Forums of the Megaverse®

A matter of curiosity, but what is the deal with Shadows of Light? I've picked up some folks like the book and others don't, along with questions about it being canon or not. What I'm wondering is, what do people like/not like about this sourcebook?

I think what people didn't like about it is how it went off on a tangent and was not dealing with nightbane except as mentioning then in how they interact with the Gregorians.

Personally I liked the Rifter article intro'ing the Gregorians better then the SoL book.

I'll give SoL (D'oh!) one thing: they did boost the Athanatos' power from the Rifter article to the sourcebook.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:it went off on a tangent and was not dealing with nightbane except as mentioning then in how they interact with the Gregorians.

That's a bit harsh... it also went off on tangents on how Nightbane interact with Reapers and Strigoi and Fallen Guardians

Swift-13 wrote:A matter of curiosity, but what is the deal with Shadows of Light? I've picked up some folks like the book and others don't, along with questions about it being canon or not. What I'm wondering is, what do people like/not like about this sourcebook?

I liked the bit on the Nocturnes but prefer to see the whole book,as being from their perspective. Evil guardians kept their powers in the main book, get new darkness powers in this one. Didn't like the changes it made to the lightbringers(nice guys in the main book, d.iC.k.s in this one). It's city backstory had a vampire using mind control on a nightprince. Nightprinces are immune to mind control.

Blah, I will say that even the stuff I don't like is well written. I'd keep the parts you like as canon.

I liked the fact that it added more depth to the Lightbringers/Guardians... and showed that these beings were just as flawed and deverse as anyone else. They have their own prejudices and blindspots... and not all of them agree with their leaders (some actually see the growing corruption... of righteousness becoming self-righteous arrogant hubris).

As for the changes in regards to evil guardians... this isn't the first time that a new book has changed how things worked in older books. A lot of games do this sort of thing, adressing things that were merely given a patch job in an earlier books. Most of the time this is because after some time, new ideas emerge that weren't thought of when the earlier books were written. Maybe if we get a 2nd Eddition of the Core the new version of the "evil" guardians will be used instead of the old... but then we'll still have die-hards who cling to the old just because it was first. One is free to use whichever version one likes... or even both (the darkness powers are said to be the result of evil guardians making bargains with supernatural forces like the Dark, so you could have both versions of "evil" guardians).

Sir_Spirit wrote:Evil guardians kept their powers in the main book, get new darkness powers in this one.

Not true, there is no contradiction. I think the original book mentioned that really evil guardians sometimes lost their powers. SoL added that those evil ones, IF they made the proper pact with the Dark (which is a very rare and hard thing to do, you need a special Book of Evil and to sacrifice a fellow guardian and stuff) THEN they could get the special powers.

What you're alleging is something like every member of the Cult of Night is a Night Priest, isn't what's written.

Sir_Spirit wrote:Didn't like the changes it made to the lightbringers(nice guys in the main book, d.iC.k.s in this one).

SoL did not introduce this concept. Their attitudes to vampires have painted them grey since the start, and both NPC in Darklands and conspriacy theories in TTGD both built on that.

Sir_Spirit wrote:It's city backstory had a vampire using mind control on a nightprince. Nightprinces are immune to mind control.

Incorrect. She TRIED mind control, it didn't work. She used classic techniques (MA, PB, seduction skill) to seduce the Prince, not mind control.

Tor wrote:

Sir_Spirit wrote:Evil guardians kept their powers in the main book, get new darkness powers in this one.

Not true, there is no contradiction. I think the original book mentioned that really evil guardians sometimes lost their powers.

No, it specifically said they keep them. Them losing them is a retcon. Some people might like it, I don't. Different tastes,etc...

What you're alleging is something like every member of the Cult of Night is a Night Priest, isn't what's written

.
This has.... ...nothing to do with anything I've said. I've never complained that they were too common or that all the evil depowered guardians become fallen....

