Revisiting Willard

[Jake Norwood]

Okay, if you haven't seen the movie and care about spoilers, then stop here.

So I saw the new Willard movie last week. I enjoyed it a lot, and it was definitely a Sorcerer movie. The problem so far as Sorcerer goes, however, is that simple disobedience on Ben's part (Ben is the "evil" of the two lead rat-demons) leads to open rebellion and then attacks on Willard's person. As I recall Sorcerer rules, a Demon will not attack its master, though he may rebel in other ways. Now, I know that the movie wasn't made with Ron's game in mind, but let's say I wanted to re-create the move in Sorcerer terms. Is there any allowances in Sorcerer to run this kind of a story, where a demon out of hand completely turns on his master to the point of threatening harm or death? I'm assuming that Willard's humanity is quite low due to his actions (making him the protagonist but certainly not the "hero"), and also making it essentially impossible for him to banish Ben.

Jake

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I'm fine with the idea that a demon will threaten, attack, or kill its master. The usual circumstances are when the Binding seems likely to be violated anyway, when the sorcerer is lousy at providing Need, and when an alternative Binding seems available.

Remember, the sorcerer's death does not eliminate the Binding. So the demon is still Bound, and in most cases isn't able to get its Need as it would prefer to do (i.e. through the efforts of a sorcerer).

So ... let's say a demon is getting really screwed over by a particular sorcerer. Let's say that it gets an offer from another sorcerer, or perhaps simply plans to find one later, or perhaps is nihilistic enough not to care. Let's say that the stages of rebellion in the rulebook have not yielded effective results.

Killing the sorcerer would seem a perfectly reasonable demon's option to me as a GM at that point.

Best,
Ron

[Bailywolf]

I actually used this once- on a complete spur of the moment thing in response to a player's questions.  One of my players was contemplating an action I warned would result in likely Humanity loss (a sacrifice ritual used to build sorcerous power- IE dice to roll over to a sorcery ritual rolls).  He asked what- mechanically- would happen when his character hit zero Humanity.  Without missing a beat, I said his demons would no longer be restrained from attacking him directly when provoked.  

His demons were all pretty gnarly MOFO's (in a Sword & Sorc game, one demonic whip, one giant sabretooth tiger/bat thing, and one sexy soul drinking fem fatale demon) so he reconsidered the ritual immediatly.  The prospect of having the demons out and out turn on their characters made the players somewhat more cautious.  

Previously they were a bit cavalire with Humainty, as in the setting it didn't have the bite as in some settings (a basic S&S definition of loyalty and whatnot rathert than something super intrinsic like sanity or one's soul).  

I gave them something solid to consider when thinking about Humanity- at the very least, it prevented their own bound demons from acting directly agianst them.

-Ben

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Ben,

Now there's a good notion. After all, if the sorcerer is at 0 Humanity, what use are they to the demons, predicating that demons are squishily-somehow all wrapped up with Humanity already?

Damn, wish I'd put that in Sorcerer & Sword.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Without missing a beat, I said his demons would no longer be restrained from attacking him directly when provoked.

Implying that they were restrained previously. As I understand it, the only things that keep Demons from killing their masters in the rules as written are that Demons want to stay in this world, and require a master to do so, and that the Sorcerer can command them to refrain from attacking them with a successful roll.

Other than that, there's no restriction normally, is there?

So, was that a special rule for the S&S setting, Ben? That demons were restricted from attacking the Sorcerer? What about other Sorcerers (was thin linked to the Binding)?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Mike, the way I'd handle that issue is not to guarantee that they will not attack the sorcerer while his Humanity is positive, but to guarantee that they will if it isn't.

'Course, I don't know what Ben did or said in his game about that, unless he was under the (slight) misapprehension that Jake provided.

Best,
Ron

[Bailywolf]

I was operating under the assumption that demons would not directly attack the sorcerer to whom they are bound or use their abilities on him without some kind of justification within the framework of the relationship...  I thought this was wit large, but perhaps I missed something obvious.  

In play, I found this rule of thumb very useful, and the possibility of loosing this (very) small measure of security when dealing with demons a pretty good goad to keep players from pissing away their character's humanity casually.  

I even played with an idea by which a sorcerer who had lost his humanity (an evil badass) could use necromantic charms to act as wards vs his demons- basicly, using the humanity of the creature sacrificed to create the fetish as a ward against direct assualt by his uber-gnarly demons.  I had this great scene in mind which I never got the chance to stage in which the PC's confront the badass and his demons, get seriously bitch slapped for a while, then finally manage to snag his demon-ward fetishes, and his demons turn on him, looking for payback for years of abuse.

I figured since the nature of Humanity is so significant to the nature of demons and sorcery, then Humanity must be relevant to the power of a binding.  The restriction on demon behavior also struck a more classical note- in the stories, the demon doesn't just rip into his master, he first screws his life up, and when the master is broken, steps in to finish things off.

-Ben