Your right that I can't provide a quote that clearly states that the vast majority of middle earths inhabitants knew of Sauron. What there is though is examples of different people who all know of The Shadow in the East, even a simple innkeeper who lives far beyond the borders Mordor and is by no stretch of the imagination one of the heroes of the book. At the same time however I cannot think of anywhere in the book where it clearly states that the majority don't know of Sauron. Whenever Sauron is mentioned by one of his titles noone ever says "Who's that?".

That was a mistake on my part, a poorly worded remark. The first sentence should not have been 'recognise the evil' but 'recognise the power that evil possesses'. I stand by what I said before though, those that serve Sauron do not do so because they mistake him for one of the 'Good Guys'.

I didn't mean to imply that Fear is the only reason anyone would serve Sauron, I gave it as an example, again poor wording on my part. Also, the motivations of the Mouth of Sauron are not easy to define, he has a fairly small part in the novel. I would however point out that this fellow becomes terrified simply by having Aragorn beat him in a staring contest, his behaviour marks him as a stereotypical bully, which means he is utterly gutless. Does he serve Sauron out of fear? Probably not. Would he be afraid of Sauron and thus unable to leave his service if he ever did want to? Most likely. Just to be pedantic for a moment though, there are other humans directly serving Sauron in The Lord of the Rings. Well, former humans anyway, nine of them.

To be pedantic one more time, the Woses desire relief not from Gondor but from Rohan, it is the Rohirrim that hunt them like beasts.

Perhaps I should revise my definition of Fantasy to say that the majority of characters in a Fantasy Novel recognise at least the power of the Monolithic Unrepentant Evil wether they serve it, fear it, or resist it.

Before I do that however I can't help but realise that we are drifting off topic again.

Can't argue with that.

I would argue that only one a priori tenent can be consdiered valid. All a priori tenets, with the notable exception of Cogito ergo sum, are easily bodyslamed by relentless application of the regress argument. Knowledge is justified true belief and the regress problem makes all rational and logical justification impossible.

Therefore, I would argue that the only valid definition of evil is an Exestentialist definition. Evil is what I define it to be, nothing more or nothing less. Personal choice is the only justification that cannot be routed by the regress argument.

I choose to define the Horrors as good because their antics amuse me. Some people may choose to define the Horrors as evil. Both truths are equaly valid, but my personal truth matters most to me.

The fact that the Hororrs are evil is one of the founding premises of the Earthdawn game world. It is something that can only be taken at face value. Being a pre-defined premise, it requires no rational justification. I could argue untill the sun dies out and it wouldn't change that premise.
However, Earthdawn and Shadowrun are roleplaying games. All gamers are entitled to redefine the premises within their own micro-realities. Furthermore, Fanpro and Wizkids are entitled to redefine their premises of their primary Shadowrun reality. If they decide that the Horrors are soft, cute and fluffy rainbow-making, sunshine-spreading, fuzzy, pink, huggle-bunnies then that is their right.

The Horrors are what you choose for them to be.


Assuming that the dragon creation myth is true, Horrors are not irredemably evil. Nightslayer was a horror. He chose to abandon the Horror's way of life and create a new form of life. With his own will, he defined his creation as good and he defined the Horrors as evil. Namgivers, Horrors, and everything in betweem are all bound Nightslayer's choice.
The Horrors can be considered evil because they are so unlike Namegivers that mutual understanding is impossible. However, Namegivers are blessed with his power. They can choose to rename and redefine things as they see fit. It is difficult and dangerous, but Namgivers can redefine and Rename the Horrors. Nightslayer remade and redeemed himself. Other horrors can be redeemed, as well. All that is required is someone of sufficient will and power to put in the effort.


I was the one who made the comment about culling stagnant civilizations, by the way. Because this can be seen as good from a certain human perspective it is probably the best way to Rename the Horrors. They would make tempting gods for a corrupt Adversary Shaman and they could be corrupted into good Adversaries. The Adversary isn't evil because people are ultimatly bettered by the trials they suffer. The Adersary is simply a means to that betterment.


