Leveticus' Hollow Waifs

[Maniacal_cackle]

I dunno, for me if someone from outside the game wants to ask about the game I'm playing and the history of the models, I don't really want the conversation to start with "how comfortable are you with sexually creepy stuff" to explain backstories.

That stuff is best left out of a game IMO.

[Cranky Old Man]

No need start of like that. If someone asks about the game I say that it is an adult world of Victorian steam punk horror and fantasy, kind of Lovecraftian but also very much the 19th century horror writers like Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker. Jack the ripper type characters plus Inquisition flavour crews.

That's usually enough for them to say "cool". Then real horror begins when i tell them only really $100 or so to get into it and then don't warn them of the addiction!

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 minutes ago, Cranky Old Man said:

No need start of like that. If someone asks about the game I say that it is an adult world of Victorian steam punk horror and fantasy, kind of Lovecraftian but also very much the 19th century horror writers like Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker. Jack the ripper type characters plus Inquisition flavour crews.

That's usually enough for them to say "cool". Then real horror begins when i tell them only really $100 or so to get into it and then don't warn them of the addiction!

I mean more if they ask about those models on the table for example. Or even about Molly's history, etc.

Sure you can skirt those topics, but it does come up.

[Autumn King]

It's a dark world but you can use that as fuel to kill your enemies and make the Wyrd world a better place.  Hamelin preys on children.  It's one of the things makes him so horrible and contemptable.  Wyrd keeps the stakes high. It gives you a visceral reaction to Wyrd's monsters, because it is so sadly true to life.  The best stories have always those that are the most authentic to reality.  It is why the Greeks and Romans wrote so many brutal tragedies, they pull emotions out of those who are willing to listen.  This whole discussion is proof to me that Wyrd is doing their world correctly.

[hydranixx]

7 hours ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I dunno, for me if someone from outside the game wants to ask about the game I'm playing and the history of the models, I don't really want the conversation to start with "how comfortable are you with sexually creepy stuff" to explain backstories.

That stuff is best left out of a game IMO.

I think you can offer a brief summary without delving too deep, and based on your audience's reaction, pivot to another direction:

"This old guy here channels his own life force to power up his attacks, and when he dies, uses undead husks to reanimate himself. Every time he does this, he loses more and more of his soul though. He's also a bit sketchy lore-wise, as he's known to capture/kill people to serve as those dead husks.

But, don't worry, if that's not really to your liking, there's another 40+ masters to pick from. For example, here look at this goofy green dude that captains an airship and flies around dropping pianos on people"

[admiralvorkraft]

Yeah, my push for writing Levi out is more that he's got this glorious purpose teased for two full editions now, let him serve that purpose yeah? Narratively there's nothing to do with him other than tread water, which would be one thing if he were a cool character or had really engaging mechanics but instead he's Levi...

[Maniacal_cackle]

The whole "you can hide this part of the lore because it is really uncomfortable to talk about" is a red flag for me personally xD

[Maniacal_cackle]

Like if people see my Redchapel models, they'll get excited - "Zombie sex workers?  And one is a dominatrix? Awesome!!

And... They're controlled by a man. Of course."

Malifaux is a dark world. Just have Sybelle and the gals break free of the control and pluck out Seamus' eyes before eviscerating him or something.

New master Sybelle sounds way cooler (or absorb them into Forgotten and DMH a few things across both).

Assuming DMH happens.

It doesn't help that Seamus also seems so game-warping in terms of mechanics, so a minor point is his design is annoying too.

[Autumn King]

Sorry to go back to the Game of Thrones analogy, but did the show actually get better after the twisted villains got killed off?  We enjoyed their deaths, sure, but the show unquestionably lost something and wasn't better for it.  If Wyrd chooses to kill off masters for the sake of some players sentimentalities I have no doubt Malifaux will lose the gritty edge as well.  Tragedies are often the best stories.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, Autumn King said:

Sorry to go back to the Game of Thrones analogy, but did the show actually get better after the twisted villains got killed off?  We enjoyed their deaths, sure, but the show unquestionably lost something and wasn't better for it.  If Wyrd chooses to kill off masters for the sake of some players sentimentalities I have no doubt Malifaux will lose the gritty edge as well.  Tragedies are often the best stories.

