QuoteDo you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?

I mean it all depends of a situation. Xenomorph is basically a beast, goblins in Goblin Slayer too I think (though isn't this series bit of parody of jRPGs?).
Problem is when you get people and civiisation. Because it's hard to really get rationally one based on absolute evil for evil's sake. Tolkien landed with orcs due to dual pagan/Catholic origin of his setting and he realised after a time that he sort of fucked up (also he get soft and wanted to retcon that any elves were tortured really really bad).

QuoteAnd that, I believe, is Wicked Woodpecker's point. Evil for evil's sake is boring and childish. Villains and even just animalistic threats need some sort of motivation beyond simple malignance. Even the Devil himself doesn't lash out for evil's sake, but from wounded pride and spite.

Yes, indeed.


Religious off-topic: In case of Saint Michael I must say I've never heard really zero to hero version of his story and as much as it's great archetype for a story and mythos I'm sort of doubting it angelologically speaking as I've read angels are not just Celestial Buerocracy with ranks, but every kind of angel is basically separate being not sharing one nature with others as humans do - due to our breeding. So to make Saint Michael seraphin in such situation would be to... destroy him, which seems weird. (Now TBH all this story sounds very much like antropomorphic personifications considering we speak about pure spirits/intellects kind of beings.) So generally my notion was always that either Saint Michael is seraphin who was called archangel in Old Testament due to wel.. Old Testament not really using specifically later Pseudo-Dionysius angelology - so just because some being is called archangel doesn't mean it's from choir of archangels, it may just mean VERY BIG AND IMPORTANT ANGEL. Other was that he was basically always Lord of Celestial Host (ergo archangels per se, because warfare seems to be low on prestige lists of heaven) and he did precisely what he meant to do (because angels basically can go either perfect paragon or perfect renegade) and declared war upon Lucifer in a moment of his creation.
Less inspiring maybe, and less human, but then I've seen what popculture do... when it starts to humanize angels, and just... don't.

On the other hand - adding Hypostatic Union to Lucifer's ambitions list... that somehow seems rad and cool, and while still well bit humanizing - I think that could make sense theologically speaking, and make very random pride, more specific cause. Finally cause I can imagine Lucifer to have without being absolute dumbass.

Well there's allready a few loons preaching that we should worry about the feelings of NPCs in video games because sprite lives matter or god knows what they want. Its just one step down from believing you are the reincarnation of a videogame character or channelling the spirit of one. I wish I were joking.

Bleeding Hearts are allways going to bleed. That rabid dog just needs a hug! The bear trying to eat you is misunderstood. Murderers have feelings too you know! Who cares if that publisher robbed people? You MUST buy their product or they will starve!!!

Quote from: Omega on March 02, 2021, 12:37:19 AM
Well there's allready a few loons preaching that we should worry about the feelings of NPCs in video games because sprite lives matter or god knows what they want. Its just one step down from believing you are the reincarnation of a videogame character or channelling the spirit of one. I wish I were joking.

Bleeding Hearts are allways going to bleed. That rabid dog just needs a hug! The bear trying to eat you is misunderstood. Murderers have feelings too you know! Who cares if that publisher robbed people? You MUST buy their product or they will starve!!!

Xenomorphs are not evil, everyone needs to eat!

QuoteTo the main question at hand though, the comment was that thinking about an entire race/culture as existing only to be cannon fodder is poor world building. It is.

Let's take the xenomorphs you brought up. Leaving aside that the first outing featured just one (making it anything but cannon fodder; it was a Freddy or Jason or Michael Myers); the writers didn't just grab a scary-looking piece of Geiger art and have it start attacking for no reason.

They gave it a parasitic life cycle where it needs to plant an egg in a host to reproduce. The sequel further establishes that it is only the queen that reproduces, the default xenomorph is essentially a soldier insect that exists to protect the queen and the hive.