Edit: It is also possible for Namegivers to rename themselves to be more like the Horrors. They have the right to reject Nightslayers ideals and return to their roots. The Horrors are only evil because the forms of Namegivers are bound by Nightslayer's ideal. If one rejects that ideal and removes those binds that the schism between Horrors and Namegivers can be undone. There would be a fundamental change in perception. What was once evil would then be good and what was once good would then be evil.

In other words, knowledge is defined to be something impossible, and then one can proceed to do whatever the heck they want.

Maybe this is an indication that you're working with a flawed concept of knowledge, albeit one that is often accepted in philosophical circles. I don't care to write a treatise on the foundation of knowledge on a board that's supposed to be discussing SR4; in brief, the concept of knowledge as a web of interrelated concepts and/or computations that have provided predictive power about experiences has a number of advantages over the traditional broken philosophical definition: it rescues knowledge from the mires of impossibility; it comports better with our intuitive notion of the word/concept; and so on.

And anyway, personal choice doesn't stop the infinite regress because you don't know that you have choice, and you can just regress that off into an unjustified belief if you're using that trick.

You can, of course, define words to mean whatever you please. The problem comes when you try to use your specially defined words to communicate with other people. They'll tend to misunderstand.

So with respect to horrors perhaps not being irredeemably evil--sure, I can at least entertain that notion, if you're using some standard definition of evil.

I'm not so sure about culling stagnant civilizations. Humans do a pretty good job of that themselves, with less drastic loss of life. Also, there's no particular guarantee that civilizations destroyed by horrors are the ones that were most deserving of being culled.

You're right, I goofed And you're also right that the rest shifts off-topic, so I'll let it slide.

Hmm? Then again, up until now, we haven't had nuclear weaponry yet; and been limited to the possibilities inherent in efficient manipulation of the human assembly line. And if we do such a good job at overhauling/culling stagnant civilizations, how come we keep returning to the same types of stagnancies?

More later. Today is supposed to be a day off. (My body is threatening to come down with the flu. Viruses = Mini-Horrors )

IMO, SURGE suck a lot more than that stuff, and some creators of SR4 are behind that...

PURGE the SURGE !!!!

No.

In reality, one person was behind SURGE. That person is not involved with SR4 at all.

As for Earthdawn links, some of them I like, some of them I think are crap. I've heard no mention at all of cutting the links entirely in SR4, but they definitely aren't our primary concern. We're not writing Earthdawn, we're writing Shadowrun.

There's something I didn't know before, interesting. Is that person not involved in SR4 as in they left Fanpro or they are just not involved in the development process of the new BBB?

Personally I liked Surge, it was such a fun way to make players worry, shadowrunners like to remain inconspicuous which is difficult if you suddenly sprout horns or grow a new eye and start attracting mobs in white sheets with lynching ropes and burning torches.

I don't mind the ED links in Shadowrun, although I must admit some material hasn't really worked, Harlequins Back was interesting to read but it didn't play well at all with my SR group at the time. I think perhaps the Horrors work best as a completely unknowable and almost totally unseen menace, like the Bottled Demon adventure from First Edition, players see the influence of the Horrors but not the Horrors themselves.

As for Horrors being evil/not-evil/redeemable in the end it probably doesn't matter for Shadowrun. Shadowrun (at least in my experience) doesn't reach a power level where players could confront entities of this kind and hope to win or even survive, so questions about their true nature become irrelevant. If it's going to kill you you don't worry about it's motivations, you kill it first or you run away.

It's solid, but (like any particular specifics of canon) it's ignorable. Do you want specifics?

You're mistaken. Harlequin's Back and the Dragonheart trilogy are about as explicit as they can be without printing "EARTHDAWN IS SHADOWRUN'S PAST" in giant letters on the cover. Likewise Worlds Without End.

