Demonology 101

[contracycle]

Hiya, I just wanted somewhere to ask some questiones sepcifically about demons and their function in Sorceror.

I have two concerns:

The structure of the game embeds one, possibly more, demons in each character concept.  These demons originate from the player, and is arguably a part of the greater gestalt that is the players vehicle in the world; it is merely a component of that vehicle over which, significantly, the player does not exert total control.  The demon has its own intellect and motives, governed by the GM.

Secondly, Ron remarks that he has always found it easy to play demons.  What bothers me about this is that it appears to tacitly assume the western, Judeao-christian (arguably zoroastrian) trope of demon as deceiver, lier.

Now, in tackling a nominal SLA -> Sorcerer port, I was trying to conceptualise machines, drugs, etc as demons.  The problems I enountered were the following:

1) to define demons in this manner means they emerge from the world, not the player.  Its pick-from-a-list instead of make-it-up
 
2) It's difficult to rationalise the "willful" copmponent in terms of inanimate objects; how significant is this to Sorcerer, structurally.

3) It's even harder to rationalise "necessary deviousness" in the frame of inanimate objects, arguably even contacts or relationships with bureacratic bodies.

So, the problems become: Sorcer appears to tacitly depend on the contested realtionship between willful demon and characters, as writ.  Is it possible to duplicate this relationship with non-classic demons filling this primary role, and how would we do it.

[Eric]

Hey --

I'm sure Ron will be along with a better answer in a minute, but my reading is that you don't have to get caught  up in the demons as personalities aspects of the rules.  The point (or a point in anyway) is to put the characters in a situation where they have already paid some sort of price for power, and then see what further price they are willing to pay.  As long as the players aren't getting their abilities for free, and as along as it is going to cost them to increase their abilities, then you're good.

I recommend Schism as an example of a campaign where the powers cost the players dearly, but don't have actual personalities of their own.

-- Eric, who isn't much good at playing devious critters . . . .

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth,

You've asked a good question, and I'll try to address it, but I think it originates more from your own readings than from the text of the game. Although the examples in Sorcerer tend toward highly personified demons, for ease of explanation, the rules/concepts are not so limited.

Secondly, Ron remarks that he has always found it easy to play demons. What bothers me about this is that it appears to tacitly assume the western, Judeao-christian (arguably zoroastrian) trope of demon as deceiver, lier.

?? Complete incomprehension. I like playing demons because they are cartoonish, that is to say, they allow a great medium for players to project things of importance. I can put "not much" into a demon, just enough, and the player will supply tremendous weight to it, through interpretation and character action. I use that "weight" (content) as a further guide in a process that for me happens to be intuitive.

In a particular case, this may involve manipulation of verbal contracts or the placement of half-truths, but as it happens, I tend not to do that very much. The interpretation of "demon" as "liar" or "mind-fucker" is yours, not mine.

Now, in tackling a nominal SLA -> Sorcerer port, I was trying to conceptualise machines, drugs, etc as demons. The problems I enountered were the following:

1) to define demons in this manner means they emerge from the world, not the player. Its pick-from-a-list instead of make-it-up

I think the solution to this one is extremely simple. Just throw out the list, or supply it as a sub-set of what is "really" available, and let the players come up with "the rest" of what is available if they like. For instance, when I played Cyberpunk, I'd ask the players to ignore the listed cybertech and come up with original things based on a similar aesthetic.

One of the points in Chapter 4 is to have a pre-game bull session about the game itself, and this point is very often ignored. In the SLA game, I would set out the SLA book for the players (or they would have read it, depending on the person), and we'd just talk about what "demons" they'd come up with, of the sort you are describing. In other words, enlist them in the process of SLA-to-Sorcerer conversion.

2) It's difficult to rationalise the "willful" copmponent in terms of inanimate objects; how significant is this to Sorcerer, structurally.

Difficult, yes, but not impossible. Tor wrestled a bit with this issue in his Southern Fried game, certainly. In my opinion, the only real difference between an active, responsive non-Object demon and an active, responsive Object demon is the time needed for the response to be given and recognized, which is longer (in that it requires more instances) for the Object.

Personification of objects, whether machines or geographical features or even memes, is very common, in my opinion. We speak of a car's or computer's "performance," or of a book's "virtue." Now it so happens that I think a great deal of projection is going on in these cases, but it's precisely that kind of projection, or the attribution of significance, that Sorcerer is built to exploit for purposes of theme.

3) It's even harder to rationalise "necessary deviousness" in the frame of inanimate objects, arguably even contacts or relationships with bureacratic bodies.

More complete incomprehension. Do not people commonly perceive machines that fail them as deliberate, even malicious? "How can you do this to me?" they cry, when the hard drive crashes or the engine goes dead.

By designating an inanimate object, contact, or bureaucratic relationship as "demonic," the player and GM are agreeing that the entity in question will potentially fail (or betray) in key ways.

In traditional role-playing, the GM frequently plays the characters' environment as semi-demonic, providing sudden inconveniences, barriers, and malfunctions as a means of pacing, even as a form of railroading. One can take this technique and use it in a more focused, less abusive way by reserving (and amplifying) it for Object Demons, and permitting the dice to play a key role rather than GM agenda.

So, the problems become: Sorcer appears to tacitly depend on the contested realtionship between willful demon and characters, as writ. Is it possible to duplicate this relationship with non-classic demons filling this primary role, and how would we do it.

Electric Ghosts, by Raven, is devoted largely to this topic; the demons are literally machines and epiphenomena of machines. The Psyche demons in Chapter 7 of the rulebook are little more than the vagaries and associations of the sorcerer given great power. In both Urge, by Clinton, and Schism, by Jared, the demons are perceived as Other by the characters but are essentially aspects of the characters. In all these cases, the idea of the demon as a fictional "person" is abandoned.

Best,
Ron

[Eric]

Completely off topic of this thread, but apparently something I need:

Is there is way to delete messages that have already been posted?  I found the edit button, but what if I want to make a post vanish entirely?

[ This Message was edited by: Eric on 2001-12-20 11:32 ]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

You should be able to click the edit button, then check a box labeled 'Delete this post' when editing.

[Eric]

On 2001-12-20 12:22, Clinton R Nixon wrote:
You should be able to click the edit button, then check a box labeled 'Delete this post' when editing.

Sorry, don't see it.  Is it supposed to be in the Options box?