|
The Lord of Hats posted:Excuse me, but I think you'll find if you read the mythology that lots of people wanted Zeus And even more didn't only to realize that didn't matter.
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
See the difference is that when the Judaeo Christian God gets involved he generally is supposed to be exempt from the rules that everyone else has to live under, so he can get away with, say, nuking a city from orbit. So because of ineffability he gets to claim all the cool stuff that Brahma does whilst also not having to get involved in the universe at all. If anything its probably easier to make Zeus an idiot horn dog and his priest hood morons. It means that if there were any stuff going on where people went to meditate on the side of a hill for a while about him and came back with some insights that we might consider insightful then they can more easily pushed into the background. I know its probably bollocks though, and hells I don't even like the Greek and Roman Gods. But I find it a little galling when, in the Jewish tradition, God cannot get Rabbincal scholars to agree on something through direct divine intervention and it's treated as a funny interlude and treating Zeus like an idiot because he can't get his priests to do the same.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
If you pick Odin as your shadow name, and take the appropriate merit, can you get a free yantra for any spells cast on a Wednesday?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
That could actually be a cool Cabal theme. Take various Norse God names, and you each get a yantra bonus on the appropriate day. Mani, Tyr, Odin, Thor, Frigg, Loki, Sol
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
according to my personal theology we all live in the marvel universe and thus jack kirby is the co-god who created all the other gods
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:Nah, all of them are a step up from the Greeks, most are a step up from the Norse. There are levels. We should never give failures a pass because other people weren't perfect. That's how you get Zeus. Nobody wants Zeus. Now I'm just imagining Archer walking up on a raucous orgy (in a toga, naturally) and going "Do you want Zeus? Because this is how you get Zeus!"
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:Tell that to Odin. You've activated my trap card. Even the mythic implications of 'self mutilation' aren't actually those of reckless pride or destructive greed!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:One time Loki stole Mjolnir and gave it to the Giants so Thir dressed up like a lady to steal it back I liked the one where Thor dressed up as Hercules and Hercules dressed up as Thor. And then, Thor-as-Hercules kicked Hercules-as-Thor in the nuts
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
ZiegeDame posted:If you pick Odin as your shadow name, and take the appropriate merit, can you get a free yantra for any spells cast on a Wednesday? Possibly, but I'm fairly sure the book explicitly says something to the effect of "don't pick Odin as your shadow name if you're particularly attached to having both eyes" - that or it was in a dev post somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Daeren posted:Possibly, but I'm fairly sure the book explicitly says something to the effect of "don't pick Odin as your shadow name if you're particularly attached to having both eyes" - that or it was in a dev post somewhere. I'd like to see what picking Ganesh would cause to happen to you.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Daeren posted:Possibly, but I'm fairly sure the book explicitly says something to the effect of "don't pick Odin as your shadow name if you're particularly attached to having both eyes" - that or it was in a dev post somewhere. Also you'll get laughed at by the other
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Are there any examples of people who awoke at a younger age and chose something like xXxXxSEPHR0T4SEXGODxXxXx as their shadowname?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Are there any examples of people who awoke at a younger age and chose something like xXxXxSEPHR0T4SEXGODxXxXx as their shadowname? "Angrboda" is only like one or two steps removed from xXxD4RKFL4MExXx
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Are there any examples of people who awoke at a younger age and chose something like xXxXxSEPHR0T4SEXGODxXxXx as their shadowname? You can always change your Shadow Name. I suspect a lot of people who awoke as teens and didn't get themselves killed have cycled through more than one.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
bewilderment posted:I feel like I've missed an old argument here. What's wrong with it being a 'sin'? It's literally taking out a piece of your soul, making it so that you can never reach maximum enlightenment, in order to have power right now.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
That is correct, if your soulstone is ever broken you get the Gnosis limit back. The 'hubris' part, I think, comes from shaving off part of your soul and making it into a rock someone can steal and use against you. Basically, in pursuit of personal power you are actively giving yourself a giant glowy weak point that says 'use me for sympathetic fuckery.'