~J

I don't want to put anyone to any trouble; besides, I'm pretty sure there's something on Unkie Ancient's site that'll clarify the issue for me.

Thanks anyway.

Worlds Without End? Don't know it.

Btw, nice to see you again.

And it's well-written imo.

Abosulte knowledge is impossible. Knowledge within the bounds of arbitrary premises is quite easy. However, it is important to understand that the premises that you base your knowledge on are completely arbitrary.

You do not know what anything you experience is real. You just take the fact that it is on faith. If your experiences are absolutly false then your knowledge is absolutly false.

What the Exestentialist will recognize is that abosolute reality doesn't matter at all. Existance is a paradox of absurdity piled upon absurdity. Every being has a different truth depending upon its own unique frame of referance and all of those truths are equaly valid no matter how much they conflict.

Personal choice stops the infinte regressbecause it doesn't have to be justified. The issue seems to be one of language. The word choice implies free will but I was not using it in that context. All we know of absolute reality is that we have experiences. Those experience may be false but they do exist. I know that I experience thoughts and feelings. It doesn't matter where they come from. The fact that I experience them is the one thing that I can be sure of. Perhaps preferance is a better term than choice. One doesn't need free will to possess a preferance.

As for my definition of evil, I beleive that it is most everyone's definition of evil at the core of things. All moral systems are simply perversions of Egoism. We rail against that which makes us suffer and welcome that which brings us pleasure. Morality simply appears to be complex because of the comlexity of human emotion.

This actually fits your dictionary definition. However, it is important to remember that suffering is a matter of perspective. Surely, many players and readers take pleasure from the Horror's actions.

Yes, it is absurd. That is the point. Nothing makes any sense. If you try to make sense of the reality you'll just hurt yourself by constantly running into intellectual brick walls. You might as well just stop thinking so hard and learn to enjoy the contradiction.

Changing your reality, however, is fairly easy. All you have to do is go far a walk. Once you step outside all of those walls just fade away and are replaced by a wide and open sky. It can also be done by changing your point of view and looking at things differently.

For example, I can see that the Horrors are evil from one point of view, that of an ED character. However, when I step out of that POV and look at the Horrors as a player they are most certainly good.

Logical error: assuming that what the mind generates is consciously controllable.

~J

That's just... Stupid.

As opposed to the logical proofs of Matrix-esque existentialism?

This all assumes there are no absolute truths, no absolute good and evil.

Since there are though the person who assumes the definition of good is them, then they in fact become evil, regardless of what they chose to believe.

Horrors are evil. They are not good from their POV, they are evil.

Exactly, I'm glad you understand. It is stupid. Everything is stupid. There is nothing wrong with that.

Nothing can be proven - ever. That is the point. Logical proofs about ultimate reality are pointless because they are utimatly inadeqate. All you can do is accept reality as you choose to percieve it. All perceptons are diffierent and they all can be changed

On the contrary, it's very freeing. To do "good" only because of one's fear of punishment or disapproval of doing "evil" seems to me to be a very weak sort of "good". Then again, given that psychopathy is generally characterized by a lack of fear of negative results of one's actions, perhaps that's all humans are capable of.

(Logical error: assuming that everyone lacking that sort of fear will inevitably engage in acts harmful to others.)

~J

An absolute truth that cannot be understood by the human mind may as well not exist at all. It is like a car that cannot be driven - wasted material that only wastes space.

Existentialism is philosopy of personal responsibility. The Existiantialist can not blame anyone else for his actions. If he chooses to break his own moral code then he must live with that choice.

Most people who do things that are considered "evil" do so against their own moral beliefs. However, they justify themselves with blame-shifting.

The abusive husband believes that hitting his wife is wrong. However, she made him hit her. He had no choice.

God made my do it. The devil made me do it. The government made me do it. I did it because I am poor. I did it because I played a video game. I did it because I mommy didn't breastfed me. I did it bacause I watched an X-rated movie.
These are the pathetic excuses of people who willfully did what they beleived was immoral.