SoL did not introduce this concept. Their attitudes to vampires have painted them grey since the start, and both NPC in Darklands and conspriacy theories in TTGD both built on that.

Uh, no? There was like one dude in ttgd who ranted about how the lightbringers must hiding stuff, cuz they sounded too goodytwoshoes. They were deliberately said to be nice guys in the first book, they only "grey" in their description of them going off when fighting vamps.

Sir_Spirit wrote:It's city backstory had a vampire using mind control on a nightprince. Nightprinces are immune to mind control.

Incorrect. She TRIED mind control, it didn't work. She used classic techniques (MA, PB, seduction skill) to seduce the Prince, not mind control.

Hmm, I actually reread this. What happened is that to describes her as successfully using mind control, but that turns out to be an illusion. So, i'll let that go.

it specifically said they keep them

Where? So far as I can see it's just kind of vague about the issue. Pg191 under alignment mentions evil ones "usually become lost or perverted" which doesn't say much. I'm not sure what 'lost' means (if they're evil, they are already morally lost, right?) but it might refer to a lost of powers. 'Perverted' certainly describes what the Dark does to them.

I've never complained that they were too common or that all the evil depowered guardians become fallen.

I think this is confusion promoted by lack of descriptiveness and our each assuming different implications from that void. You said "evil guardians get new darkness powers" and I read "all" where you meant "some".

there was like one dude in ttgd who ranted

I believe him, don't you? You can trust the Shadow League, come stay at one of their popular astral hotels.

deliberately said to be nice guys in the first book, only "grey" in their description of them going off when fighting vamps.

That's grey enough to stain them for me. If they were only like this to master vampires I could buy it, but their treatment of wilds/secondaries/wamps who made no choice is horrid. Might as well say that a doctor is nice to everyone except someone with HIV, who he tries to wipe out lest it infect his other patients. Strikes me as a callous and rather evil doctor, no matter how bright they shine.

Tor wrote:

it specifically said they keep them

Where? So far as I can see it's just kind of vague about the issue. Pg191 under alignment mentions evil ones "usually become lost or perverted" which doesn't say much. I'm not sure what 'lost' means (if they're evil, they are already morally lost, right?) but it might refer to a lost of powers. 'Perverted' certainly describes what the Dark does to them.

I've never complained that they were too common or that all the evil depowered guardians become fallen.

I think this is confusion promoted by lack of descriptiveness and our each assuming different implications from that void. You said "evil guardians get new darkness powers" and I read "all" where you meant "some".

there was like one dude in ttgd who ranted

I believe him, don't you? You can trust the Shadow League, come stay at one of their popular astral hotels.

deliberately said to be nice guys in the first book, only "grey" in their description of them going off when fighting vamps.

That's grey enough to stain them for me. If they were only like this to master vampires I could buy it, but their treatment of wilds/secondaries/wamps who made no choice is horrid. Might as well say that a doctor is nice to everyone except someone with HIV, who he tries to wipe out lest it infect his other patients. Strikes me as a callous and rather evil doctor, no matter how bright they shine.

except that vampirisim is not 'just a disease' remember that its UNDEATH, and that a portion of a demonic being (the VI) is implanted in each one. add in the mind control issues, and the murky moral question of if it IS the same person or if it is a new creature.....and yah its potentially light grey, but not NEARLY as 'grey on grey' as the SoL book (if I want to play in an 'everybody is corrupt, there is no hope....I will play in WW WoD)

You say "UNDEATH" as if it's supposed to be an argument. No disease is just a disease, they all have unique attributes, and this one is probably more unique than a lot of them.

A lot of things have portions of being implanted in them. Regardless of a being's nature, be it virus or demon, it isn't the person's fault if they don't choose it and it's inflicted upon them by violence.

Guardians are hypocritical in that way too. They probably have a portion of alien beings in them too. Be it a fragment of "the light" or the mysterious bald Astral Plane Guardians.

What mind control issues? Vampires are vulnerable to mind control from other vampires... but pretty much everyone is vulnerable to mind control from vampires.