QuoteSo rather than just attacking without reason, the xenomorphs are a hive-based lifeform that attacks humans because it needs warm bodies to hatch their eggs and because when humans counter-attack they are threatening the queen/hive. Their biological drive to expand and need for human hosts makes them a threat. Their hive-based society means they respond to threats by throwing drone soldiers at them.

In other words there's more to them than just existing as sacks of xp for the PCs to mow down.

I think a lot of this is opinion and preference passed off as universal truths of writing/world building. It's also talking about different things imo. A villains complexity is independent from whether or not the creature is irredeemably evil, which is also seperate from how effective they are as villains.

I prefer the dark spawn from dragon age over goblins from guild wars as antagonists (for example), despite the guild wars goblins not being confined to evil behavior I think dark spawn are more effective as villains. Deadites from evil dead have simple motivations and were completely evil, but made great villains while the cenobites from hell raiser became weaker villains the more there was an attempt to humanize them as the films went on.

All of this is to say I see the irredeemably evil trait as having no bearing on whether or not world building is lazy or its villains are effective. My preference is having the antagonist monsters of a setting act truly monsterous, and find it more engaging when they're innately evil with a completely different psyche than humanity.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on February 27, 2021, 05:54:54 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 25, 2021, 04:46:28 PM
But Greyhawk isn't included in the PH+MM+DMG, so by your previous definition it is non-standard. For that matter, the drow as opponents are non-standard for 1E, since they aren't in the Monster Manual. I think this is where your "minimum" definition breaks down, and it makes more sense to talk about what is typically used. Greyhawk was the most official/assumed setting for 1E, so I'd say it is standard.

Greyhawk is present in the core books with different levels of prevalence, depending on edition. Place names, spell names and descriptions, a standardized Pantheon, references of all sorts. Hence it being the assumed setting.

Greyhawk isn't mentioned in the 1E books, and there is no standardized pantheon. That only came in later editions. Still, if someone bought and used a Greyhawk book for a 1E AD&D campaign, I wouldn't call them "non-standard". Likewise, if they used the official stats for the drow as monsters, I would call that "non-standard" even though it means they bought the Fiend Folio or G/D series. And if someone played a barbarian from Unearthed Arcana, I also wouldn't call that non-standard.

All of these are standard because they're part of the main line, and were considered part of the core releases.


On the broader topic of evil races,

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 01, 2021, 09:12:17 PM

QuoteDo you think that xenomorphs are bad villains because they're inherently cruel and homicidal? Or that berserk style trolls or goblin slayer style goblins are inferior villains to world of warcraft or elder scrolls orcs because the latter examples arent irredeemably evil?

I mean it all depends of a situation. Xenomorph is basically a beast, goblins in Goblin Slayer too I think (though isn't this series bit of parody of jRPGs?).
Problem is when you get people and civiisation. Because it's hard to really get rationally one based on absolute evil for evil's sake. Tolkien landed with orcs due to dual pagan/Catholic origin of his setting and he realised after a time that he sort of fucked up (also he get soft and wanted to retcon that any elves were tortured really really bad).

The xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

As far as evil, even in D&D, I prefer to just ditch alignment and just let players decide for themselves what is evil and good. I'll include plenty of stuff that I personally consider evil, but there's also plenty of grey and room for disagreement.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 01, 2021, 09:12:17 PM
Religious off-topic: In case of Saint Michael I must say I've never heard really zero to hero version of his story and as much as it's great archetype for a story and mythos I'm sort of doubting it angelologically speaking as I've read angels are not just Celestial Buerocracy with ranks, but every kind of angel is basically separate being not sharing one nature with others as humans do - due to our breeding.

  It's not de fide or defined doctrine, but it does show up in private revelations and other things that are not binding but may be worthy of belief. There is actually an oblique gaming connection: when reworking Dragonlance's mythology for my own preferences, I made Chaos Luciferian/Morgothic in power and motive, and borrowed the 'elevated Michael' motif to allow Paladine to confront and defeat him. This even made it into the since-disavowed Appendix to Dragons of a Vanished Moon.

