Cruelty, objectifying, and Words

tHEhERETIC · 03-13-2011, 07:34 PM

I stumbled onto this today
http://www.happinessinthisworld.com/...se-of-cruelty/
and it got me thinking about Gabriel. Part of this thinking is the huge and unexpected friction in the endgame of Mile Higher Club (over at PbP). The article explores the idea that cruelty stems from abstraction, or reducing the rich complexity of a human being into a cardboard function.

But, but, but...a Wordbound angel is not a richly complex being...or is he? I figure they're a lot more limited than a human being (a theme I've tried to push in MHC), but worthy of objectifying? They'd hardly be any fun to play if they were strictly their Word. Wind defines Janus, but there are so many layers to Wind, connotations and interpretations. In addition he has a personality, allies friends and rivals...not so simple in other words. Yet angels are constantly judging all of Dominic's servitors harshly because of their function, and because that function tends to make life difficult.

Thoughts?

Jason · 03-13-2011, 08:28 PM

I would say that Word-bound celestials are individuals who are strongly defined by their Words, but they are still individuals. They do things in part because their Words make them think in certain ways, but there's still some wiggle room in terms of how they interpret their own Words. Janus' take on the Wind is informed by what the Wind is as a concept, to humanity, but it's still not entirely what another angel's take on that Word would be. Gabriel's take on Fire focuses mostly on punishing the cruel, and partly on energy and inspiration, but it's not too farfetched to envision an alternate Archangel of Fire whose temperament led to attunements promoting the "fire as holy spirit" angle. (And if Gabriel slew Belial and rid herself of his influence on her mind, this might be precisely what we would see happen.)

That's how I play it, anyway. One tension in my own game, for instance, came up because the Malakite of Purity assigned to the Word of Water (centuries after the death of Oannes) focused on the Word's relevance to simple cleanliness, ritual purification (baptism, blessing with holy water, etc.), and sustenance over primal, natural forces. This led him to be a much less militant angel than his peers expected of him.

tHEhERETIC · 03-13-2011, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason

That's how I play it, anyway. One tension in my own game, for instance, came up because the Malakite of Purity assigned to the Word of Water (centuries after the death of Oannes) focused on the Word's relevance to simple cleanliness, ritual purification (baptism, blessing with holy water, etc.), and sustenance over primal, natural forces. This led him to be a much less militant angel than his peers expected of him.

And probably drives Janus buggy, if in your game he focuses on the primal aspects of his word. To me the love affair between Janus and Oannes is one of the beautiful tragic bits in the setting. To see Waters go to one of Purity's angels would be a horror to that memory.

ladyarcana55 · 03-15-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tHEhERETIC

Part of this thinking is the huge and unexpected friction in the endgame of Mile Higher Club (over at PbP).

Oops...sorry about that ;P

I personally like how it's defined in one of the books...the GMG I think?

That's all they ever are and that's all they ever will be.

Because of that I can see how tunnel visioned they can be in regards to their Word. It give the player a guideline on how to play them, but it also gives you a lot of leeway on how they see things.

Matthias Wasser · 04-11-2011, 03:57 AM

It's possible that powerful Wordbound are irreducible to their Word, but still about as simple as your model of them. This may be a reason for zillion-IQ beings to devolve power down to much lesser actors; Andrealphus (much less Dominic) may know just what Janus would do but not what Zaraniel might.

(And hardly relevant, but to say that cruelty is based on ignoring the suffering of others is precisely wrong. There is, to be sure, plenty of suffering in the world thanks to callousness, but what sets cruelty apart is that the cruel are aware, and happy, that their victims suffer. Cruelty isn't treating people like objects, most evidently because no one behaves on that way towards objects.)

Azel · 04-11-2011, 11:13 PM

Ah, thus the core of the game setting. What's in a Word? What meanings can it contain? How does it act as a lens when viewing other words? Why do words matter, I mean, like what the Bard said, isn't a rose by any other name smell just as sweet, 'n stuff?

Well, GMG deals with word migration and meaning. But there's still a lot of individual license for interpretation. Basically, it comes to the game's original conceit that the Word does stand for something Knowable (if not necessarily completely understandable) in the Symphony. The "definition" can be reduced, expanded, or even shift laterally -- but at the end there's an integral 'it' about, well, 'it.'

So there's that whole "Superiors tend to look at the essence of things through their Word." But also the whole multifaceted awareness how a Word touches other things. Thus there can be a part, a whole, a clarity, a 'distortion' of viewpoint, and even an encompassing awareness within a Word -- all at the same time. At this point reaching for the aspirin is not a bad idea. Perhaps a lake analogy: essence can span from clear to muddied, expansion and contraction, while still having a range from shallow to deep. Or maybe a gemstone simile: facets, planes, occlusions, clarity, distortion... At some point it all fails, but it illustrates the potentiality inherent in an idea known as a Word.

Fun stuff! What I would worry more about is whether your assessment into the nature of what defines Cruelty is correct. It sounds workable, but at other places not so much -- namely, is abstraction or reduction inherently cruel, or is it just currently useful for explaining a story's moral? Is this another case of an analogy collapsing from too much weight placed atop?