I think the (consensual) incestuous relationship between the twins was one of the less interesting things about their characters. It was far more interesting how they tried to cover it up in the first episode.

And it is trivially easy to have a gritty edge without rapey vibes.

Sybelle could chop off seamus' limbs, tongue, and eyes and use him as a display piece at the brothel to send a message to other people that would seek to control the girls. Would probably attract extra customers - come see the infamous Seamus brought down by the Redchapel Gals. For an extra charge you can throw scraps at him.

Plenty gritty still.

EDIT: in fact that could be the new Totem.  Mutilated Seamus on a chain.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Would even leave room for Seamus to come back as some sort of half construct entity later, as a destructive force rather than his old persona.

[Rufess]

Removing a character because someone might not like him? Then we better remove the whole Resser for Christians.🙃

I had seen so many TV game series took opinions like this too serious and eventually ruined itself. I hope Wyrd can handle it better.

[Math Mathonwy]

I think that there's kind of two things here that get a bit conflated.

1. Villains are fine as long as the bad stuff they do isn't depicted in a positive light. I don't think that anyone disputes this. Most of the Masters in Malifaux are horrible people but that's OK - the fluff realizes this. Now, some people might get this wrong but I don't think that that can be avoided (I just read about a flame war on the subreddit for The Boys where some conservatives were finally getting clued in to the fact that Homelander isn't a good guy and they were really disappointed).
2. Implications of sexual violence is something where some people draw the line - they don't want such themes in their minis games even from villains. I think that people are allowed to do so. Malifaux does contain quite strong hints in that direction but mostly with Seamus and Levi. It isn't a pervasive theme. So I can totally see why someone wouldn't want them in their Malifaux but would like the rest and therefore would advocate for the removal of those two Masters.
   
   Personally, whether I agree with it or not - a bit difficult to say. I certainly wouldn't want more of it or it being more overt. And as@admiralvorkraftnoted earlier, Seamus is more interesting and more developed as a character than Levi and therefore his themes are more nuanced and better handled. I wouldn't be opposed in changing Levi's themes a bit in that regard as the hints of lecherousness aren't in anyway central to him (unlike how zombie hookers kinda define Seamus and therefore sexual themes are way more difficult to remove - not to mention the Jack the Ripper thingy).
   
   Finally, I could see DMH used for rotations but that would be a big change. As DMH currently stands, I wouldn't want any Masters to be dropped there. Rather rework that bit of fluff from Levi if one feels like it.

[Azahul]

1 hour ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I think that there's kind of two things here that get a bit conflated.

1. Villains are fine as long as the bad stuff they do isn't depicted in a positive light. I don't think that anyone disputes this. Most of the Masters in Malifaux are horrible people but that's OK - the fluff realizes this. Now, some people might get this wrong but I don't think that that can be avoided (I just read about a flame war on the subreddit for The Boys where some conservatives were finally getting clued in to the fact that Homelander isn't a good guy and they were really disappointed).
2. Implications of sexual violence is something where some people draw the line - they don't want such themes in their minis games even from villains. I think that people are allowed to do so. Malifaux does contain quite strong hints in that direction but mostly with Seamus and Levi. It isn't a pervasive theme. So I can totally see why someone wouldn't want them in their Malifaux but would like the rest and therefore would advocate for the removal of those two Masters.
   
   Personally, whether I agree with it or not - a bit difficult to say. I certainly wouldn't want more of it or it being more overt. And as@admiralvorkraftnoted earlier, Seamus is more interesting and more developed as a character than Levi and therefore his themes are more nuanced and better handled. I wouldn't be opposed in changing Levi's themes a bit in that regard as the hints of lecherousness aren't in anyway central to him (unlike how zombie hookers kinda define Seamus and therefore sexual themes are way more difficult to remove - not to mention the Jack the Ripper thingy).
   
   Finally, I could see DMH used for rotations but that would be a big change. As DMH currently stands, I wouldn't want any Masters to be dropped there. Rather rework that bit of fluff from Levi if one feels like it.