Quote
So to make Saint Michael seraphin in such situation would be to... destroy him, which seems weird. (Now TBH all this story sounds very much like antropomorphic personifications considering we speak about pure spirits/intellects kind of beings.) So generally my notion was always that either Saint Michael is seraphin who was called archangel in Old Testament due to wel.. Old Testament not really using specifically later Pseudo-Dionysius angelology - so just because some being is called archangel doesn't mean it's from choir of archangels, it may just mean VERY BIG AND IMPORTANT ANGEL.

   The issue here seems to be conflating two different hierarchies--that of nature (by which Michael is and remains Lucifer's inferior) and that of grace (which Lucifer forfeited and in which Michael was elevated). By nature, for example, the Blessed Virgin is less than the least angel, but by grace, she excels them all.

Quote
On the other hand - adding Hypostatic Union to Lucifer's ambitions list... that somehow seems rad and cool, and while still well bit humanizing - I think that could make sense theologically speaking, and make very random pride, more specific cause. Finally cause I can imagine Lucifer to have without being absolute dumbass.

  That one, I haven't heard, and I think Lucifer's good enough at metaphysics to know that he couldn't receive the Hypostatic Union without destruction of his personhood. What has been speculated is that Lucifer regarded the elevation of human nature by the Hypostatic Union and/or the raising of the Blessed Virgin above him by grace as an affront to his dignity.

Quote from: deathknight4044 on March 02, 2021, 01:28:47 AM
I prefer the dark spawn from dragon age over goblins from guild wars as antagonists (for example), despite the guild wars goblins not being confined to evil behavior I think dark spawn are more effective as villains.

Again, you miss the point.

The Darkspawn are great antagonists, but they're no more evil or villains than zombies directed by a necromancer is. They're an infection spread by blood created by ancient mages that, like the xenomorphs, is driven to spread and reproduce. Even the Arch-demon is just an Old God corrupted by the same infection and retaining enough intellect to coordinate the Darkspawn through their hivemind (of note; the Grey Wardens get their special abilities by basically using a potion to build up a tolerance to the Darkspawn toxins and ability to tap into without being controlled by the hivemind).

So, again, the Darkspawn do not exist just as a thing to be cannon fodder that is attacking because it is "evil." There is motivation and a reason for their existence separate from the fact that they are used as antagonists.

One may as well label a virus "evil" by your definition.

Basically; evil, antagonist and threat are not synonymous, no matter how much you're trying to conflate them.

Sidebar: the Deadites are a parody of evil for evil's sake. Their entire existence points out how ridiculous and shallow the concept is when placed into practice. When the audience is more likely to laugh at your monster it's NOT genuine evil.

It's akin to lining up an entire army about to go on an obviously doomed mission and every last one of them is in a red shirt and named Kenny. You can do it, but don't expect it be taken seriously.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on March 02, 2021, 08:15:28 AM
I made Chaos Luciferian/Morgothic in power and motive, and borrowed the 'elevated Michael' motif to allow Paladine to confront and defeat him. This even made it into the since-disavowed Appendix to Dragons of a Vanished Moon.

Yeah, definitely not official doctrine, but something that very much aligns with the general Biblical themes of God elevating the weak, disfavored, second/youngest sons, etc. to bring low the strong and mighty and with the Prayer to St. Michael where his ability to cast Satan into Hell is not by his own ability, but "by the Power of God."

It also aligns REALLY well with gaming's "zero to hero" motiff which makes it something worth adapting into the mythology of many fantasy settings.

One of the things I always appreciated about the 4E cosmology was that it incorporated a Kaoskampf that was basically a D&D campaign writ large (the gods teaming up to fight the stronger, but solitary primordials) such that adventuring parties are literally written into the setting's cultural DNA.

Which is why I pretty much combined both into my own setting's mythology. God/The Source is beyond human comprehension, but my Michael analogue was close enough to humanity to have actually embodied itself in the world to face down my Satan analogue (which in turn foreshadows the promise of the Incarnation).

