Demon motives

One generalization that seems to shaping up is the essentially "negative" nature of a demon's origin. Springing from negative emotional imprints to the base and nasty drives of humanity crouching in the back of the mind...

So who's to say that demons are negative influences? Or that they're negative at all? When I referred to a possible link between demons and the human subconscious, I didn't have any fundamental negative connotations in mind. Sure, it's always tempting to as a GM to create demons that have horrifying needs, or desires which cause the sorcerer to commit immoral acts. That seems really, really limiting to me, and I don't see any conflict with the game's mechanics by having a demon's needs be something positive (or even a situation where the sorcerer must *heal* another person as part of the summoning?)

Something in the back of my mind tells me that demons must somehow transcend conventional human understanding of the world in diametrical oppositions (good/evil, moral/immoral, etc.) if they are to remain truly mysterious and vexing.

RAVEN:
>One generalization that seems to shaping up is the essentially "negative" ... >So who's to say that demons are negative influences? Or that they're >negative at all? ... >positive (or even a situation where the sorcerer must *heal* another person

This makes me think "angel" and what immediately jumps to my mind as the definitive answer to "Why are demons negative/bad beasties?" is a premise of Sorcerer: that people/sorcerers have power simply because they are willing to be "bad," that there is a sort of "pushing the envelope" involved..."What will I do? How far am I willing to go? How far *will I go? Do the ends justify the means? Can I make them justify the means?"

Demons aren't nice simply because they don't represent or bring nice things to the world...sorcerers are playing with fire and black magick when they pull them forth and bind them and use them. They might heal someone, sure, but you can bet there will be a price to pay...and are you willing to pay it?

>Something in the back of my mind tells me that demons must somehow transcend >conventional human understanding of the world in diametrical oppositions (good/evil, moral/immoral, etc.) if they are to remain truly mysterious and vexing.

Sure they do...don't they? We all know that while they themselves transcend understanding of good/evil...summoning them and using them is definitely evil, or maybe just a little evil...maybe if they get used enough we too can transcend those diametrical oppositions and transcend conventional understanding...or maybe that's what they'd like us to think...you know, summoning and binding them isn't REALLY bad, just in limited human perception... But then again, maybe it is bad, maybe the demons are lying...maybe they believe their own schtick...maybe the demons don't comment on it and it is simply a matter of the Sorcerer lying to themself ("...the ends justify the means...I'll go this far...it HAS to be done...there is NO other way...")...after all, you've got power now, why not use it? The price? Well, who cares, if you can justify it, right? Or should you care? Can you resist using that power? Is there a high road, or are you fooling yourself? Is there really no morality, or are you fooling yourself?

RAN:
> >One generalization that seems to shaping up is the essentially "negative" > >

> >So who's to say that demons are negative influences? Or that they're > >negative at all? > > > >positive (or even a situation where the sorcerer must *heal* another > person

> This makes me think "angel" and what immediately jumps to my mind as the > definitive answer to "Why are demons negative/bad beasties?" is a premise > of Sorcerer: that people/sorcerers have power simply because they are > willing to be "bad," that there is a sort of "pushing the envelope" > involved..."What will I do? How far am I willing to go? How far *will I > go? Do the ends justify the means? Can I make them justify the means?" > Demons aren't nice simply because they don't represent or bring nice > things > to the world...sorcerers are playing with fire and black magick when they > pull them forth and bind them and use them. They might heal someone, > sure, > but you can bet there will be a price to pay...and are you willing to pay > it? >

Why should there be a price to pay? It seems a little limiting to the longevity of the game if the characters are constantly locked into the "how much can I get away with" mode. How much more intriguing if a demon does a character an absolute free-of-charge favor... why would a demon do such a thing? Perhaps to screw with a demonic rival, perhaps for reasons "beyond mortal ken..."

Which leads me to a question that popped into my mind after my last post... how does a GM go about representing a demon personality with motives beyond human understanding?

RON EDWARDS:
Ran wrote:

>Which leads me to a question that popped into my mind after my last post... >how does a GM go about representing a demon personality with motives beyond >human understanding?

