unsustainable point. The same comparison could be made to humans and the horrors. Within these being to periodicly cull the herds metahumanity would starve itself to death.

The Horrors, however, don't just cull indicidual humans. They would on such a scale that they cull bloated and stagnant civilizations. The cyberpunk civilization of SR could use some culling.
FrostyNSO
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jul 3 2005, 04:22 PM)
Verjigorm is to Dragons as Captain Ahab is to the White Whale. Revenge is what he seeks.

Ahab would give Verj the smackdown.
Critias
QUOTE (FrostyNSO)
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jul 3 2005, 04:22 PM)
Verjigorm is to Dragons as Captain Ahab is to the White Whale. Revenge is what he seeks.

Ahab would give Verj the smackdown.

Totally. Two-fist harpoon power drop, off the top rope. Don't even bother with the ref for a three-count, 'cause it's all over, man. Ahab wins.
Hoondatha
You know, I think someone needs to create an "Obscure Shadowrun FAQ." SR is great in that it has a complex world with much room for debate. On the other hand, it can drive people new to the debate (note: not necessarily new to the setting) nuts trying to jump into the middle of existing debates. I think something should create an FAQ for the more obscure points of debate.

And yes, I'm including myself among those in need of this. I've been playing SR for years, and have, of course come to my own interpretation of what is meant by the various rulebooks. Not surprisingly, it mirrors that of my GM (hard to survive in his world if it doesn't). While I have to keep that viewpoint in his games, I'm open to others.

A good example is the Passions statement earlier in this thread from TT. I always took that as a fairly open reference to Earthdawn Passions, and only now do I find out that other people hold other views. But I have nowhere to go to find out what those views are, who holds them, and how fervently. There are plenty of other areas that fit into this problem as well.
Derek
QUOTE (mfb)
yes. that's one way horrors can be used. if they were used that way more often, i wouldn't object to them. instead, however, they're more often used the way Harlequin's Back used them--a global threat that must be thwarted by heroes. if you don't use them like that, great.

I definitely prefer my horrors more of a Lovecraftian nature, and like my Shadowrun to be more Cthulupunk/Delta Green than anything else.

Derek
Ancient History
QUOTE (Hoondatha)
You know, I think someone needs to create an "Obscure Shadowrun FAQ."

What am I, chopped liver?
SL James
*sniffs AH*

Smells more like brains to me.

Mmmmmm..... brains.
DrJest
"Ssseeeennnnndd.... mmmooorrreee.... sssshadowrunnnnerrrrssss....."
Kremlin KOA
QUOTE (Cheops)
Wow...I didn't realize I was epileptic until I just went into the seizures I went into while reading that post. I don't even know if I want to start picking its fallacies apart. You were saying what those thinkers were saying and not what you think right?

care to point out these logical fallacies?
Talia Invierno
@ DrJest
QUOTE
Hey Talia, you know they're re-filming Beagle's Last Unicorn?

I do now smile.gif I just hope they don't end up doing with it something along the lines of what happened with A Wrinkle in Time and A Wizard of Earthsea. (Quite apart from other things, what conceivable reason was there for inverting the everyday use name and the True Name?)

@ hyzmarca:
QUOTE
Look at Achilles. He is a Mercenary with a Vindictive flaw the size of Wisconsin and about a million points worth of Combat Monster. ...

Even though I'd accepted it in the abstract, I don't think I've ever looked at the Iliad in quite that way biggrin.gif But -- yes. To almost all of that post. (We'd have some differences of opinion over "It is at this point that the Heroic Code (Kill or be killed in glorious battle -blah, blah, blah) begins to slowly decline in favor of intellectual humanism.")
QUOTE
I disagree about the Horrors as monolithic evil. They are much more Lovecraft that Tolkein. Rather than representing an evil that all people's can unite against they represent an inevitable and unavoidable doom that sucks even more hope from an already hope-starved world.