Quote
The issue here seems to be conflating two different hierarchies--that of nature (by which Michael is and remains Lucifer's inferior) and that of grace (which Lucifer forfeited and in which Michael was elevated). By nature, for example, the Blessed Virgin is less than the least angel, but by grace, she excels them all.

That does pretty well nail it. I think it also aligns well in that it would fit the pattern that God would not desire a general so disconnected from humanity given His ultimate plans for humanity (the higher orders dealt with forces and aspects of the cosmos that never interacted with humanity... the seraphs were so close to God they were virtually incapable of perceiving anything else).

It would gall Satan eternally that he wasn't even bested by God directly (thus confirming his greatness), but by one of the lowest orders of the angels. That that angel was then elevated by grace to a position where even a seraph must obey his commands just pours salt in the wound.

QuoteThat one, I haven't heard, and I think Lucifer's good enough at metaphysics to know that he couldn't receive the Hypostatic Union without destruction of his personhood. What has been speculated is that Lucifer regarded the elevation of human nature by the Hypostatic Union and/or the raising of the Blessed Virgin above him by grace as an affront to his dignity.

I've heard both versions.

The one involving Lucifer desiring the Union focused on his vanity being so great that he would embrace his own destruction simply for the prestige of being so elevated.

I went with that version in explaining it because it aligned with the ultimate fate of my Satan expy in my own setting; that he grew to so hate God/The Source for the slight that he essentially destroyed his own personhood (as a sapient being) in order to enact his revenge on The Source's beloved Creation; channeling his very being into The Shadow, the power source of all the undead and which poisons the hearts of all who allow it into them, driving them to hate all life and light... the utter spite of the Demon Emperor echoing in each soul corrupted by The Shadow.

I chose this as a logical fantasy extension of the idea that sin clouds the will and intellect and so if one is completely divorced from God then what's left isn't some rational and plotting entity but a virtually mindless force of spite and hatred that spews whatever lies best align with what will draw the subject towards their own self-destruction by rote reflex not conscious thought.

It's also why an important element of my cosmology is that demons can only be let into the world by the free will of a mortal and that one can only become undead by your free choice (this isn't to say your body couldn't be animated, but there is no binding a soul against its will).

QuoteI prefer the dark spawn from dragon age over goblins from guild wars as antagonists (for example), despite the guild wars goblins not being confined to evil behavior I think dark spawn are more effective as villains. Deadites from evil dead have simple motivations and were completely evil, but made great villains while the cenobites from hell raiser became weaker villains the more there was an attempt to humanize them as the films went on.

Not sure about first two, but deadites and cenobites are more into eldritch horror category, alien horror, not you know people kind of villains.
I do not deny such beings can be good villains. Even if their motivations are beyond understanding.

QuoteThe xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

Well they are very clever with low animalistic cunning, not sure how very conciouss and thinking.

QuoteAs far as evil, even in D&D, I prefer to just ditch alignment and just let players decide for themselves what is evil and good. I'll include plenty of stuff that I personally consider evil, but there's also plenty of grey and room for disagreement.

Often too, but that's more because I consider alignment chart in every editions I've seen to be just... shoddy and clunky.
Also: it's really good call if you want to present D&D gods as polytheistic pantheon, not squabbling monolatristic quasi-churches.

QuoteIt's not de fide or defined doctrine, but it does show up in private revelations and other things that are not binding but may be worthy of belief.

Ah, those ones. I must say as I have no problems using prayers and rituals with such origin, I generally avoid private revelations as such.

QuoteThe issue here seems to be conflating two different hierarchies--that of nature (by which Michael is and remains Lucifer's inferior) and that of grace (which Lucifer forfeited and in which Michael was elevated). By nature, for example, the Blessed Virgin is less than the least angel, but by grace, she excels them all.