Or is it that they have the potential to mind control? Well so do nightbane, mages and psychics... including Guardians. Guardians can control human minds too.

It certainly isn't the same person. Becoming a vampire changes you. You're a new creature, but you're still a semblance of who you were...

But that doesn't matter. Whether new or old, vampires are still sentients with free will who should not be destroyed solely for who they are or what they're inclined to be.

This is not a light grey issue. SoL simply more clearly shows Guardians as what they are.

Tor wrote:You say "UNDEATH" as if it's supposed to be an argument. No disease is just a disease, they all have unique attributes, and this one is probably more unique than a lot of them.

A lot of things have portions of being implanted in them. Regardless of a being's nature, be it virus or demon, it isn't the person's fault if they don't choose it and it's inflicted upon them by violence.

Guardians are hypocritical in that way too. They probably have a portion of alien beings in them too. Be it a fragment of "the light" or the mysterious bald Astral Plane Guardians.

What mind control issues? Vampires are vulnerable to mind control from other vampires... but pretty much everyone is vulnerable to mind control from vampires.

Or is it that they have the potential to mind control? Well so do nightbane, mages and psychics... including Guardians. Guardians can control human minds too.

It certainly isn't the same person. Becoming a vampire changes you. You're a new creature, but you're still a semblance of who you were...

But that doesn't matter. Whether new or old, vampires are still sentients with free will who should not be destroyed solely for who they are or what they're inclined to be.

This is not a light grey issue. SoL simply more clearly shows Guardians as what they are.

I am just going to say this, and then drop it. There is nothing in CANON that says in universe if vampires are or are not considered sentient. Now to our, easy western European modern sensibilities its possible to say 'sure everything has value' that does NOT make it correct IN UNIVERSE. In universe some creatures deserve killing, and some books deserve to be burned. In universe some things are Evil, not just different. This is part of separating the in universe from the out universe. In universe being a form of demon that is linked to an eldritch abominations IS a justification to be destroyed. They are no longer the person they were, they are something that looks like it, and can use some of their memories, and probably wants to destroy your civilization. It is perfectly acceptable to destroy all vampires everywhere, since even if you spared a few NOW, when you go get their VI lords (who are ALWAYS diabolic) they will be destroyed. So....why should I risk being tricked by a shard of evil, that I intend to destroy sooner or later just to be 'good'? Answer, I don't this doesn't make me 'grey' or 'a poke' it makes me logical and looking at the big picture. Its different in game where there ARE universal rules that say 'this is Good' and 'this is Evil'.

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:You say "UNDEATH" as if it's supposed to be an argument. No disease is just a disease, they all have unique attributes, and this one is probably more unique than a lot of them.

A lot of things have portions of being implanted in them. Regardless of a being's nature, be it virus or demon, it isn't the person's fault if they don't choose it and it's inflicted upon them by violence.

Guardians are hypocritical in that way too. They probably have a portion of alien beings in them too. Be it a fragment of "the light" or the mysterious bald Astral Plane Guardians.

What mind control issues? Vampires are vulnerable to mind control from other vampires... but pretty much everyone is vulnerable to mind control from vampires.

Or is it that they have the potential to mind control? Well so do nightbane, mages and psychics... including Guardians. Guardians can control human minds too.

It certainly isn't the same person. Becoming a vampire changes you. You're a new creature, but you're still a semblance of who you were...

But that doesn't matter. Whether new or old, vampires are still sentients with free will who should not be destroyed solely for who they are or what they're inclined to be.

This is not a light grey issue. SoL simply more clearly shows Guardians as what they are.