Two ways come to mind, one easier than the other. Fortunately the GM is responsible only for playing the demon's actions; motives have to be inferred by the players. The GM can therefore play the demon such that the players are often saying, "Geez, that thing must have some bizarre motives." This might be called the Cthulhu option. "Why's it do that? I dunno, must be beyond human understanding."

Yet somehow, I'm never too happy with that. Color me weird, but I really enjoy NPCing the demons in Sorcerer. So what I do, is come up with a motive that makes sense to me (usually an obsessive or decadent or overly-fun version of a human motive; this is Desire, in game terms). Then the next question is how well the demon deals with humans, ranging from terribly incompetent to heartbreakingly missed-by-an-inch to frighteningly competent. This idea seems to work especially well with the insights into Possessors and their hosts we discussed earlier.

Just a thought or two.

GARETH:

Um...but surely the GM has to have some idea of what the demon wants? Even in the Cthulhu option, it might be possible to guess at a thing's intentions in a vague manner. A demon might be thinking on multiple dimensions accross centuries, but the GM has to know roughly what the demon needs if the demon isn't going to be completely random - and random often degenerates into nonsensical.

A demon's motives should be known to the gm. They might make no sense to players, but a demon should act consistently with its own needs and motives.

>Yet somehow, I'm never too happy with that. Color me weird, but I really > enjoy NPCing the demons in Sorcerer. So what I do, is come up with a motive > that makes sense to me (usually an obsessive or decadent or overly-fun > version of a human motive; this is Desire, in game terms). Then the next > question is how well the demon deals with humans, ranging from terribly > incompetent to heartbreakingly missed-by-an-inch to frighteningly > competent. This idea seems to work especially well with the insights into > Possessors and their hosts we discussed earlier.

Do demons which have more experience of humanity act more human? Or, possibly more interestingly, vice versa?

RON EDWARDS:
>> ... the next >> question is how well the demon deals with humans, ranging from terribly >> incompetent to heartbreakingly missed-by-an-inch to frighteningly >> competent.

and Gar responded,

>Do demons which have more experience of humanity act more human? >Or, possibly more interestingly, vice versa?

A theme I've been returning to again and again throughout my roleplaying career: humans becoming demons and (especially) vice versa. It's not in the Sorcerer rules, even though I explored it in a playtesting session ... I really like the idea of blurring those lines. Humanity would seem to be the variable of interest in terms of a person becoming a demon - very classical, and explicitly handled in the necromancy section of Sorcerer and Sword. But what about the other way?

RAVEN:
>Why should there be a price to pay? It seems a little limiting to the >longevity of the game if the characters are constantly locked into the "how >much can I get away with" mode. How much more intriguing if a demon does a >character an absolute free-of-charge favor... why would a demon do such a >thing? Perhaps to screw with a demonic rival, perhaps for reasons "beyond >mortal ken..."

Exactly...*why would the demon do such a thing? There's something going on in the background, probably something with serious repercussions for someone, somewhere, somewhen...if being a Sorcerer is just about "WOO-OO! I's gots demons, lets go blow stuffs up!" it loses a great deal of its flavor.

Not to say you CAN'T run Sorcerer that way, just that I don't see it as an accurate representation of the whole Sorcerer mythos as described in the game books. I like the "playing with dark, nasty things beyond human ken" feeling to the game. After all, if using demons wasn't perilous to one's soul, then what need for Humanity?

>Which leads me to a question that popped into my mind after my last post... >how does a GM go about representing a demon personality with motives beyond >human understanding?

By making up something randomly and ensuring that the demon repeatedly acts in a chaotic and fluid manner...in other words, give them two seperate goals, opposed to one another, and have them work towards one at one point and the other at another. It will keep the players confused, at least, if they are trying to guess what the demon is hoping to accomplish. At least, this is perhaps one way I would attempt to do such.

