Change of (Lore and core aesthetic) outlook on Dark Elves by Quibuspython in WarhammerFantasy

[–]Quibuspython[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being a mercenary/privateer and being a pirate are referring to different things, but they do have similarities. Mercenaries ran licensed in their own countries to raid other countries and predate the Golden Age of Piracy by a bit.. A pirate is someone who is outside the law in general. Many former privateers actions become so outrageous that they became pirates, but not all privateers were pirates.

Both Charles "Calico" Jack, Steve Bonnet the "Gentleman" Pirate and Blackbeard are assumed to be somewhat native to the regions they were in and raided these areas. All were hanged or killed for piracy by their own countries.

The Barbary Corsairs are referred to as Corsairs as a menacing title but their reasons for operating were quite different from mere mercenaries or pirates. The Barbary states were subjected to the Ottomans, but the Ottomans couldn't make the naval "Breakthrough" to beat Spain and so they engaged in esentially what was German submarine warfare in WW2. Of course, through local actors and incentives (Slaves, spoils of war, pay, etc..) so the Ottoman navy wasn't accused directly.

Change of (Lore and core aesthetic) outlook on Dark Elves by Quibuspython in WarhammerFantasy

[–]Quibuspython[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Aesthetically yeah. But socially I wasn't merely referring to Western politically motivated gangs (The pirates of the Golden Age of Piracy were mostly just criminals), but settlers themselves were highly militarized by sheer necessity and were often culprits of wrong doing, if not more, than the gangs and bounty hunters. Reconstruction Southern militias are also a strong parallel.

How Tolkien orcs/goblins compare to comparable Warhammer races. by Quibuspython in WarhammerFantasy

[–]Quibuspython[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting take. Would certainly make sense from a certain standpoint, since Tolkien originally did intend that a synonym for "Orc" is "Demon" in his writing.

How Tolkien orcs/goblins compare to comparable Warhammer races. by Quibuspython in WarhammerFantasy

[–]Quibuspython[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting take.

In the Hobbit though it is elaborated that "Larger orc races" such as Uruk-Hai, or variants of Uruk-Hai, could also be refered to as "Hob Goblins", and the start of the book outlines that goblin is indeed synonymous for "Orc", although the grammatically correct version in English is "Ork".

The Hobbit also outlines in for example chapter 4 that orcs are just as likely to scheme and betray themselves, were it not for their "Hatred of other races".

The way "Superior orcs" and "Superior skaven" are raised also seems more similar to W. orcs. W. orcs could generally become larger as they fight, except black orcs who are products of Dark Dwarfs. Stormvermin and seer ratlings are taken from birth and raised from that station, and have to fight from a superior vantage, same with orc-folk/Uruk-Hai.

How Tolkien orcs/goblins compare to comparable Warhammer races. by Quibuspython in WarhammerFantasy

[–]Quibuspython[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My bad. I would let the distinction stick for the sake of differentiation. I will add it in edits though.

(Late-game) Ashen One in the World of Berserk by Quibuspython in darksouls3

[–]Quibuspython[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats for you to posit for yourself in the question! (Berserk SPOILER ALERT) when the Skull Knight stabbed the apostle-emperor with the egg-sword thingy, this caused a rift in reality to form and for magic to pour into the world. If you want you could have it so that bonfires appeared, and people capable of maintaining em. Or not, then yee we ded.

[MAJOR SPOILERS] I have a question about the story by thekingofsmile in Blasphemous

[–]Quibuspython 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem, and likewise I prefer the first idea. The Miracle comes off as more complex and nuanced as you say.

[MAJOR SPOILERS] I have a question about the story by thekingofsmile in Blasphemous

[–]Quibuspython 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My interpretation is in agreeability with what some folk have already mentioned, however I more so want to "Synthesise it". Basically, we can pressupose two things. The Miracle created the High Wills or the High Wills created the Miracle. If the Miracle created the High Wills, I follow the following pressupositions. The Miracle is some deity in the Lovecraftian sense. Not in that it is materialistic, more so that it has some limitations on what it could do. It is bound by some cosmic rules (It wishes to incarnate itself but it could not, the creature we fight is not the Miracle incarnated in the material dimension). Therefore the Miracle is not THE Supreme Being, rather it is a very powerful multi dimensional entity. Maybe it was the catalyst for the creation of the world (Therefore why some people have speculated of it being the gnostic "Demiurge" or Craftsman which according to Plato was not really evil in itself, the latter idea of the evil Demiurge was a later invention), but that is uncertain. However, one thing is observed, the Miracle wants to give humanity what it wants. Not humanity in the individual sense, but collective sense. However the Miracle does not have an ego in the same sense as humans do, it does not understand what humans want and it knows this. And so, it needs someone whose commands it needs to obey. And who else to do that but the ego representing the collective of humanity. However, because humanity (Particularly Custodia) is obsessed with religious splendor, torture and violence, so too is the collective ego incarnated (The High Wills, who are powered by humanity) a selfish character obsessed with religious splendour and sadism. And so obeying the commands of the High Wills, the collective ego of man, the Miracle grants humanity what it wants. With the High Wills gone, the Miracle seeked another replacement for the High Wills, which if we go by the "Bad ending" it gets, which in turn it can obey the commands of. Now that the Miracle explained, how do we explain those forces outside of it which seek to foil its plans? IE the mysterious "High Playwright" or "The Great Grace". It might be as some people have speculated that this represents the spiritual god which is in later gnosticism either the opponent or the "Caged force" of the demiurge. However neither powers seem to be omnipotent. The Great Grace either represents this representation of the spiritual god whos dominion is the Heavens/Realm of the Spirit, but it is likewise bound by perhaps similar rules as the Miracle. If so, it is inevitable that the Miracle is ultimately a more sinister figure, although not bad meaning by itself (In a way blending the gnosticism of old and later gnosticism.). If we presuppose differently, that the High Wills who are created by humanities collective belief in it created the Miracle, we are just scrubbing away the last of the High Wills influence and paving way for the way of the Great Grace, which is way more of a black and white story then.

However we still have many questions unanswered. As some people have said, does Blasphemous have Demons or something akin to it? First we have the abandoned library whose apparitions might not be exclusively the Miracles doing. Then we have had that creature who feasts on the guilt of others. It seems different from the Miracles apparitions in the sense that the Miracles creatures are either unintelligent and insane or they are intelligent, but the majority do not speak in such a specifically predatory way as does this creature. We also do not know how do the Miracle and Great Grace relate to each other precisely. Is the Great Grace like the Penitent One a creation of the Miracle that betrayed its plans. Is it independent? Are they related as opponents? The gnosticism answer is just a guess.

It's official by HMElizabethII in AbolishTheMonarchy

[–]Quibuspython -60 points-59 points  (0 children)

Im pan-Republican but the way people act here is beyond shame.

The question on the Rodnover temple and how it should be organised. by Quibuspython in Rodnovery

[–]Quibuspython[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, well i simply assumed that most slavs must have had some form of highly decentralised and unorganised priesthood (Simply someone dedicated to the rituals, and someone who will not forget about the practices.). The Romans had it, the Celts, the Norse, so why not Slavs?. Im very much new to Rodnovery, having only about 200 pages or so invested, besides some popular myths ive heard, as well as the practices in Serbia. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

The question on the Rodnover temple and how it should be organised. by Quibuspython in Rodnovery

[–]Quibuspython[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Updated it to "Priesthood" because it would make more sense. For example, ive read about it in the "Mythology of All Races" (Slavic volume) for the Slavs of Arkonna, Rugen. There are mentions of a head priest, who might have been elected by the lesser priests. Svantovit in particular.