I am just going to say this, and then drop it. There is nothing in CANON that says in universe if vampires are or are not considered sentient. Now to our, easy western European modern sensibilities its possible to say 'sure everything has value' that does NOT make it correct IN UNIVERSE. In universe some creatures deserve killing, and some books deserve to be burned. In universe some things are Evil, not just different. This is part of separating the in universe from the out universe. In universe being a form of demon that is linked to an eldritch abominations IS a justification to be destroyed. They are no longer the person they were, they are something that looks like it, and can use some of their memories, and probably wants to destroy your civilization. It is perfectly acceptable to destroy all vampires everywhere, since even if you spared a few NOW, when you go get their VI lords (who are ALWAYS diabolic) they will be destroyed. So....why should I risk being tricked by a shard of evil, that I intend to destroy sooner or later just to be 'good'? Answer, I don't this doesn't make me 'grey' or 'a poke' it makes me logical and looking at the big picture. Its different in game where there ARE universal rules that say 'this is Good' and 'this is Evil'.

Someone's just spent too much time reading about those Twilight pseudo-vampires and thinks that's what vampires actually are and not enough time reading the actual folklore and historical depictions of vampires which is what Palladium goes with. Vampirism isn't some disease where you have infected people struggling to remain who they were but the magical animation of someone's corpse that just happens to retain some or most of the memories of the original living being that was killed to create it. Any claims otherwise are just pretending the book material says what they want it to say instead of accepting what the material actually says.

eliakon wrote:There is nothing in CANON that says in universe if vampires are or are not considered sentient.

The majority of races lack statements explicitly defining them as sentient beings. Stuff like that isn't really required. It's basically assumed that if you have a set of decent mental attributes that unless it says otherwise, you are sentient. Or should I assume elves lack sentience if I can't find a sentence stating it? The description in Vampire Kingdoms and various vampire NPCs have made it pretty clear that while they are vulnerable to special influences, they retain an independent mind.

eliakon wrote:Now to our, easy western European modern sensibilities its possible to say 'sure everything has value' that does NOT make it correct IN UNIVERSE.

If you want to bring up the subject of 'value' in game-universe terms I'd ask you first establish what value you're talking about here. Intelligence? Will? Alignment? Skills? Memories?

eliakon wrote:In universe some creatures deserve killing, and some books deserve to be burned.

According to which NPC? These are subjective value declarations. There is no objective deservedness of death established in any game, please support that with statements.

eliakon wrote:In universe some things are Evil, not just different.

Anything with an evil alignment is evil. Vampires do not always have evil alignments. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

eliakon wrote:This is part of separating the in universe from the out universe. In universe being a form of demon that is linked to an eldritch abominations IS a justification to be destroyed.

Again, according to whom? Isis? Splynncryth? You seem to be impressing your sense of morality based on your own beliefs of goodness. If you think any such objective morality exists in the game, please support that.

While alignments do exist, there is nothing in the game supporting the idea of deservedness to live in the good, nor deservedness to die in the evil.

eliakon wrote:They are no longer the person they were, they are something that looks like it, and can use some of their memories, and probably wants to destroy your civilization.

You could say the same of any spellcaster or cyborg. Good CS propoganda. Joseph has a job for you.

eliakon wrote:It is perfectly acceptable to destroy all vampires everywhere, since even if you spared a few NOW, when you go get their VI lords (who are ALWAYS diabolic) they will be destroyed.

The intelligences/familiars always being Diabolic (I assume this is what you meant by lord) does not justify the destruction of those they have infected. Especially if you cut their lives short and destroyed them out of hand when it was not necessary. If a pair of conjoint twins shared a heart and killing the evil head would result in the eventual death of the good one, would that make it morally acceptable to shoot the good one in the head?

One could make the argument that one should even hold back from utterly destroying a vampire intelligence, when one could simply weaken and cripple it, but keep it alive so that it's good/selfish offspring could remain living.

Vampire intelligences are hard to cripple and enslave, but it isn't impossible.

eliakon wrote:why should I risk being tricked by a shard of evil, that I intend to destroy sooner or later just to be 'good'?