RAN:
> >Why should there be a price to pay? It seems a little limiting to the > >longevity of the game if the characters are constantly locked into the > "how > >much can I get away with" mode. How much more intriguing if a demon does > a > >character an absolute free-of-charge favor... why would a demon do such a > >thing? Perhaps to screw with a demonic rival, perhaps for reasons > "beyond > >mortal ken..." >

> Exactly...*why would the demon do such a thing? There's something going > on > in the background, probably something with serious repercussions for > someone, somewhere, somewhen...if being a Sorcerer is just about "WOO-OO! > I's gots demons, lets go blow stuffs up!" it loses a great deal of its > flavor. >

I think it's a bit of hyperbole to say that by dropping the assumption that demons are creatures of evil, you swing into "let's blow stuff up" mode. Something doesn't have to be evil to be a source of repercussions.

> Not to say you CAN'T run Sorcerer that way, just that I don't see it as an > accurate representation of the whole Sorcerer mythos as described in the > game books. >

I think Ron would agree with me when I say that just because the game designer says it's so doesn't mean you have to abide by it ;)

> I like the "playing with dark, nasty things beyond human ken" > feeling to the game. After all, if using demons wasn't perilous to one's > soul, then what need for Humanity? >

"Using demons" is the key phrase here. Just because using them is perilous doesn't mean they themselves are evil. Think of fire: using fire can certainly be hazardous -- but does that make fire itself an evil thing?

There two elements here:

1) Demons are nasty/evil by nature.

2) Sorcerers are in danger of losing their humanity by engaging in their "craft" (and the possibly immoral acts they must perform to engage it).

I do not see these two elements as necessarily conjoined. In fact, I could even see a set up where demons are essentially benign creatures, who are abused and misused by human Sorcerers -- hence, the humanity loss. An interesting metaphor of trading innocence for temporal power could be built by such a scenario. It could even be that demons don't WANT their needs and desires -- but humans know they can hang on to their power objects by supplying them with nasty item X every other day, whether it's a bloodletting or a virgin's turd.

Perhaps it is *humans* who corrupt *demons*... it could be that the "tainting" of the demon by the Sorcerer's summoning and use causes it to become a wrathful creature bent on proving that "paybacks are hell." That way, an ominous tone could be built over the course of play.

However, I don't think that such a tone is necessary to successfully tell Sorcerer stories. This doesn't mean the story would have *no* tone, or a comical one, but exploration of different approaches is the key to wanting to play a game more than once or twice, in my view.

RAVEN:
>> Not to say you CAN'T run Sorcerer that way, just that I don't see it as an >> accurate representation of the whole Sorcerer mythos as described in the >> game books. >>

>I think Ron would agree with me when I say that just because the game >designer says it's so doesn't mean you have to abide by it ;)

This is true :) However, when having discussions about rules, I always like to use the first 'official' sources for debate, as one could debate endlessly about house-rules and reinterpretations.

>Just because using them is perilous >doesn't mean they themselves are evil. >

>1) Demons are nasty/evil by nature.

>2) Sorcerers are in danger of losing their humanity by engaging in their >"craft" (and the possibly immoral acts they must perform to engage it). >

>I do not see these two elements as necessarily conjoined. In fact, I could >even see a set up where demons are essentially benign creatures, who are >abused and misused by human Sorcerers -- hence, the humanity loss. An >interesting metaphor of trading innocence for temporal power could be built >by such a scenario. >

>Perhaps it is *humans* who corrupt *demons*... it could be that the >"tainting" of the demon by the Sorcerer's summoning and use causes it to >become a wrathful creature bent on proving that "paybacks are hell." That >way, an ominous tone could be built over the course of play.

That's actually an interesting angle, and one I hadn't considered. I bow to your greater depth of vision in this instance Seriously though, thank you for bringing this up, it provide some extra thoughts on the issue that certainly increase the variety of the issue and unhomogenize it.

GREG:
Well, according to Christian theory, a demon is simply a "Fallen Angel"--although I believe they have also been referred to as an "unclean spirit"

I tend to think of demons as the "bad angels" who got kicked out of Heaven. Of course, I could be totally wrong, and Demons are the Good Republicans.

