Tonight! 7:30pm Central! It's Inappropriate Characters!
Come see me, Venger and Jobe talk LIVE about all the current news and controversies in the #ttrpg #dnd & #OSR hobby, including discussing the new #Ravenloft book!
There rrally should ve a betting pool for how many "humans are the real monsters" domains.
Quote from: Slambo on March 01, 2021, 02:37:48 AM
There rrally should ve a betting pool for how many "humans are the real monsters" domains.
Classic Ravenloft was about humans who become monsters as a result of their own evil deeds. There were other types of creatures to be sure, but it was a pretty human focused setting I think*. I have to say I am not too optimistic about the new Ravenloft based on what I am seeing. I might just be getting old but CoS didn't quite do it for me. I may just be set in my ways and like the old Ravenloft stuff (camp and all). Seems like there is a lot of shaking things up for the sake of shaking things up. I am not sure all the gender swapping makes great sense when you consider there were quite a few female dark lords already (and a number of important female NPCs). Maybe they just advanced the timeline and these are their daughters or grandaughters, which would make more sense to me than just swapping them. Also prefer my Falkovnia to not be all about zombies (like it how it was originally presented in the black box).
*Edit: Just to clarify, Ravenloft is a setting about monsters, just many of them began as human, or are a product of human evil. The domains are inhabited mostly by humans. That sort of thing.
There is, however, a strong thematic difference between Ravenloft's "monsters who represent the dark side of humanity" and the contemporary "human society/human beings are inherently monstrous, while those typically considered 'monsters' are fundamentally blameless victims." It's the difference between 'Dracula was human once' and 'Van Helsing is the story's real villain.'
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on March 01, 2021, 10:04:52 AM
There is, however, a strong thematic difference between Ravenloft's "monsters who represent the dark side of humanity" and the contemporary "human society/human beings are inherently monstrous, while those typically considered 'monsters' are fundamentally blameless victims." It's the difference between 'Dracula was human once' and 'Van Helsing is the story's real villain.'
Yeah this is more what im expecting to find in it.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on March 01, 2021, 10:04:52 AM
There is, however, a strong thematic difference between Ravenloft's "monsters who represent the dark side of humanity" and the contemporary "human society/human beings are inherently monstrous, while those typically considered 'monsters' are fundamentally blameless victims." It's the difference between 'Dracula was human once' and 'Van Helsing is the story's real villain.'
I see what you mean. Yes the monsters in Ravenloft, while they are often sympathetic and tragic, are still monsters. Strahd is a good example of that. The other angle can be fun when it isn't over done, but I think part of the problem is it is sort of expected, and rather being done because it is a fun and interesting twists, it is done to signal the political and social views of the writer. I remember I had a friend who also liked the Van Richten books and he did have a pet theory he used to talk about where Van Richten is actually delusional and killing innocent people who are not vampires. I liked the idea because he presented it in a comedic light and it was the opposite of how Van Richten in the books. But it wasn't like I thought that was how he should be presented in the core books, and it wasn't like I thought his assessment was accurate or morally better than what we got in the books. It was just a fun take. Fun takes are fine, but sometimes I feel like the trope twisting thing is becoming a requirement and a baseline for what is considered good design or good storytelling, and really it doesn't tell me anything about how good a book is just because tropes are inverted (it is just as lazy to go down a list and invert tropes, as it is to go down a list and make sure you are including every trope). When it comes to Ravenloft, for me I want something like what we got in the black boxed set. I don't think I've ever had such a strong reaction to gaming material before or since.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on March 01, 2021, 10:04:52 AM
There is, however, a strong thematic difference between Ravenloft's "monsters who represent the dark side of humanity" and the contemporary "human society/human beings are inherently monstrous, while those typically considered 'monsters' are fundamentally blameless victims." It's the difference between 'Dracula was human once' and 'Van Helsing is the story's real villain.'
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. An SJW take on Ravenloft should largely be one where the Adventurers are the evil ones, if they act like adventurers are supposed to act.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 01, 2021, 08:23:45 PM
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. An SJW take on Ravenloft should largely be one where the Adventurers are the evil ones, if they act like adventurers are supposed to act.