An Existentalist has no one else to blame. If God appeared before me tomorrow, proved byond any possible doubt that he was the one and true God, and then told me to do something that I beleived was wrong I would tell Him to F himself with a rubber hose. No one is responsible for my actions but me.

This is where one must diferientiate law from morality. The two are completely unrelated. Law is necessary, it allows society to function smoothly. However, law need not be based on morality. Quite the opposite is true. Law works best when it is based on purely practical concerns. Society needs the practical truths that everyone takes for granted. Society does not need any absolute truths.

That is one way to percieve those decades. I would counter that morals were no more loser then than they were at any other time. The difference is that things that people once kept behind closed doors became more open.

I would disagree. The great empires of history collapsed because they spread their resourced too thin. They lost the ability to defend their most remote boarders and attempts to do so simply weakened their core provences. Also, most great Empires are founded upon cults of personality. So long as they are helmed by a leader that can hold them together they are strong. When the leader dies without a suitable heir the civilization cannot hold under its own weight. Alexander's empire is the best example of this.

Just because you cant percieve it doesn't meen its not there. You simply have closed your mind off to any possibility and assumed there isn't.

Ignoring the truth does not make it any less the truth.

Existentialism is not a philosophy of any responsibility whatsoever, the personal moral code you are espousing is more a Nietzschean idea than anything existentialist. The existentialist cannot blame anyone else for his actions because he cannot be sure he commited those actions at all, let alone whether or not they violated his own personal and completely arbitrary moral code. Existentialism is concerned with questions of reality and perception, not 'right' and 'wrong', because in an existential arena those types of questions become groundless. That an existentialist would choose to follow a moral code is actually completely seperate from them being an existentialist or that philosophy, and more an indication of that person being less an pure existentialist and more just a little overwhelmed by some of the weirder aspects of the universe and reality in general.

As an outgrowth of this, if God appeared before an Existentialist and proved beyond any possible doubt that he was the one and true God, the existentialist would immediately do or not do whatever said God told him to do, regardless of any personal moral code he would have had before God did the proving thing. This is simply because the only way to prove anything to an existentialist besides his own existence is to make him no longer an existentialist, thus radically altering the existentialist from the core outward, and likely into something that would do whatever God told it to do. The Nietzschean, on the other hand, having already accepted the possibility of proveable reality outside themselves, would not have to be so altered to accept proof that God does, indeed exist, and has decided to give them a direct order. They'd also have no problems telling God to F off, because Nietzscheans (assuming they're of the Superman and not Nihilist variety)place a higher value on their own moral code than anything given by another.

1)An absolute truth that cannot be (as opposed to is not yet) understood by the human mind is not by necessity a waste of material and space, indeed with the interconnectedness of observeable reality such a truth could be monumentally important to all aspects of existance, without its existence the very foundation of observable reality could be altered to the point of of unrecognizability. Just because we can't and never will understand how the car can be driven doesn't make the car any less useful or important, especially if it's the car we happen to be riding in.

2) If you assume that just because you can't perceive something, then it must be there, you are commiting the same fallacy as assuming because you can't perceive it, it isn't there. neither position is better or worse than the other, and Kagetenshi is completely correct in saying that you cannot act on something you can't perceive (at least, not with any real effectiveness beyond Chance)

3) it is not necessarily a truth without meaning, either. See point (1) for an example. It is simply a truth we have yet to discover (as opposed to cannot discover, exemplifying the difference between what we cannot perceive and what we cannot understand.)

First, absolute truths and absolute good/evil aren't one and the same. Second, the limitation is not whether or not it exists (left open), but our capacity to perceive/comprehend.

Why do you say "cannot", hyzmarca? Maybe one person, or ten, or a thousand, or a billion might currently lack the capacity -- but you lock the door and throw away the key? That's just as absolute a truth as the one you reject! (But this is also reiterated in Sharaloth's points.)