RAN:
If you delve into various Apocrypha, you can dig up some interesting tidbits concerning the relationship of the "Fallen" angels to the rest of Heaven... for instance, there seems to be some scriptural support to the notion that Hell is basically right across the hall from Heaven, and there is possibly more movement between the two than modern European Christianity normally espouses.

A notion I played with in an Over The Edge story was that Sammael (the "real" angelic name of Satan) split with Jehovah over the idea of gifting humans with free will. Sammael's argument against this was that humans are not yet "spiritually mature" enough to cope with such a monstrous freedom -- akin to a parent giving a 6 year old keys to a car and saying, "Go find a job, junior." So Sammael and his followers are like foster parents, administering "tough love" to the wayward children of earth. Unfortunately, this tough love gets misinterpreted by us humans as acts of deviousness and evil. (And if you have a tough time thinking of Sammael as the good guy, think over the story of Job: my idea is that the *real* wager between Sammael and Jehovah was that Sammael postulated that a spiritually immature human, if tortured and abused by its spiritual parent, would behave like a human child abused by its mother or father -- in spite of its injuries, it would still long for the imagined comfort of its parents. Of course, this is exactly what happened, meaning Sammael *won* the bet against Jehovah.)

Of course, muddying the waters further is the fact that some "demons" out there really carry a serious grudge against humanity for having taken their place as Jehovah's favorites (like in those movies with Christopher Walken playing an unfriendly Gabriel as an example -- of course I can't think of the name of the damn movies right now). In Sorcerer, these guys would undoubtedly have particularly nasty needs, as the attempt to cause humans to perform acts so diabolical as to drive a wedge between them and Jehovah (Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.).

And if you *really* want to muddy things up, check out the Apocryphal Book of Enoch, in which angels sent down to teach humans the arts of civilization wind up bedding human women and creating bastard children, all of whom are (presumably) destroyed by Michael and his avenging horde. Might the players' characters be descendents of these half-angelic mutts? Could a Sorcerer wind up summoning his own 50 x great-grandfather?

GREG:
>Of course, muddying the waters further is the fact that some "demons" out >there really carry a serious grudge against humanity for having taken their >place as Jehovah's favorites (like in those movies with Christopher Walken >playing an unfriendly Gabriel as an example -- of course I can't think of >the name of the damn movies right now)

Prophecy I and II. :)

RON EDWARDS:
Ran wrote,

>... seems to be some scriptural support to the notion that >Hell is basically right across the hall from Heaven, and there is possibly >more movement between the two than modern European Christianity normally >espouses. > Sammael ... split with Jehovah over the idea of gifting >humans with free will. ... Sammael and his followers are like foster parents, >administering "tough love" to the wayward children of earth.

And there followed an interpretation of Job that would make my Southern Baptist neighbors pray for your instant immolation, Ran. Oh wait, they're doing that already.

>... some "demons" out >there really carry a serious grudge against humanity for having taken their >place as Jehovah's favorites ... >And if you *really* want to muddy things up, check out the Apocryphal Book >of Enoch, in which angels sent down to teach humans the arts of civilization >wind up bedding human women and creating bastard children, ...

This last is the premise of the RPG Armageddon, from Myrmidon Press. It's on my "to play" list; although its character design is very GURPS-y, its resolution system is easier than most. My thoughts on how I would play it apply equally here in terms of Sorcerer, using biblical sources.

Rather than get into what is or isn't interpretable from biblical or church-institution texts, I'm interested in the emotional-thematic side of it all. Frankly, treating it all like a big misunderstanding or social scene among celestials bores me. That's my beef with In Nomine - despite all their kewl source material, it's really just a bunch of yahoos with powers thumping and scamming on each other. The tag line says it all: "They are very much like us." Boring!

This is why I've shied away from playtesting Sorcerer using these elements, even though the imagery, cultural relevance, emotional impact, etc, has such great potential. Most of the RPG versions of such stuff degenerate the Celestial Picture down to powers & perils, and I don't consider myself competent to generate or convey true awe, true horror, true drama out of it myself. Any ideas on making it work in powerful, emotional, player-oriented terms, rather than being just another premise?