Games make the first point a tad more complicated than less interactive media because some of us choose to play as the villains. Which both means rooting for their success, and that some characters (like Seamus) get presented as fun and entertaining and implicitly someone Seamus players kind of want to root for, because that's their in-game avatar. It becomes harder and harder to see that the villain is being condemned for their actions on a meta level if the lore positions you to root for them again and again. This is how the markers of a certain scifi mini game ended up in the position of having to release press statements telling their player base to stop seeing the fascist empire in their game as a good guy... even though their own fluff constantly takes that stance.

And I mean, we can all imagine the furor if a video game had you play as a sexual predator, even if the sexual aspects were not explicit and reserved to cut scenes (which is how I interpret written stories in this analogy). And while a lot of media panic over video games is pretty ridiculous, that's not a stance I'd care to disagree with.

[KID55]

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but why do you think that if someone plays a "bad" master, he justifies his actions? "Bad" masters can add a lot of atmosphere to a game. For example, I hate Hamelin, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of story. And it's not because he kills children, that's the least of the problems. He is just a complete asshole who invented a game for himself and now does not allow the rest to live in peace. But, this is a cool character, he gives new facets to the lore of the game. It is always more pleasant to see a clash of bright personalities than lean good boys. I also don't like Seamus because he's a rapist maniac and it's hard for me to play against him. But how the hell is he stylish! I absolutely would not want to be replaced by Madame Sibelle. If it bothers you that a man controls women (and not the fact that someone exploits someone, lol) take the female version of Seamus, what's the problem? If I like a "bad" master and even protect him, it does not mean that I also want to kill women, torture people and arrange bloody sacrifices. It just means that, in my opinion, the character complements the overall plot in a cool way. It's just a game, not the real world, don't mix it up. And this is not My little pony, Malifaux is a harsh place that hardens hearts. I'm not saying that everyone should be a complete asshole, but a few such individuals will only make the picture brighter.

[KID55]

On 6/15/2022 at 5:39 PM, Zebo said:

I would add Molly and Reva, who seem the nicest people in Malifaux. 

Looks pretty nice, yep

[Zebo]

Those are women-traffickers, so I find her actions quite good. 

[regleant]

Not that anyone wants my two pfennig but...

1) It's a game. There are villains. Villains are intended to be bad guys. Just because you are personally offended by some piece of the story does not mean that you should remove everyone else's enjoyment as well. After reading Levi's fluff, I am immensely more interested to see what happens. Similarly, just because I might play Levi on the table does not mean that I adhere to or approve of all of his fluff-related actions. You gotta' separate the two concepts.

2) This whole conversation reminds me of an SNL skit, where (if you don't want to watch), a bunch of evil geniuses get together to compare their evil inventions, and after 2 cartoony inventions (freeze ray & shrink ray), The Rock displays his child molesting robot and everyone else is offended for being "too evil."

 

[HomelessOne]

I've mentioned it before but "This is Jack the Ripper and his zombie hookers" is the "haha what" that got me into Malifaux to begin with. Different strokes for different folks, I can see why that sort of intro would absolutely turn other people off as a sales pitch. But at least Wyrd is about 95% consistent about portraying Seamus as a horrifying, awful person with no redeeming qualities that you should never root for. Sometimes we get some gallows humor out of him that's kinda funny if your sense of humor is as dark as mine. In return we also get characters such as Molly and Colette as the antithesis of everything he stands for.

[Avatar of Butter]

I think that, overall, Malifaux's fluff is in a healthier place than it started out. The women are, by and large, wearing clothing that looks more like clothing and less like fetishwear. The non-white characters have gotten more character traits than their race (anybody else remember "Injun Joss"? I remember). Every character in every story can be analyzed through the lens of the universe that they exist in, but they can also be analyzed through the lens of the author writing them, and through the lens of the person experiencing the story, too.