I'm listening to the Ravenloft portion of the show now, and it sounds like you and I are on the same page: The thematic underpinnings of Gothic horror are at odds with the SJW view of the universe. Since the Gothic is fundamentally Romantic, and the SJW are in the French Revolutionary tradition in many ways, that's not terribly surprising.
I'm not sure if Romanticism and French Revolution are somehow inherently opposed.
Besides many Gothic villain can be shown as quite fitting SJW standards - what is Strahd if not privileged white male sexual predator after all :P
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 01, 2021, 09:33:59 PM
I'm not sure if Romanticism and French Revolution are somehow inherently opposed.
Besides many Gothic villain can be shown as quite fitting SJW standards - what is Strahd if not privileged white male sexual predator after all :P
Well, the thematic disconnect is that Gothic is about the fallibility of man and the shadows of the past, while the SJWs and Revolutionaries are about perfectibility (whether individual or social) and beginning the world anew.
Overall yes indeed - nevertheless due to neopuritanical attitudes of SJWs Gothic villains sort of suits their purposes as well. At least white males ones (ergo most of prominent ones).
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on March 01, 2021, 09:39:50 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 01, 2021, 09:33:59 PM
I'm not sure if Romanticism and French Revolution are somehow inherently opposed.
Besides many Gothic villain can be shown as quite fitting SJW standards - what is Strahd if not privileged white male sexual predator after all :P
Well, the thematic disconnect is that Gothic is about the fallibility of man and the shadows of the past, while the SJWs and Revolutionaries are about perfectibility (whether individual or social) and beginning the world anew.
Yes, SJW is the bastardisation of the Enlightenment heresy of Marxism. Enlightenment Rationalists in Gothic fiction are either misguided foolish protagonists who soon wise up, or cold-hearted scientist-villains likely destroyed by their own creations.
I'd say Marxism itself is bastard of both Englightement and Romanticism, with SJW doubling on that.
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 10:40:02 AM
I'd say Marxism itself is bastard of both Englightement and Romanticism, with SJW doubling on that.
In my PhD I call the Rousseau-ean world view of the French Revolution 'Romantic' - because its belief in the Perfectability of Man and abstract idealism is opposed to that of Locke & the pragmatic English empiricists. But both are Enlightenment philosophies; and 19th century Marxism is a progression of that 18th century Enlightenment philosophy. Modern SJWism derives from Marxism of course.
Whereas Gothic Romanticism is different, I think. It's not a philosophy, but it's definitely Reactionary. It tends to be framed as a cautionary redress to Enlightenment thinking. You beat the vampires with Faith, not Science - though good tactics never hurt. :)
Hard to say to me. While darkness and pessimism of Gothic is certainly taking aways of revolutionary prometheism, this is still part of romanticism movement which I see as part of overall revolutionary hydra - like in gnosticism you have ahrimanic aspect of it in form of cold rationalism of Englightement and inward spiritualist side of Romanticism, but both are revolutionary towards ancient regime and form of beings. Basic Romantic spirituality is mostly luciferian (in gnostic term) in nature.
I think both can lead into their darker forms - which are better due to less prometheic/optimistic vision of mankind and so on.
Nevertheless I'd say modern SJW are closer to Romantic version than Englightened - as much as they like to use authority of science, they are utterly inward centred, and their emotional side is all for them.
I mean in moden fiction you beat vampires due to Empathy, Tolerance and Friendship - not due to Quantum Physics...
Quote from: S'mon on March 02, 2021, 03:52:22 PM
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 10:40:02 AM
I'd say Marxism itself is bastard of both Englightement and Romanticism, with SJW doubling on that.
In my PhD I call the Rousseau-ean world view of the French Revolution 'Romantic' - because its belief in the Perfectability of Man and abstract idealism is opposed to that of Locke & the pragmatic English empiricists. But both are Enlightenment philosophies; and 19th century Marxism is a progression of that 18th century Enlightenment philosophy. Modern SJWism derives from Marxism of course.