QuoteThat one, I haven't heard, and I think Lucifer's good enough at metaphysics to know that he couldn't receive the Hypostatic Union without destruction of his personhood. What has been speculated is that Lucifer regarded the elevation of human nature by the Hypostatic Union and/or the raising of the Blessed Virgin above him by grace as an affront to his dignity.

That's to be honest is problematic claim for me - not sure if it's dogmatic or something. For me intuitively - angels are BELOW in nature to humanity (at least humanity unfallen). Mankind are Crown of Creation, Children of God, as ancient Fathers said - made to link whole Creation with God. And technically Angels are also part of Creation. If we are made to be it's crown - if that's humanity's telos - then overall it would be higher than angelic. Angels while they excell in funcitons given to them beyond human possiblities are much more limited in those functions. Difference between heir and exalted servants. That's why only known human being full of grace and absolutely sinless is beyond seraphs - meanwhile angels are either also full of grace on their personal level, or absolutely void of grace, while most of mankind works on like 10% or something.

QuoteIt would gall Satan eternally that he wasn't even bested by God directly (thus confirming his greatness), but by one of the lowest orders of the angels. That that angel was then elevated by grace to a position where even a seraph must obey his commands just pours salt in the wound.

This works very well for mythology, but in terms of abstract theology of angels it somehow irks me. But then I guess it's hard to speak about anything inhuman in really inhuman terms, as we lack those.

QuoteI chose this as a logical fantasy extension of the idea that sin clouds the will and intellect and so if one is completely divorced from God then what's left isn't some rational and plotting entity but a virtually mindless force of spite and hatred that spews whatever lies best align with what will draw the subject towards their own self-destruction by rote reflex not conscious thought.

That's quite fine deduction, though unfortunately real-life angelology it seems does not makes fallen mindless. Pity. It would make life bit easier, maybe.

QuoteAgain, you miss the point.

The Darkspawn are great antagonists, but they're no more evil or villains than zombies directed by a necromancer is. They're an infection spread by blood created by ancient mages that, like the xenomorphs, is driven to spread and reproduce. Even the Arch-demon is just an Old God corrupted by the same infection and retaining enough intellect to coordinate the Darkspawn through their hivemind (of note; the Grey Wardens get their special abilities by basically using a potion to build up a tolerance to the Darkspawn toxins and ability to tap into without being controlled by the hivemind).

So, again, the Darkspawn do not exist just as a thing to be cannon fodder that is attacking because it is "evil." There is motivation and a reason for their existence separate from the fact that they are used as antagonists.

One may as well label a virus "evil" by your definition.

Basically; evil, antagonist and threat are not synonymous, no matter how much you're trying to conflate them.

Sidebar: the Deadites are a parody of evil for evil's sake. Their entire existence points out how ridiculous and shallow the concept is when placed into practice. When the audience is more likely to laugh at your monster it's NOT genuine evil

.


My point is that irredeemably evil monsters dont have to be shallow or boring. You just described an irredeemably evil foe (darkspawn) and explained why they're not shallow. So I'm not certain what you're exactly arguing against?

They are when aside of that they are basically like humans or close, not proxy of Eldritch Power of Anihillation.
If they are inhuman then fine.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 11:31:56 AM

QuoteThe xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

Well they are very clever with low animalistic cunning, not sure how very conciouss and thinking.

off topic, kinda

So far in the movies they are just clever animals very good at what they do. Probably as smart as a cat. And cats can figure out doors and orher objects through observation or even exploration. Replace the aliens with say a tiger, mountain lion or panther that has learned to hunt humans and same result really. And these things are likely bioweapons specifically designed for the task. (ignoring the covenant movies)

In the comics they have been depicted as up to even being able to reason to some degree. In one they try to get one captive to breed with another so they can have more hosts or a queen. The queens have been shown to be observant and clever enough to try and sneak eggs off ship while captive.

Of course in the original script for the movie the alien kills Ripley. Then sits down in the chair and calls for help in her voice.

On topic.