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Yeah it's not that every single Mage has a meaningful shadow name that influences their lives... but if you're a PC then events probably conspire to make it that way, and it happens often enough that Mages are somewhat aware of the phenomenon. Fate is a thing, after all. Re: soulstones and pattern-scarring for mana, regardless of 'sin' there's clearly a difference in magnitude there. You can convert mana to health, and vice versa (except it's a resistant wound), and health comes back in a day or two. It's renewable. Souls, on the other hand, aren't renewable to the same extent, and while you can reabsorb a soulstone, it's still taking out a piece of yourself and making yourself less whole. Put that way it kind of reminds me of that Vampire discipline in Mekhet where you can literally pluck out your own eye and shove it in a surveillance camera to see everything the camera sees. And that in turn reminds me of the Geist power described as "possibly the most disturbing" that lets you detach a hand and have it move independently... immediately followed by the power that lets you integrate mechanical parts and technology into your flesh.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:That is correct, if your soulstone is ever broken you get the Gnosis limit back. The 'hubris' part, I think, comes from shaving off part of your soul and making it into a rock someone can steal and use against you. Okay, but, that doesn't make sense. Why is making a strategic error to no particular benefit to yourself an act of hubris? Like, soul stones don't particularly provide you with personal power. A soul stone of yours is much more useful to one of your enemies (or to one of your friends, if you lend it to them) than it is to you - in your own hands, a soul stone wand is literally no better than a regular wand you've dedicated. The only benefit a soul stone grants directly to its creator is its capacity to sustain a demesne, so, what, ensuring that paradoxes don't happen is an act of reckless pride, now?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The only benefit a soul stone grants directly to its creator is its capacity to sustain a demesne, so, what, ensuring that paradoxes don't happen is an act of reckless pride, now?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Yeah, if anything making a soul stone is the opposite of an act of hubris, since you're sacrificing a piece of your soul (albeit not permanently if you're careful) for the greater good of reality. Something something Upholding the Lie something
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:Something something Upholding the Lie something Join the Scelesti 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Okay, but, that doesn't make sense. Why is making a strategic error to no particular benefit to yourself an act of hubris? I think it's part of the whole inconsistent definition of hubris bit that's been around since 1e. If you imagine that changing, manipulating or reshaping your own soul in this manner is somehow intrinsically unclean than it kind of makes 'sense' - in the way that maybe it's the magical equivalent of eating dirt or something - but I don't really buy that. I think it's a somewhat cumbersome way of explaining why not every single mage does it. I think that's really as far as it goes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's part of the whole inconsistent definition of hubris bit that's been around since 1e. If you imagine that changing, manipulating or reshaping your own soul in this manner is somehow intrinsically unclean than it kind of makes 'sense' - in the way that maybe it's the magical equivalent of eating dirt or something - but I don't really buy that. Manipulating a soul might be 'eating magical dirt' in the sense that soul-manipulating legacies are generally left-handed and labelled 'Reapers'. Doing it to yourself clearly isn't as bad but I suppose it can still have an 'icky' feel to it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Speaking of Hubris and Wisdom, does the book explicitly go into the implications of all mages no longer having Integrity and getting it replaced with Wisdom?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's part of the whole inconsistent definition of hubris bit that's been around since 1e. If you imagine that changing, manipulating or reshaping your own soul in this manner is somehow intrinsically unclean than it kind of makes 'sense' - in the way that maybe it's the magical equivalent of eating dirt or something - but I don't really buy that. I agree, but it's driving me up the wall because the existing soul stone mechanics already make it obvious that soul stones are double-edged swords which provide roundabout, general utility at the cost of personal debility and risk, so, like, why bother putting even more pressure on people not to make them? If soul stone creation absolutely had to be a wisdom sin, then making one should definitely exact a cost on the environment rather than you. Like, creating a soul stone means incarnating a shard of the supernal in physical reality and it always causes some sort of dangerous paradox zone to bloom wherever you do it. Or maybe soul stones cause breaking points in any Sleepers that witness or touch them or spend more than a few minutes nearby them. Or maybe you have to make one out of someone else's soul. Zereth posted:Speaking of Hubris and Wisdom, does the book explicitly go into the implications of all mages no longer having Integrity and getting it replaced with Wisdom? Not in depth, but since killing people and so on is still a sin against Wisdom there's not really any reason to draw the conclusion that mages think and feel in ways alien to Sleeping humans. Obviously, mages don't suffer Breaking Points from seeing weird poo poo, but they still suffer the Beaten Down condition. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 03:31 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Or maybe soul stones cause breaking points in any Sleepers that witness or touch them or spend more than a few minutes nearby them. I'm fairly sure Dissonance means this already happens.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