Thank you! That's the one from which all the inability to trust/attempting to derive personal freedom by seeking control over others/far too many weaponry issues flow.

Hmm. Add a question: why do you play Shadowrun, Cheops? and what's your style of play? (I'm making the assumption that you do: you're on this board.)

I fail to see what will be gained by doing so—not all Horrors possess all powers, and if we're going to consider a group evil or not evil based on powers that some possess, we may as well condemn Great Dragons for their cursed karma-esque power or metahumans for the ability to cast Agony.

I disagree, I'll address this shortly.

To some, the practice of butchering animals for food is disturbing and unpleasant. The fact that the walking dead give some the heebie-jeebies is not solid ground from which to reason that those who have the power are more likely to be evil. If it were, we would also have to condemn Houngan (what is the proper plural of that anyway?) and Lwa.

Fine, let's go down the list.

Animate Dead: neutral. Doesn't affect anyone. The animated dead can be used for purposes good or ill, certainly, but that's just as true of a pocket-knife.

Aura of Awe: a somewhat iffy power, certainly, as it involves affecting the minds of others possibly without their consent. Kindergarten-grade as compared to the mind-rape that is Control Thoughts and Mindprobe.

Corrupt Karma: a power with very legitimate self-defense applications. Nothing inherently evil there.

Corrupt Reality: see Corrupt Karma.

Cursed Luck: see Corrupt Karma.

Damage Shift: see… I think you get the picture.

Disrupt Magic: see Corrupt Karma.

Dream Shape: more or less within the power of metahuman mages. Nothing restricts it to being used for the detriment of the dreamer.

Energy Drain: this isn't a power, it's an innate ability. Might as well put "eating" on the metahuman list.

Forge Horror Construct: another innate ability that's been tossed into the powers list. This one certainly requires a transformation, one that we can assume is painful, but says nowhere that it must be done on unwilling subjects or anything of that nature.

This is getting old fast, so I'll skip the rest save the one that would generally be considered most injurious to my argument, Skin Shift. It's certainly a horrifying-sounding power, inflicting damage but also causing unnecessary additional pain while doing so (similar to, say, Agony). Certainly those who take great pleasure in using it when not necessary could be said to be malicious. On the other hand, possession of a tool does not equate to use of the tool, or use of the tool for a specific end—it could be an excellent means of minimizing total harm when used in self-defense (it acts as a great deterrent in multiple-attacker situations—not many people want to keep attacking when the first person gets Skin Shifted).

This would require us to know the minimum subsistence level of Horrors. For all we know, Chantrel's Horror could very well be doing the absolute minimum required to exist.

If you bring those assumptions in with you, of course you're going to find them.

It offers Karma Boost for a reason. What that reason is is uncertain—it could be that it doesn't gain sustenance from directly achieving ends as opposed to aiding others in achieving them, or that it feels that the exercise of individual will and effort towards an end is more desirable than their complete rescue by an outside force, any number of reasons.

Certainly. I've taken long enough writing this, though, so I'll save that for another post.

~J

The truth of which you refer is the truth of How. How is easy enough to deal with using empirical science if you begin form the Premise that your senses supply accurate information. How tells us nothing about morality. Absolute good and evil must be defined in relation to the absolute purpose of the universe. Anything that works toward that purpose is good. Anything that works against that purpose is evil.
Even if one were to understand the absolute purpose of the universe it would be impossible to meaningfully differentiate that truth from any realitive purpose one would personally impose on the universe.

There is no proof that the universe has any purpose. Indeed, it does not need a purpose so long as it functions.

When discussing good and evil and absolute truths unto themselves one must discuss the nature of absolute truth. Perhaps I didn't articulate the meaning of personal responsibility quite well enough. However, Talia provided a good springboard for me.