As noted. Theres allways going to be the Bleeding Hearts who preach that no "whatever" should be depicted allways evil, or more often, evil at all.
In some cases its just another branch of the moral guardian nuttery wanting to sanitize everything and remove all violence from media because that will really real cure all violence in the world!

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Ah, those ones. I must say as I have no problems using prayers and rituals with such origin, I generally avoid private revelations as such.

For me it's the distinction between what is necessary for the Faith and what enriches the Faith. One is not required to believe in the visions at Fatima to be a faithful Catholic, but there is nothing that contradicts the Faith in the message and I find the Faith richer for what it adds.

And in this case, that particular story adds a richness to my setting's mythology that aligns with the expected actions of the PCs within the setting; i.e. by banding together to overcome the threats and dangers to civilization you are aligning yourself with the mythology of Stormbringer and the First Adventurers and the populace is also inclined to view such groups in that light unless they prove otherwise.

QuoteThat's quite fine deduction, though unfortunately real-life angelology it seems does not makes fallen mindless. Pity. It would make life bit easier, maybe.

Real life angelology is pretty much the embodiment of private revelation though and much of it not even that. A heap of the demonology side is literally just recontextualizing pagan myths into the Christian worldview... which is where much of the idea of "demonic intelligence" derives.

By contrast, real life exorcists have repeatedly stressed that demons are just not bright at all; when they communicate at all it's the same stupid threats and bargaining every time. They're practically robotic in their maliciousness... it's like they have a "what do you most desire" and "which sin are you most prone to" detectors and just drop those into a standard script of "you can get what you most desire if you just commit the sin you're most prone to."

They're also utterly single-minded; one exocist likened them to those telemarketers who aren't allowed to take no for an answer and you just have to hang up on. Exorcism isn't about convincing the demon to leave, it's about giving the possessed the spiritual strength and encouragement to hang up the phone.

Angels seem to require more intelligence and freedom because it's easy to tear things down using a standard script, repairing a soul takes the ability to understand and adapt to all the unique ways it can be broken, particularly since that soul is free-willed itself.

That's the tact I tried to adhere to in presenting my angels/primal spirits and demons in my setting. Demons particularly are better defined as forces than intellects. To manifest in the material world they must have a tether and a human will... and to the extent a manifested demon has a personality it is a twisted version of the human will they're connected to.

<double post - cut>

QuoteFor me it's the distinction between what is necessary for the Faith and what enriches the Faith. One is not required to believe in the visions at Fatima to be a faithful Catholic, but there is nothing that contradicts the Faith in the message and I find the Faith richer for what it adds.

I get it. My own sentiment is quite opposite, they add more confusion for me, and even more their results among ecclesia (especially you know folk who despite doctrine claims you have to believe it, or bad things happen, and so on, and they usually choose most apocalyptic exegesis of such apparition possible.)

Quote
And in this case, that particular story adds a richness to my setting's mythology that aligns with the expected actions of the PCs within the setting; i.e. by banding together to overcome the threats and dangers to civilization you are aligning yourself with the mythology of Stormbringer and the First Adventurers and the populace is also inclined to view such groups in that light unless they prove otherwise.

I definitely agree. It's good story, good mythical brick to use, I have no doubts about it.
Now that I think about it, I think I could even use it in setting I'm thinking on, despite it's well having little to do with real metaphysics.

QuoteReal life angelology is pretty much the embodiment of private revelation though and much of it not even that. A heap of the demonology side is literally just recontextualizing pagan myths into the Christian worldview... which is where much of the idea of "demonic intelligence" derives.

By contrast, real life exorcists have repeatedly stressed that demons are just not bright at all; when they communicate at all it's the same stupid threats and bargaining every time. They're practically robotic in their maliciousness... it's like they have a "what do you most desire" and "which sin are you most prone to" detectors and just drop those into a standard script of "you can get what you most desire if you just commit the sin you're most prone to."

They're also utterly single-minded; one exocist likened them to those telemarketers who aren't allowed to take no for an answer and you just have to hang up on. Exorcism isn't about convincing the demon to leave, it's about giving the possessed the spiritual strength and encouragement to hang up the phone.