Whereas Gothic Romanticism is different, I think. It's not a philosophy, but it's definitely Reactionary. It tends to be framed as a cautionary redress to Enlightenment thinking. You beat the vampires with Faith, not Science - though good tactics never hurt. :)
The vast majority of self-identifying Christians in the 1st world today are actually just Romanticists. Their paradigm is Romanticism, they are "commemorative christianity re-enactors", not actually even ABLE to enter the (classical/medieval) Christian paradigm, it's just impossible for them. Apart from those ultra-marginalized devout charismatic Evangelicals, some charismatic Catholics, and Snake Handlers, if you want to see people who actually exist in the Christian paradigm, a world where angels and demons and miracle are real occurrences and heaven and hell are treated as actually real*, you need to go to the deeper parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia (ironically, the backwaters of Russia too).
*: One of the easiest tests of modern Christians by which it becomes evident they're actually modernists either intellectualizing Christianity into philosophical abstraction or engaging in a romanticist re-enactment/cosplay of "let's pretend Nietzsche didn't get it right", is that while many (maybe still the majority?) of Christians will affirm that they believe in the literal divinity of Christ, his literal miracles and resurrection and salvation, look at how they behave in their everyday lives and its very clear to see that they do not (when they're not thinking/remembering about it) act as if they actually think of heaven or hell as literal places or that you will definitely go to one or the other when you die, as will everyone else around you.
See, a very large percentage of Muslims (the percentage for which The Enlightenment Era was just something that happened to other people) still do act in a way that makes it obvious they do believe (without having to think about it, and thus remember to slip into character) in literal Heaven and Hell. Hence Jihadist suicide bombers, but also hence a much more large-scale evangelizing campaign to try to achieve worldwide conversion (reversion, as they call it) to Islam, and a fundamental us vs. them perspective between the people they literally believe have been sanctified by god and the people they think are doing the work of Shaitan on earth knowingly or not.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 03, 2021, 03:07:32 PM
The vast majority of self-identifying Christians in the 1st world today are actually just Romanticists. Their paradigm is Romanticism, they are "commemorative christianity re-enactors", not actually even ABLE to enter the (classical/medieval) Christian paradigm, it's just impossible for them. Apart from those ultra-marginalized devout charismatic Evangelicals, some charismatic Catholics, and Snake Handlers, if you want to see people who actually exist in the Christian paradigm, a world where angels and demons and miracle are real occurrences and heaven and hell are treated as actually real*, you need to go to the deeper parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia (ironically, the backwaters of Russia too).
I had the rather odd experience of being from an atheist academic family growing up in 1980s Northern Ireland, surrounded by real genuine honest-to-God Christians. Got a bit of a culture shock arriving in Oxford, though I did make friends with an English fundamentalist evangelical there. But even he was from a paradigm where eg casting out demons was not something I think they really believed in. In Belfast we had preachers in RE class telling us about their casting out of demons - who for them were very definitely
real demons.
QuoteThe vast majority of self-identifying Christians in the 1st world today are actually just Romanticists. Their paradigm is Romanticism, they are "commemorative christianity re-enactors", not actually even ABLE to enter the (classical/medieval) Christian paradigm, it's just impossible for them. Apart from those ultra-marginalized devout charismatic Evangelicals, some charismatic Catholics, and Snake Handlers, if you want to see people who actually exist in the Christian paradigm, a world where angels and demons and miracle are real occurrences and heaven and hell are treated as actually real*, you need to go to the deeper parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia (ironically, the backwaters of Russia too).
There is such risk. But then I'd argue folk Christianity of medieval period is quite distant from classical Christian paradigm, so I have to say I'm not sentimental over it, really, and I consider this sensational based, superstitious variant that existed them (of course not only) to be rather blurred image of Patristic Era.
I'd gladly enter paradigm of Saint Basil the Great or Saint Augustine, not necessarily of XII-century Christian that believe relic of Cross bouth from some quacksalver will stop famine evidently caused by witches or evil spirits.
Angels, demons, miracles, heaven and hell are all real - folk imaginations of them popular in medieval and modern Europe mostly is just lots and lots of prelest :P
No wonder lands you point out are rife with syncretic half-pagan-magical, half-Christians mixes.
For me Christian Paradigm is dogmas proclaimed by Church, consensus of Fathers, Magisterium - folk imagination of those... no not really.