I don't think Dissonance touches soul stones at all. It's not like they all glow or anything, and they're not actually standing spells.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
I just looked it up, and it suppresses/destroys demenses, but not the soulstones that make 'em. I was close, at least 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Zereth posted:Speaking of Hubris and Wisdom, does the book explicitly go into the implications of all mages no longer having Integrity and getting it replaced with Wisdom? A little bit and somewhat indirectly, in that no, not all mages replace Integrity with Wisdom. Some don't quite Awaken properly. They tend to end up as Banishers (though not all Banishers have this condition), because Integrity, unlike Wisdom, experiences supernal phenomena as a traumatic overload. Between that and the example of the Mad, it could be inferred that what the game calls Wisdom, then, might be some property of the Awakened mind and soul that can process and filter the experience of supernal truth without being damaged by the strain, similarly to how seekers in Imperial Mysteries have to filter the direct perception of the Supernal Realms through a metaphorical lustrum, or be obliterated by the experience.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I agree, but it's driving me up the wall because the existing soul stone mechanics already make it obvious that soul stones are double-edged swords which provide roundabout, general utility at the cost of personal debility and risk, so, like, why bother putting even more pressure on people not to make them? What if you had to summon, bind, and enslave a Supernal creature inside of your soulstone first? I mean that sounds pretty bad. EDIT: And it could lead to some delightful, non-Paradox side-effects. I imagine binding some kind of death angel inside of your Moros soulstone is going to cause some sideways poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:What if you had to summon, bind, and enslave a Supernal creature inside of your soulstone first? Binding or enslaving a thinking being, including spirits or supernal creatures or whatever, is already explicitly a sin against Understanding Wisdom, so that would be entirely appropriate and also really cool. I'd expect the creation of a soul stone to exact less of a tax on the actual mage, though, and for the soul stone to actually provide some obvious personal benefit - at the very least, you should get the same +2 when using the stone as a tool yantra that another mage would.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Excuse me, but I think you'll find if you read the mythology that lots of people wanted Zeus 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
When will they make Alien: the Alienating
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
After playing through Bloodborne pretty recently, I've been inspired to run a world of darkness game in the same vein, but modern day. My idea was to start the players off as mortal hunters and eventually have them move up the chain and start hunting true fae and become inundated with hedge and Dreamworld poo poo, transitioning into fae-touched and eventually changelings. I'm afraid it would be butchering the setting a little bit though since it's not really Changeling "proper," and trying to think of ways to make the transition be interesting instead of an asspull. Any advice?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I misread Bloodborne as Battleborn and was about to lose my poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Gilok posted:I misread Bloodborne as Battleborn and was about to lose my poo poo All players are required to take "Flaw: Itty Bitty Head, Giant Body"
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Commissar Budgie posted:All players are required to take "Flaw: Itty Bitty Head, Giant Body" Bill down the hall is running a similar game, but it's way, way better, and a lot of people aren't sure why you aren't playing that one instead.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
I just want to say that the worst gods possible are the Irish Celtic ones. Why? Because they're the only gods who ever had a war with people and lost. Not only did they lose, mind you, but they were rules lawyered into being stuck underground.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Well, we don't actually know as much as we'd like about those guys, because all our records on them postdate the Christian conquest and conversion of Ireland. But what we do have suggests that they were part of a sort of deity cycle, in which you had gods, who then were defeated by the next wave of gods, and then the next, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
NewMars posted:I just want to say that the worst gods possible are the Irish Celtic ones. Why? Because they're the only gods who ever had a war with people and lost. Not only did they lose, mind you, but they were rules lawyered into being stuck underground. JUDGES 1:19 And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. The Irish Celtic gods weren't the only one(s) to lose against humans.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 22:14
|
|