Again, yes (and again, to the rest of that post as well). But then I like my "evil underpinning the plot structure" as nebulous inhuman reflections and exaggerations of the inhumanity latent in ourselves. The truly terrifying thing about that kind of Otherness is not that it's Other, it's that humans choose sometimes to ally with it.

@ Hell Hound:
QUOTE
Wouldn't the megacorporations fall into that description as well?

However much they might seem to fit the same structure, megacorporations are completely and utterly products of human beings ... usually. That sets them within ourselves, not out among the Other.
QUOTE
for me a fantasy setting is where that monolithic, unrepentant evil is known to the whole world and seen for what it is, or at least seen for what it is by the majority.

Hmm. We'll sharply disagree on the genre definitions. In fact, even in Tolkein the monolithic, unrepentant evil wasn't recognised by most people in that world: something that's easy to overlook because all the stories are written from the heroes pov and don't stray among the "lesser men".

But in the dictionary sense of the adjective fantastic -- with the thesaurus synonym of "unbelievable" -- you definitely have a point smile.gif After all, can any of us really picture such a world having any real existence?

@ Critias/Kremlin KOA:
QUOTE
SOrry Critias, if you honestly believe standard Fantasy is White hat/Black hat, then you haven't been paying attention
- Kremlin KOA

Ooooh, my own words used against me! I'm wounded.

The grown-ups are talking about role playing games right now. You go to gencon, a comic book shop, a wargamers tournament, or even a large on-line RPGamers forum. You tell me what people mean -- your average gamer -- when they say "fantasy." Ask them what movies they think of. Ask them what novels leap into their head first and foremost. Ask them what role playing game sets the standard. Ask them what game world. Make sure they're honest.
- Critias

I'll say it, because most seem reluctant to say the Dungeons and Dragons words here. I'll even say it three times and invoke its spirit: D&D, D&D, D&D. Structure notwithstanding, however: the single most common real alignment for characters in that game was neutral greedy -- and the structure of assigning experience encouraged it.

So now we have an interesting split: does greed=evil (following up on hyzmarca's Dante/bankers and the seven deadly sins), or does greed=admirable ambition to better oneself? Either way, it makes a useful access point for Horrors to get a hook into one's soul.

In passing -- this ties into Cheops' post of the previous page -- whether bankers/usury were seen as evil or not seemed to depend greatly on whether one was personally profiting from the transaction or losing by it. It's only recently that the banks and bank equivalents had acquired enough power to fend off the people-in-power's traditional response to having gotten too deep in debt to the bankers ... and the shift in power is almost certainly tied to the shift toward the economic polarity of capitalism-communism as being the dominant dimension. (There are others.)

What are you studying in university btw, Cheops?

@ mfb:
QUOTE
i'm not going to discuss why the destruction/enslavement of the entire human race is more evil than working at a bank.

I'm really surprised no one brought up Dis and Thera in this context. Ancient History, you're slipping smile.gif

@ Kremlin KOA:
QUOTE
Where I game most of the Players keep extensive libraries, and a few don't go to the cinema at all ...
- Kremlin KOA

Gaming under my GMing is what introduced most of the new players in my groups to the concept that extensive libraries were Good Things. The schools hadn't. But we all love a good movie -- and we're probably going to go en masse to see Mr and Mrs Smith again sometime soon.

And I'm glad someone brought up Chronicles of Riddick in an SR context! For our group and within our storyline/world style, that's one of the defining SR films.

QUOTE
You know, I think someone needs to create an "Obscure Shadowrun FAQ."
- Hoondatha

What am I, chopped liver?
- Ancient History

Did you really want me to formally place your name in the same context as the current SR FAQ, Ancient History?
Ancient History
"Holy buck, Fatman! er..."-Robin

So what's with the sudden massive thread resurrection? I stopped paying attention after we had entire posts without ED references.
FrostyNSO
In regards to the Dante-Bankers-Evil thing:

This was at a time when the Catholic Church and group who practiced and pioneered banking as we know it, were often in direct economic competition.
Hell Hound
QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
@ Hell Hound:
QUOTE
Wouldn't the megacorporations fall into that description as well?