I mean it's like recreating quantum physics paradigm from Epica metal band songs.
Quote*: One of the easiest tests of modern Christians by which it becomes evident they're actually modernists either intellectualizing Christianity into philosophical abstraction or engaging in a romanticist re-enactment/cosplay of "let's pretend Nietzsche didn't get it right", is that while many (maybe still the majority?) of Christians will affirm that they believe in the literal divinity of Christ, his literal miracles and resurrection and salvation, look at how they behave in their everyday lives and its very clear to see that they do not (when they're not thinking/remembering about it) act as if they actually think of heaven or hell as literal places or that you will definitely go to one or the other when you die, as will everyone else around you.
Well as Christ said - not everyone who called me Lord follows my ways. Considering how history of medieval period looked in Europe, I honestly don't think it was that different. Lots of folk, maybe even majority payed lip service or treated religion in a way pagan treated magic, and they thought that's enough to play the system despite system obviously having quite different rules.
And besides - as Saint Paul said about weak body and willing spirit, we live in basically Cosmic Catastrophe, Kali Yuga, our desires and wills are twisted and world is marred.
QuoteSee, a very large percentage of Muslims (the percentage for which The Enlightenment Era was just something that happened to other people) still do act in a way that makes it obvious they do believe (without having to think about it, and thus remember to slip into character) in literal Heaven and Hell. Hence Jihadist suicide bombers, but also hence a much more large-scale evangelizing campaign to try to achieve worldwide conversion (reversion, as they call it) to Islam, and a fundamental us vs. them perspective between the people they literally believe have been sanctified by god and the people they think are doing the work of Shaitan on earth knowingly or not.
There is instinctual belief ingrained by socialisation - and therefore usually also based on various customs and so, often far from orthodoxy - so lots of those pre-Enlightement muslims or 3rd world Christians will mix islam/christianity with various heresies and do not care as those are customs given to them. There is power in such instinct, and yes there is certain need of constant struggle and reminding yourself about faith by 1st world Christian.
But then of course as Fathers and Doctor proclaims - faith, hope and charity are virtues of Will and Reason - not of socialisation. Aztecs were socialised to see human sacrifices as perfectly normal, SJWs are socialising themselves and their new generations in some new nightmare and paranoia, and so on. Social instincts are generally necessary for societies to thrive, but in Fallen World they rarely reflect spiritual value, and hold little virtue beyond this basic biological demand for human species.
So as a Catholic I can only say I'm deeply thankful I'm not socialised into my Christianity into ways of XII century Polish peasants because with high-level of probablity it would be some superstistious half-pagan quackery that would give Aquinas terrible headache ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 03, 2021, 03:07:32 PM
The vast majority of self-identifying Christians in the 1st world today are actually just Romanticists. Their paradigm is Romanticism, they are "commemorative christianity re-enactors", not actually even ABLE to enter the (classical/medieval) Christian paradigm, it's just impossible for them. Apart from those ultra-marginalized devout charismatic Evangelicals, some charismatic Catholics, and Snake Handlers, if you want to see people who actually exist in the Christian paradigm, a world where angels and demons and miracle are real occurrences and heaven and hell are treated as actually real*, you need to go to the deeper parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia (ironically, the backwaters of Russia too).
Yeah, Presbyterians dont really take that kind of shit seriously. If you have time to be possessed by demons then you probably just are not working hard enough.
Funny enough most presbyterians I've met in internet was hard-line calvinists that made me want to bury them on stake in 5 minutes, often with weird racist edge ;)
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 03, 2021, 04:18:53 PM
Funny enough most presbyterians I've met in internet was hard-line calvinists that made me want to bury them on stake in 5 minutes, often with weird racist edge ;)
Sounds about right.
Who would have thought that Calvin would end up being backed with science.
QuoteWho would have thought that Calvin would end up being backed with science.
I'm not sure if Calvin would support claims that modern Jews are tricky Edomites, and Scottish people are true Hebrew?
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 03, 2021, 05:04:16 PM
QuoteWho would have thought that Calvin would end up being backed with science.
I'm not sure if Calvin would support claims that modern Jews are tricky Edomites, and Scottish people are true Hebrew?
Thats how you get space lasers I guess.