Vampires are not shards of evil, they are people infected by shards of evil, huge difference. We're not talking about an essence fragment that has created its own form, we're talking about a fragment that has possessed someone, perhaps someone innocent. One major difference is that there's no known way to exorcise them. Another is that the possession is only partial, and that while it instills a hunger and tempts them to evil, the fragment is not cemented enough to guarantee it in its victim.

You should risk being tricked by something POTENTIALLY evil, rather than killing it, for the same reason you would opt to risk such potentials in humans, who can also be evil.

Or would you rather only keep alive races which can never have evil alignments?

eliakon wrote:I don't this doesn't make me 'grey' or 'a poke' it makes me logical and looking at the big picture. Its different in game where there ARE universal rules that say 'this is Good' and 'this is Evil'.

Killing potentially good and non-evil beings based on playing the odds for self-preservation is definitely a grey moral area. It's tantamount to killing anyone of a religion associated with violent extremism, even if not every member goes so far.

While the alignment system has universal rules about what is good and evil, vampires as a whole are not inherently evil, and it would be false to state that. Their AI creators are certainly as evil as they come, and Masters must always be evil, as must Strigoi bound to the Dark. Wilds can be Anarchist, Secondaries can be Unprincipled, and Wampyrs can be Scrupulous. So it's 3 to 3 on 'must be evil' versus 'may be evil' here.

I'd probably side with you on the preventative side were you proposing to kill Wilds out of hand. They are stupid, guaranteed to make other Wild vampires, can't be good (only anarchist), have trouble controlling their impulses and are more vulnerable to mind control.

But I can't side with you on any morality within the slaying of Secondaries. These are not only potentially non-evil (like Wilds) but also potentially good (Unprincipled being defined as good in addition to selfish) and on average, more intelligent than humans and arguable a superior form of life who could not only live in tandem with, but ultimately benefit the human race if we co-operated with them.

If you could manage vampires who went evil and keep secondaries segregated from the AI (have it imprisoned by humans) there would be no need to destroy them.

Nightmask wrote:Someone's just spent too much time reading about those Twilight pseudo-vampires and thinks that's what vampires actually are and not enough time reading the actual folklore and historical depictions of vampires which is what Palladium goes with.

I'm not reading folklore OR reading Twilight here, I'm reading the books. If you rely on folklore to define your vampires then you're just as misled as any glittery Edward fan. You have to go by the books here.

Nightmask wrote:Vampirism isn't some disease where you have infected people struggling to remain who they were but the magical animation of someone's corpse that just happens to retain some or most of the memories of the original living being that was killed to create it.

Wrong. Vampirism is clearly compared to diseases in Kingdoms and there are described examples of them fighting the new hunger and trying to remain good. They are UNDEAD, not animated corpses. Where are they called a corpse?

Nightmask wrote:Any claims otherwise are just pretending the book material says what they want it to say instead of accepting what the material actually says.

I have this same opinion of how you're attempting to paint vampires.

Please support these allegations with quotes. Kingdoms Revised would have had to radically change the vampires we came to know from originalKingdoms and Nightbane for this to make sense. It would directly conflict with the NPC secondary in CB2, who works for good in spite of only being anarchist.

Did not mean as insult. I see it as a skill, and have much respect for Joseph II abilities. Fact remains that these phrases could be said just as accurately about borgs and spellcasters as they could for vamps. Gaining power, be it from an AI, magic, bionics, changes who you are. You retain memories of who you were, you may look like how you did, but you become something different.

Vampires may wish to co-opt civilization so far as to allow themselves to survive and thrive in it, but that same can be said of borgs and spellcasters. While there are insane vamps who want to destroy rather than dominate or defend, the same could be said of borgs and mages. I expect the fuel costs of running a borg probably cost more than feeding a vampire. They also have no major incentive to kill or turn you, in any logical fashion. Either removes you as a potential fuel source.

Mages at least have an incentive to kill due to short-term gain of doubled PPE. Borgs could also go crazy hateful at fleshies out of jealousy and want to mutilate humans so they will be forced to become borgs too. Vampires have nothing to be jealous of, save getting sunburns.