However much they might seem to fit the same structure, megacorporations are completely and utterly products of human beings ... usually. That sets them within ourselves, not out among the Other.

Talia, you are right that the Megacorporations are very different to the Horrors, my original post was mainly to generate some debate because from the right perspective their differences become less than their similarities. For example a Megacorp illegally dumps its lethal toxic waste somewhere and picks up locals for scientific experiments into the effects of continued exposure to all that junk, to the people living there is the end result going to be any different to a bunch of otherworldy monsters that ravage the countryside and pick off helpless victims to snack on? Certainly the Megacorps and the Horrors are different, but I would say they are different kinds of 'evil' rather than one being evil and the other not. At the same time however I am not a big fan of the world Evil itself.

QUOTE (Talia Invierno)

QUOTE
for me a fantasy setting is where that monolithic, unrepentant evil is known to the whole world and seen for what it is, or at least seen for what it is by the majority.

Hmm. We'll sharply disagree on the genre definitions. In fact, even in Tolkein the monolithic, unrepentant evil wasn't recognised by most people in that world: something that's easy to overlook because all the stories are written from the heroes pov and don't stray among the "lesser men".


I don't expect anyone to agree with my definition of Fantasy, its a personal definition so it would be wrong to expect anyone else to share it. As for Tolkien's work I must admit I can't think off the top of my head of anywhere in The Lord of the Rings novel where it was mentioned that the majority of people didn't know of Sauron. There are 'lesser men' in the novel who at least know of Mordor and The Shadow in the East even if they don't know Sauron by name. There are people that think all the War of the Ring stuff is someone else's problem or that it's all ancient history but they don't deny the power, danger or existance of the Shadow in the East.
Kagetenshi
Why do you insist that the Horrors are evil? Is the cyclone evil, or the hurricane? Is the flood evil, or the fire, or the lightning? Is the wolf evil as it feasts on its prey?

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the Horrors deserve the label "evil", or for that matter even the name "Horrors".

~J
Ellery
*sigh*

All right, let's look at the definition.

evil adj.
  1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked
  2. harmful; injurious
  3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous
n.
  1. that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct
  2. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
  3. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something
  4. harm; mischief; misfortune
  5. anything causing injury or harm
I claim that horrors are harmful and injurious and cause misfortunate and suffering (to the point of disaster), and that they are "wicked" in that they prompt humans to cause suffering and harm to one another.

If we suppose that horrors survive on human suffering, that does not make them any less evil--rather, their evil is natural and intrinsic. They are evil to a degree that megacorporations are not, since megacorps are simply callous and don't care what happens to people as long as they make a profit. Horrors are motivated by the desire to cause harm and suffering.

If you're not going to call "evil" a being whose core motivation is to cause suffering and misery, you may as well throw away the word "evil", for there is nothing to which it will apply.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Ellery)
Horrors are motivated by the desire to cause harm and suffering.

Are they, though? Or are they motivated primarily by a desire to feed, to subsist? Certainly some appear to take delight in the pain they cause, but others? Does a Gnasher tear flesh from bone because it enjoys the tearing, or because it requires the consumption? Indeed, consider the Tempter—what does it desire save the fulfillment of the wishes of its bearer? That it brings only destruction is, as I have mentioned above, perhaps more a reflection on Name-givers than on it. Verjigorm cares nothing for the lesser races, yet it is more deliberately malign than a corporation that feeds directly on the same beings that form its components?
QUOTE
If you're not going to call "evil" a being whose core motivation is to cause suffering and misery, you may as well throw away the word "evil", for there is nothing to which it will apply.

Though I find your logic deeply flawed, I have no problem discarding the term.