Angels seem to require more intelligence and freedom because it's easy to tear things down using a standard script, repairing a soul takes the ability to understand and adapt to all the unique ways it can be broken, particularly since that soul is free-willed itself.

That's the tact I tried to adhere to in presenting my angels/primal spirits and demons in my setting. Demons particularly are better defined as forces than intellects. To manifest in the material world they must have a tether and a human will... and to the extent a manifested demon has a personality it is a twisted version of the human will they're connected to.

In terms of angelology I'd say that's its mostly ancient theology based more about on philosophical analysis and Bible than visions.
I mean all three highest choirs are described in Bible, that I'm sure.

With demonology yeah it's much more murky, much of it are some info get from exorcists who... for reason I do not understand as it seems to have neither scriptural nor patristis basic often assumes these days information gathered from demons... is... trustworthy? So I take all possible classifications circling around with big grain of salt, and eventually as RPG material

QuoteBy contrast, real life exorcists have repeatedly stressed that demons are just not bright at all; when they communicate at all it's the same stupid threats and bargaining every time. They're practically robotic in their maliciousness... it's like they have a "what do you most desire" and "which sin are you most prone to" detectors and just drop those into a standard script of "you can get what you most desire if you just commit the sin you're most prone to."

They're also utterly single-minded; one exocist likened them to those telemarketers who aren't allowed to take no for an answer and you just have to hang up on. Exorcism isn't about convincing the demon to leave, it's about giving the possessed the spiritual strength and encouragement to hang up the phone.

That's quite interesting, though demons during exorcists are in... specific situation let's say. Nevertheless aside of this I think there is enough in Scripture itself to show some sort of intelligence.
Tainted of course, very tainted, but nevertheless.

Quote
That's the tact I tried to adhere to in presenting my angels/primal spirits and demons in my setting. Demons particularly are better defined as forces than intellects. To manifest in the material world they must have a tether and a human will... and to the extent a manifested demon has a personality it is a twisted version of the human will they're connected to.

I think it's suitable to overall themes even if not precise theologically. Then you have banished angels in forms of unicorns so Congregation of Doctrine and Faith is already monitoring you

Quote from: Omega on March 02, 2021, 02:04:52 PM

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on March 02, 2021, 11:31:56 AM

QuoteThe xenomorphs in Alien are not just beasts. They aren't technological, but they are still clever and intelligent in their thinking. Still, I think the real villain in Aliens is Burke. He's who you really love to hate.

Well they are very clever with low animalistic cunning, not sure how very conciouss and thinking.

off topic, kinda

So far in the movies they are just clever animals very good at what they do. Probably as smart as a cat. And cats can figure out doors and orher objects through observation or even exploration. Replace the aliens with say a tiger, mountain lion or panther that has learned to hunt humans and same result really. And these things are likely bioweapons specifically designed for the task.

I don't think there's any way that a tiger could operate an elevator, while the aliens do. Operating an elevator is pretty simple to a human, but I'm not sure that even a chimpanzee would figure it out on their own. Also, the aliens coordinate their attacks extremely well, and are not thrown into confusion by modern weapons. We don't see enough to be completely sure, but it seems to me that they are able to plan and express plans to each other.

Quote from: Omega on March 02, 2021, 02:04:52 PM
On topic.

As noted. Theres allways going to be the Bleeding Hearts who preach that no "whatever" should be depicted allways evil, or more often, evil at all.
In some cases its just another branch of the moral guardian nuttery wanting to sanitize everything and remove all violence from media because that will really real cure all violence in the world!

Given the Internet, I'm sure that some people out there was zero violence in their RPGs. However, it seems to me that even among liberal RPG publications, there is still plenty of violence and evil - in games like Thirsty Sword Lesbians, Bluebeard's Bride, and so forth. Overall, I don't see that liberal-themed RPGs are any less violent or dark than more traditional RPGs.