There are very few people in Malifaux who would think that Leveticus was anything but an abomination (if they knew everything he got up to). Everyone who isn't a necromancer pretty much thinks that necromancy is irredeemable, for a lot of very valid reasons. It's hard to divine what the authors are saying about him, or indeed any of the old masters, because they've been through so many revisions, and have been written by so many people. The Levi in one story is not necessarily the Levi in another. As for making value judgements on the Leveticus who exists in your head, well, that's up to you to figure out. If you want to rationalize his actions into something heroic, well, nobody can stop you.

For me, personally, I like that Leveticus is socially odious. He is, after all, single-mindedly determined to defeat entropy, even if he becomes something other than human as a result. He is perfectly willing to give up his ability to relate to people in pursuit of that goal. He's a solipsist, for whom other people become less real every time he returns from the dead. I don't think that older people finding younger people attractive is an uncommon occurrence in the human condition, we are just all revolted by the fact that Leveticus doesn't understand why he shouldn't pursue those impulses.

I also like the tension between his inability to have healthy relationships and his obsession with passing his knowledge on to others. It fits with his hatred of entropy that he wants his research into immortality to exist forever, and the best way to do that is to teach other people. Neither Marlena or Alyce seem to like, or even particularly care about Leveticus. That is, in fact, a good reflection of Levi's outlook, and shows that he has made an impression on the two of them. None of them are good characters, but I do think they are all interesting characters.

As a side note, I find a lot of the talk about the use of the Dead Man's Hand as a way to kill characters that you personally dislike through their plot armor to be really interesting. The fact that so many people hold to the idea that there is good and justified murder, which is something that is patently against the themes of Malifaux as written by the authors, is a downright intriguing trend.

[Maniacal_cackle]

Some great points!

3 hours ago, Avatar of Butter said:

I think that, overall, Malifaux's fluff is in a healthier place than it started out. The women are, by and large, wearing clothing that looks more like clothing and less like fetishwear. The non-white characters have gotten more character traits than their race (anybody else remember "Injun Joss"? I remember). Every character in every story can be analyzed through the lens of the universe that they exist in, but they can also be analyzed through the lens of the author writing them, and through the lens of the person experiencing the story, too.

Progress doesn't just happen by itself, though. There generally needs to be a shift in societal expectations and some pressure for it to happen.

For the same reason those things all seem dated now, I think Seamus & Leveticus are starting to show that bit of wear and tear as well.

3 hours ago, Avatar of Butter said:

As a side note, I find a lot of the talk about the use of the Dead Man's Hand as a way to kill characters that you personally dislike through their plot armor to be really interesting. The fact that so many people hold to the idea that there is good and justified murder, which is something that is patently against the themes of Malifaux as written by the authors, is a downright intriguing trend.

Well, I mean the game is all about murdering stuff... So that's kinda the context of the game. DMH is just the mechanic for characters getting removed (and they don't even have to die, you can just toss them into prison or have them fall through a breach to yet another reality or whatever).

I also think that people who emphasise "personally dislike" either don't get the point or are being purposely disingenuous.

There's plenty of characters I don't like (for instance stuff in Bayou just isn't my cup of tea).

That's different from thinking that a character really doesn't hold up well with progressing values in society. And you can say that these characters hold up just fine with societal values... But I'll point again at the fact that people mentioned that you can just hide these aspects of the story when discussing it with people interested in the game.

[kross1]

So by that reasoning, anything that doesn't follow the progressive ideals of this society, (not the fictional society that the fictional character is part of), the Joker should be banned from Batman, for the fictional women beating of Harley Quinn, and the fictional rape of Batgirl. Murder is against our social standards, should we ban all fictional murderers too? Where does the censorship end. 

I mean why stop there, let's do the same thing to tv. Got to get rid of Homelander from "the Boys". Every episode of Law & Order: SVU? Maybe we should start looking at religious texts, Should we ban the bible for incest, rape, slavery and murder?

What makes these (fictional) characters horrifying, are the (fictional) horrible things they do. I find Sonnia and Rasputina to be just reprehensible for the (magical) slavery, and the cannibalism, should we cancel them as well?

If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion we will end up playing "My little Pony, personally I won't be playing that game....