~J
Velocity
Mired in semantics much? wink.gif
Kremlin KOA
QUOTE (Talia Invierno)


@ Kremlin KOA:
QUOTE
Where I game most of the Players keep extensive libraries, and a few don't go to the cinema at all ...
- Kremlin KOA

Gaming under my GMing is what introduced most of the new players in my groups to the concept that extensive libraries were Good Things. The schools hadn't. But we all love a good movie -- and we're probably going to go en masse to see Mr and Mrs Smith again sometime soon.

And I'm glad someone brought up Chronicles of Riddick in an SR context! For our group and within our storyline/world style, that's one of the defining SR films.


Thanks, I kinda liked it for the feel as well... it's how I would make a Bugs or horrors campaign feel.
Ellery
Let's consider all horror powers:

Animate Dead -- Kind of spooky, can argue whether it's inherently evil.
Aura of Awe -- Metahumans like the horror (works best if astral is badly corrupted).
Corrupt Karma -- Prevents character from using karma.
Corrupt Reality -- Physical changes visible to one character that cause fear/revulsion.
Cursed Luck -- Character loses dice for all actions.
Damage Shift -- Moves damage from itself onto unwilling target character.
Disrupt Magic -- Blocks use of magic.
Dream Shape -- Horror can do whatever it wants to victim's dreams; typically uses ability to drive the victim insane.
Energy Drain -- Derive karma / sustenance from either a victim's life energy or extremely strong negative emotions (typically with concommitant harm to victim or others--murderous rage, mind-numbing fear, etc.)
Forge Horror Construct -- Turn a victim into a dimly-aware hideous creature that goes out and inflicts pain and death.
Forge Trap -- Create a magical / physical trap that causes damage.
Horror Thread -- Use the victim's abilities.
Karma Boost -- Give target extra karma points in exchange for slowly transforming target into horror construct (with tendency to go into berserk killing rages).
Karma Drain -- Take karma from victim.
Karma Tap -- Complicated, involves Horrors controlling characters to do its bidding.
Skin Shift -- Tears skin from muscle and ligament. Painful and horrific even for an attack spell.
Spellcasting -- Horror can cast spells from a discipline.
Suppress Horror Mark -- Hide a mark that the horror has placed on a victim.
Terror -- Makes people run in fear.
Thought Worm -- Another method for allowing the horror to control a subject.
Unnatural Life -- An alternate way to Animate Dead.

The powers generally involve hampering metahumans in unpleasant ways, controlling them, or causing them excruciating pain and damage (or causing corpses to walk around, which is disturbing and unpleasant). Not nice things. In fact, the whole list doesn't have a single thing on it that doesn't have a really wretched downside to it. Damaging powers are inhumane, powers that boost abilities come at terrible cost to the boosted, and there are plenty of powers that involve horrors becoming more powerful when metahumans ("name-givers") are dying or suffering.

Let's suppose for a moment that all this shows is that horrors can only subsist on metahuman suffering. Even so, they seem to have no interest in minimizing this suffering. (I challenge you to find a single example of a horror carefully limiting its power to cause suffering so as to make as few people miserable as possible, to
tle least extent possible.)

Wicked? Yep. Injurious? Yep. Characterized by suffering? Yep.

Looks like evil to me.

Finally, Tempter has Circle 6 Illusionist spells, which it could use extensively to aid people who have wishes, but instead it chooses to always offer Karma Boost. It presents constant temptation, preying upon the weakness of desire for power. With mental attributes of over 20 (that's very good, in ED terms), it cannot possibly not know what the consequences of its actions are. So there isn't really much excuse for it being evil accidentally. Tempter tries to be.