Yes, one is what one does. If I go out and murder some people then I am a murder. If I believe that it is bad to be a murder - if I believe that I have become something that is bad - then I have no one to blame but myself. Perhaps moral code was a bad choice. Saying that it is bad to be a murder is like saying that it is bad to be poor. No one would say that being poor is immoral. However, most would agree that it is an undesireable state of being. Believing that some states of being are more or less desireable than others does nothing to undermine the freedom provided by existentialism.

I do not lock the door, I simply say that absolute truth is irrevelant unless one percieves it with absolute certainly. Absolute certainty is required to differentiate absolute truth from lesser truths. If someone can, then more power to them. However, even then it is only relevant to that one.

You don't have to look at the sun in order to perceive it. That you believe it provides light is evidence enough that you perceive its existance.

Edit: More importantly, If I told you that your sun was a halucination would you believe me? If I told you that you are a mental patient in an asylum miles underground and the no human being has ever seen the sun would you accept my truth or would you cling to your own perception. What if everything you know is absolutly false and I know the absolute truth? Would you believe my truth when I can offer no evidence of what I say. Would you give up all that you believe on my word alone?

Now that I think about it, it is possible for us to know the absolute purpose of the Eartdawn and Shadowrun universes. Because these universes are subordinant to our own we are as Gods in relation them to. The purpose of the ED and SR universes is to provide enterainment for the players and profit for the license holders. Horrors serve this end, even if they are unaware of the fact. Therefore, the Horrors are good in an absolute sense.

Locked in a cave deep below the earth, the sun matters not to me—it is only important in the heat that it brings, and not distinguishable from the core of the earth below. If you build a flawed analogy, you can claim to demonstrate anything.

~J

I agree the Existentialism is a "bad" (relatively unhelpful) way of looking at the world. It's so unhelpful, in fact, that I don't really worry about people becoming pathalogically immoral with Existentialism as a justification any more than I worry about them walking through walls with Existentialism as justification. I worry more about religions inciting that type of behavior by assuming that they have the correct non-personal non-arbitrary definiition of evil. The "obviously, no one religion has..." statement is none too obvious to many adherants of religions. One might even argue that belief in such a statement negates the power of religion in the first place.

But, anyway, it has not been my observation that a lack of religion has a huge amount to do with a lack of morals. I know very moral atheists, and I know of very immoral theists (I try to stay away from such people personally), and I know immoral atheists and moral theists, and everything else in between. Much of morality apparently (and luckily) comes from human nature and upbringing, and doesn't depend so much on the silly philosophical ideals that might be floating around in people's heads.

Er, that sounds like a statement of absolute knowledge to me. Do you mean, "it is my perception that absolute knowledge is impossible"? Why are you telling me about my premises when you don't have my experiences? As an Existentialist, it seems to me that you are claiming that you cannot know or make any such claims, and it also seems to me that therefore you're internally contradicting yourself based on your own perceptions (which I believe you've told me is a no-no even for Existentialists).

This is perhaps the core problem with Existentialism: it provides no foundation for understanding others or communicating information. It claims that we need not have any means of communications, and is rather mute about why it is that we do seem to have such a means of communications. It's basically giving up.

Wait, why not? Why doesn't personal choice or preference have to be justified? Don't you have to justify that statement, at least up to the point that you decide that shared knowledge is impossible and you may as well blow bubbles at me as try to communicate concepts?

Wellll, if by "perversion" you include "generalization", then I'd agree. Moral systems typically involve collective assessment of suffering and pleasure, not merely individual assessment. To the extent that Existentialism can support a moral system, it is probably an exception to this, however.

It may be a logical error, or it may be more subtle than that. If I were to say what James said, I'd be pointing out that Existentialism seems to support vastly more than is observed in reality. Existentialism is certainly consistent with the ability of people to arbitrarily (or nearly arbitrarily) change their reality. What are the philosophical implications of the observation that we can't seem to do this? Perhaps what the mind generates is not consciously controllable, but why not? What, if anything, does control it?

Um...maybe Kagetenshi's logical error point doesn't even apply...do you really mean this?