This definitely sounds like the inspiration for a campaign to explore what exactly does cruelty mean. Particularly a fiery one where Gabriel's own hunts down any of Magog's stragglers wandering from Beleth's marches.

03-13-2011, 07:34 PM	#1
tHEhERETIC MIB Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Life imitates art--I'm in Pohang	Cruelty, objectifying, and Words I stumbled onto this today http://www.happinessinthisworld.com/...se-of-cruelty/ and it got me thinking about Gabriel. Part of this thinking is the huge and unexpected friction in the endgame of Mile Higher Club (over at PbP). The article explores the idea that cruelty stems from abstraction, or reducing the rich complexity of a human being into a cardboard function. But, but, but...a Wordbound angel is not a richly complex being...or is he? I figure they're a lot more limited than a human being (a theme I've tried to push in MHC), but worthy of objectifying? They'd hardly be any fun to play if they were strictly their Word. Wind defines Janus, but there are so many layers to Wind, connotations and interpretations. In addition he has a personality, allies friends and rivals...not so simple in other words. Yet angels are constantly judging all of Dominic's servitors harshly because of their function, and because that function tends to make life difficult. Thoughts? __________________ Criminy...these two have enough issues, they can sell subscriptions! (ladyarcana55, in a PM)

03-13-2011, 08:28 PM	#2
Jason Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Boston, MA	Re: Cruelty, objectifying, and Words I would say that Word-bound celestials are individuals who are strongly defined by their Words, but they are still individuals. They do things in part because their Words make them think in certain ways, but there's still some wiggle room in terms of how they interpret their own Words. Janus' take on the Wind is informed by what the Wind is as a concept, to humanity, but it's still not entirely what another angel's take on that Word would be. Gabriel's take on Fire focuses mostly on punishing the cruel, and partly on energy and inspiration, but it's not too farfetched to envision an alternate Archangel of Fire whose temperament led to attunements promoting the "fire as holy spirit" angle. (And if Gabriel slew Belial and rid herself of his influence on her mind, this might be precisely what we would see happen.) That's how I play it, anyway. One tension in my own game, for instance, came up because the Malakite of Purity assigned to the Word of Water (centuries after the death of Oannes) focused on the Word's relevance to simple cleanliness, ritual purification (baptism, blessing with holy water, etc.), and sustenance over primal, natural forces. This led him to be a much less militant angel than his peers expected of him.

04-11-2011, 03:57 AM	#5
Matthias Wasser Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Boston	Re: Cruelty, objectifying, and Words It's possible that powerful Wordbound are irreducible to their Word, but still about as simple as your model of them. This may be a reason for zillion-IQ beings to devolve power down to much lesser actors; Andrealphus (much less Dominic) may know just what Janus would do but not what Zaraniel might. (And hardly relevant, but to say that cruelty is based on ignoring the suffering of others is precisely wrong. There is, to be sure, plenty of suffering in the world thanks to callousness, but what sets cruelty apart is that the cruel are aware, and happy, that their victims suffer. Cruelty isn't treating people like objects, most evidently because no one behaves on that way towards objects.) Last edited by Matthias Wasser; 04-11-2011 at 04:05 AM.

04-11-2011, 11:13 PM	#6
Azel Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: South of the Town across from the City by the Bay	Re: Cruelty, objectifying, and Words Ah, thus the core of the game setting. What's in a Word? What meanings can it contain? How does it act as a lens when viewing other words? Why do words matter, I mean, like what the Bard said, isn't a rose by any other name smell just as sweet, 'n stuff? Well, GMG deals with word migration and meaning. But there's still a lot of individual license for interpretation. Basically, it comes to the game's original conceit that the Word does stand for something Knowable (if not necessarily completely understandable) in the Symphony. The "definition" can be reduced, expanded, or even shift laterally -- but at the end there's an integral 'it' about, well, 'it.' So there's that whole "Superiors tend to look at the essence of things through their Word." But also the whole multifaceted awareness how a Word touches other things. Thus there can be a part, a whole, a clarity, a 'distortion' of viewpoint, and even an encompassing awareness within a Word -- all at the same time. At this point reaching for the aspirin is not a bad idea. Perhaps a lake analogy: essence can span from clear to muddied, expansion and contraction, while still having a range from shallow to deep. Or maybe a gemstone simile: facets, planes, occlusions, clarity, distortion... At some point it all fails, but it illustrates the potentiality inherent in an idea known as a Word. Fun stuff! What I would worry more about is whether your assessment into the nature of what defines Cruelty is correct. It sounds workable, but at other places not so much -- namely, is abstraction or reduction inherently cruel, or is it just currently useful for explaining a story's moral? Is this another case of an analogy collapsing from too much weight placed atop? This definitely sounds like the inspiration for a campaign to explore what exactly does cruelty mean. Particularly a fiery one where Gabriel's own hunts down any of Magog's stragglers wandering from Beleth's marches.