If you find my logic deeply flawed, don't just say so. Point out where. Point out the particular problems in the logic--unsubstantiated premises, conclusions that do not follow from the premises, incorrect definitions, etc..
Talia Invierno
QUOTE
So what's with the sudden massive thread resurrection?
- Ancient History

Was it a resurrection? I just noticed it was at the top of the page, at a time when I finally both had the time and remembered that DrJest had addressed a comment to me, and I'd never answered.

I think I'll just stay entirely clear of the "what is evil" (vs. how to play Horrors) discussion. Since the entire concept of evil almost has to be an a priori tenet, it's just simpler smile.gif Won't stop me from throwing in my own definition into the ring though biggrin.gif -- I'll suggest that what underlies "evil" is complete and utter isolation from one's fellow human beings and from the gaiasphere more generally: one's own motivations are the only relevance to one's actions. It's a humano-centric definition -- again a priori -- but it could be taken to apply to the Horrors if they are read as something outside humanity which is not intrinsically necessary to humanity. (I don't remember who wrote the "culling of stagnant civilisations" comment, but it's a valid point.)
QUOTE
I don't expect anyone to agree with my definition of Fantasy, its a personal definition so it would be wrong to expect anyone else to share it. As for Tolkien's work I must admit I can't think off the top of my head of anywhere in The Lord of the Rings novel where it was mentioned that the majority of people didn't know of Sauron. There are 'lesser men' in the novel who at least know of Mordor and The Shadow in the East even if they don't know Sauron by name. There are people that think all the War of the Ring stuff is someone else's problem or that it's all ancient history but they don't deny the power, danger or existance of the Shadow in the East.
- Hell Hound

This is going to be tricky to do cold, without my Silmarillion to hand, but try this to start: the Dunedain (Aragorn's people, what Boromir and the Gondor ruling class pulled their heritage from) are descended from the Numenoreans: who were rewarded with Numenor by the Vala ("gods") because they were the only men in Middle Earth to fight against the shadow -- not with it.

Your original definition, as you gave it here, required "that monolithic, unrepentant evil is known to the whole world and seen for what it is, or at least seen for what it is by the majority": in other words, not just that people know of Sauron (and before him Melkor, the original Evil), but that they recognise him as Evil. The majority of people in Middle Earth don't. (It's interesting that Gandalf should call them "slaves": for there is no sign that the armies of Harn and other points east and south -- far outnumbering the peoples of the West -- are mistreated. Slaves within their minds, maybe? in that they have accepted what is, and turned away from the true dominion of Gondor? and thus indirectly of the Vala?)

If Sauron's evil were seen for what it was, why would the majority keep fighting for it?

The Akellabeth -- the story of Numenor's fall, one of the "books" of the Silmarillion -- also mentions explicitly that Sauron (at that time) had a fair face and a fair seeming. In fact, the great men of Numenor returned to Middle Earth as empire-builders and conquerers (as were the Noldor elves before them); and thus with the intent to remove from power the only one with enough power to oppose them: Sauron. They captured him and brought him back to Numenor: where his advice rang so fairly that Sauron became the major power behind the throne of Numenor; and the leader of Numenor was swayed into making war on the Vala. (Again this echoes the rebellion and Kinslaying of the Noldor -- many of whom had been swayed by Melkor before. Unlike men, none of the elves had ever outright sided with the side of Evil -- the only race not to have done so -- but their actions frequently ended up serving that side nevertheless.)

Ironically, I suspect most of us would side with the majority of Numenoreans here: in gifting Numenor, the Vala had also placed absolute limitations on the Numenoreans, places they absolutely were not allowed to go, what must not be sought. Who among us takes well to being shoved into what looks like an arbitrary Thou Shalt Not? What made men particularly vulnerable to such manipulation was the absolute gift of death, which had been made to seem not a gift but a curse: it was reprieve from death that the Numenoreans sought of the gods, even though it wasn't theirs to give. Who among us wouldn't be similarly vulnerable?