The existentialist also can't blame anyone else for their actions, can they? That is, it is the fault of the wife who has the abusive husband, from her perspective?

Wait a minute. How does anyone, even God, prove anything beyond possible doubt to an Existentialist? Since the existence of a God that could somehow generate true proofs would overturn the underpinnings of Existentialism, I think that once you get to that stage with God, you'd better rethink your approach to interacting with Him.

Accurate information about what, though? It certainly isn't accurate information about "reality" if you deny that there is a reality. If you accept both that there is a reality and that your senes supply accurate information about that reality, it seems as though the door is open for some absolute truths.

What do you mean by lesser truth? And what do you mean by absolute truth? Truth can vary in scope from being personal (true-only-for-me maybe-only-some-of-the-time) to universal (always-true-for-everyone), and in confidence from certainty to complete uncertainty. Which of these can you have in an Existentialist framework?

Well, civilizations tend to die when you kill everyone in the civilization. Horrors are well-suited for such a task. Humans assimilate most of the time; complete destruction is rare (and usually accidental, via disease).

I'm trying to assess whether horrors are, generally, evil. One of the hallmarks of human capability is the capacity to generate both pleasant and unpleasant outcomes; one can use both carrots and sticks to motivate others. My point is that horrors only have sticks and diseased carrots to work with (i.e. the benefit comes at a cost).

This is an argument in favor of them being intrinsically evil. Granted, this is from the perspective of an empathic being, but I'm not calling them Evil. I'm happy to call them lower-case-evil and recognize that the term loses its meaning once you generalize beyond sentient, wmpathic beings with senses of pleasure and pain.

Just to spell it out: on average, horrors have powerful capabilities to cause suffering and hamper people's actions, and none to cause a lack of suffering (except through careful use of their abilities to cause suffering to the right people).

But the Horrors book is full of accounts of horrors using skin shift and many other powers in injurious ways. So we cannot excuse horrors in general by saying they don't use their powers to cause harm--they clearly do.

The best we can do for the Horrors is to speculate that maybe they're doing the minimum they need to to survive and are really caring for Name-Givers like farmers care for livestock--despite a lack of evidence that this is the case (and plenty of examples where you have to disbelieve Name-Giver accounts of maliciousness, or assume that this is necessary feeding behavior without real evidence that it is). If they are doing this, then perhaps calling them evil is too simplistic.

(Incidentally, this raises questions about how we should categorize the consumption of animals as food. I'm not going to address the question right now, except to say that I am not a vegetarian but am willing to pay more for food that has been treated well when alive.)

Incorrect, the Horrors are not trying to torture me to death. If they are, they are going about it in a very strange manner. Personally, I haven't noticed.
They generally ply their craft upon fictional characters in fictional universes.

For that matter, not all Horrors kill their victims. Take Chantrel's Horror, for example. It blesses its "friends" with eternal life. Yrsgrathe isn't too big on killing either. It has actually granted at least one person physical immortality and then left her alone to do whatever she pleased with it (granted, she wasn't given eternal youth - She didn't ask for eternal youth).

And really, there is nothing stopping any metahuman from Renaming him or her self into a being that is more akin to the Horrors.

"You" can be used in an impersonal sense, including to refer to hypothetical characters in imaginary universes.

I.e., "If you see Ubyr, run!" means, "Characters in the fantasy universe of Earthdawn ought to run when they see Ubyr".

I.e., unless we're to believe hyzmarca is unfamiliar with the use of context and hypotheticals in the English language (despite apparent proficiency otherwise), he's trying to be humorous or otherwise not actually address mfb's point. I'm really not sure which is the case, given previous comments about "Horrors are not evil because I find it amusing to read about them." Such comments don't really make sense at all in the context of whether Horrors are evil (which is necessarily inside the fantasy universe in which Horrors exist, and which does not include hyzmarca as a reader of ED sourcebooks).

The truth can be so easy.