Please don't think of this as an attack on you personally, it is not. My liberal ideals, makes me hate censorship, especially speech I don't like or agree with. As an example, I despise fox news, but I don't want it silenced, because I would become what I despise. 

[Azahul]

42 minutes ago, kross1 said:

So by that reasoning, anything that doesn't follow the progressive ideals of this society, (not the fictional society that the fictional character is part of), the Joker should be banned from Batman, for the fictional women beating of Harley Quinn, and the fictional rape of Batgirl. Murder is against our social standards, should we ban all fictional murderers too? Where does the censorship end. 

I mean why stop there, let's do the same thing to tv. Got to get rid of Homelander from "the Boys". Every episode of Law & Order: SVU? Maybe we should start looking at religious texts, Should we ban the bible for incest, rape, slavery and murder?

What makes these (fictional) characters horrifying, are the (fictional) horrible things they do. I find Sonnia and Rasputina to be just reprehensible for the (magical) slavery, and the cannibalism, should we cancel them as well?

If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion we will end up playing "My little Pony, personally I won't be playing that game....

Please don't think of this as an attack on you personally, it is not. My liberal ideals, makes me hate censorship, especially speech I don't like or agree with. As an example, I despise fox news, but I don't want it silenced, because I would become what I despise. 

I don't think comparisons to non-interactive media are entirely appropriate. Video games are a closer mainstream point of comparison. You can read American Psycho without being required to embody Patrick Bateman, but there are different standards for media where you are being asked to actually play as a character.

As for whether or not violence without the sexualised aspects is or should be acceptable, well, video games again suggest that the mainstream view by far is that "just" being a murderer is quite acceptable. Even slavery and cannibalism don't seem to be beyond the pale, judging by the Fallout games to name the most high profile examples where exactly that behaviour is possible. But even that series shies away from the territory implied by the way Seamus and Leveticus behave.

Now, personally, I find the term "cancelled" to be very silly, since a boycott against something isn't censorship. It's people deciding to spend their money and time somewhere else. You might not want Fox News off air, but if you don't watch it because you don't like it you're taking as much action to cancel it as anyone who does want it gone. And in the context of Malifaux, the main reason why it is bad to have characters that fall into this uncomfortable sexual violence category is because those prospective players who would like the game save for that element might choose to spend their money elsewhere. Totally warranted in a free market system, everyone is free to take their custom wherever they like, and conflating that with government oppression is honestly a serious personal gripe of mine. At the end of the day the reason companies act on this sort of moral complaint is because if their product is considered inferior by enough of the market as a result then they will make less money. And while we as a society clearly have little issue with violence in interactive violence, these characters are treading a line many do have issues with.

[kross1]

I understand what you're saying, and get it. The company also needs to understand that taking away fun and entertaining characters may also have existing players leave the game. My 20 yr old daughter plays maulifaux, she loves Seamus. So you want take her favorite master away, because it may offend somebody who doesn't even play the game. Is that what a company wants to do? Ostracize the existing player base, in the off chance it may offend someone who may or may not even spend a dime on it.

[Azahul]

Yeah, it could happen. Sometimes companies do ostracise their original customers as they grow. For every case like your daughter there is an anecdote of someone who has felt very uncomfortable explaining the existence of the undead stripper gang forced to serve their own murderer to a prospective player. I don't have any hard data to back up the idea that the game would grow if Seamus wasn't in it. I don't have any data on how much of an asset Seamus as a character is to Malifaux's sales either. The game is small enough in player base and diverse enough with its character range that I imagine the impact is pretty insignificant in either direction. It's all just gut feelings. Maybe Wyrd has some research on the subject but I sort of doubt it given the size of the company.

I will note that this particular strand of argument is the purely capitalist one, which doesn't reflect my personal feelings. It's primarily the cynical part of my brain observing how "cancelling" actually works in practice. Personally I like people around me to be comfortable, and I don't think the fact that I like the whacky Jack the Ripper meets Mad Hatter as a necromancer character concept outweighs the discomfort of someone else in the room with an aversion to depictions of sexualised violence. But while that may be the more compelling argument to me, I don't think it is the argument that convinces companies. Not until a critical mass of customers are making it anyway.