Among all the Numenoreans, only one family had held true to the original faith and restrictions; and among all the Numenoreans, only that one family survived the subsequent destruction of Numenor by the Vala -- destruction because the Numenoreans dared to challenge the limitations set by the Vala. (Heh -- it sure looks like it was the Vala that imposed the suffering and destruction, here: but Tolkein gives us his own a priori that the Vala are good, because they embody the Will of the greater One.) It is from that one family that Aragorn is descended.

Anyway, I think this might go some way toward addressing your thoughts, Hell Hound.

(It's a bit unnerving that when I was looking for Tolkein quotes on-line in this context, the site that came up first and most frequently was stormfront.org : white supremacists, for those who aren't familiar with it.)
Hell Hound
Agreed Talia, the Numenorians were taken in by Sauron's more pleasant appearance during the second age. They first made war upon Sauron because he took the title of Lord of the Earth and the Numenorean king at the time, Ar-Pharazon, wanted it for himself, so Sauron was taken back to Numenor as a prisoner and eventually won the confidence of and further corrupted the king. Still, even if only the minority of Numenoreans saw the threat Sauron posed the vast majority of Middle Earth's inhabitants worked out what Sauron was sooner or later (he also fooled the elves of Eregion at least until he finished forging the one ring).

I said that the 'evil' had to be recognised for what it was, not that it had to be resisted. Both Sauron and Morgoth/Melkor had human servants because both were perceived as the greater power amongst the gods, humans served them because they feared them not because they mistook them for 'good guys'. The reason they can continue to serve such evils? Neither Sauron nor Morgoth before him wanted to destroy the world, just to rule it, so if you help him then when he wins you can hope to do better than those that resisted him.

I also said that I could not think of an example in The Lord of the Rings that said the majority of people did not know of Sauron or at least the Shadow in the East. So I think going to The Silmarillion, which deals more with the First Age, is kind of cheating.
Talia Invierno
QUOTE
Still, even if only the minority of Numenoreans saw the threat Sauron posed the vast majority of Middle Earth's inhabitants worked out what Sauron was sooner or later

Hate to say it, Hell Hound, but that second part is an assumption that's not actually backed up in any of the books ... and you're basing the rest of your argument on that assumption of recognition. (Find me a quote that directly says differently? smile.gif)

Oh, and you're also using "the 'evil' had to be recognised for what it was" and "the majority of people did not know of [the evil]" somewhat interchangeably, when they aren't really the same thing: the first implies general agreement that it is an evil; the second only requires that people know that a thing exists, whether or not they agree that it is evil or not. I'll just briefly borrow Palpatine's Sithocracy from Star Wars to further example that point: should be self-explanatory?

And also, since you asked me to pull from the main trilogy only and considered anything else cheating:
QUOTE
humans served them because they feared them not because they mistook them for 'good guys'. The reason they can continue to serve such evils? Neither Sauron nor Morgoth before him wanted to destroy the world, just to rule it, so if you help him then when he wins you can hope to do better than those that resisted him.

The one human directly serving Sauron that we're introduced to in the trilogy is the messenger at Mordor. Where, in that passage, is there any suggestion whatsoever that the messenger is serving Sauron out of fear? Orks, yes. Humans: not as based strictly on the core three-book text. But the second part, the seeking of power: absolutely. That's the fatal flaw that runs through everyone who goes of their own will against the Will of Iluvatar, Melkor and Sauron and Noldor and Numenoreans and Denethor/Boromir alike.

It's easy to get a skewed perception of Middle Earth in reading those books, if one doesn't keep constantly in mind that the only perspectives Tolkein gives are those of not only the serious minority but of the beseiged: hobbits, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Rohan, Gondor, the wild men who asked only for relief ... from Gondor as well! We never once see a perspective from the masses.

More generally and not relating directly to this, I'm going to suggest that the reason most people wouldn't recognise the rise of a subtle evil is because it frequently takes the form of an apparent security and/or the reflection of your own self-interest; and tells you only what you want to hear.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012