I'm still iffy on the whole Collie being sexually attracted to Savitr thing... It kinda reeks of an Electra complex? I feel like it'd be less weird if those "pubescent urges" were expressed towards people who aren't basically her adoptive father figure. I think it'd allow for more interplay between the characters around the conflict of id vs superego if they actually discussed those feelings instead of Collie just being a creepy fangirl and Savitr ignoring that, brooding hero he that he is. And instead of just showing "wow look how messed up she is", it'd provide a legitimate point in favor of the Blight Wolves' perspective on life (i.e. the freedom to live and love freely, rather than the "noble" self-effacement and asceticism of a paladin in a religious order) and provide an internal conflict for Collie to overcome- wrestling with living up to the expectations of her hero and ersatz father figure and following the Seraphim's ideals vs following her own desires and possibly even seeking independence (which she would feel guilty about, since that's what "bad people" do) sounds more interesting than a one-sided crush that can ultimately go nowhere.
6
Tobias 1104~4Y
I wondered whether how I wrote this suggested that Savitr adopted Collie, which would make the lusting weird. He saved her, but she was given to a couple of unremarkable NPCs in the village and had a fairly ordinary life with them. Savitr was always a distant figure she mostly just heard (and fantasised) about, like a celebrity. He has a wife and child (Dayvha), but is rarely around to spend time with them because he's always away on missions.
When you lack love growing up, that tends to come out in weird ways. And I do think the fangirl angle would give some easy laughs, and it's in line with my general sense of humour anyway, and I'd say it's not deviant for how hormonal teenage girls think about male celebrities, but I won't do something the majority of people will dislike. We'll see how it goes.
I've got a lot planned for Collie's arc and the exploration of the Seraphim and Blight Wolves' philosophies (I don't intend to paint either as 'bad' or 'good'), but like I said, I can't really just blurt it all out in a post like this without spoiling everything! Which is a shame, because I like what I've come up with, but what that is won't be apparent until the game's actually made.
3
Ampersand68~4Y
I'm not opposed to Collie crushing on Savitr, per se. Though I do think there's often a fine line between "creepy" and "cute", which impacts how relatable of a character she is, and which I think may be important for drawing in a broader/more diverse audience than you had for MARDEK (i.e. not 90% nerdy young men). After all, she is the only female character in the game.
Speaking of the Blight Wolves and their philosophy though, their canine motif immediately brought to mind the Cynic philosophy, which is named after their tendency to act as dogs, i.e. in accordance with nature and eschewing established social customs. This quote for example, really fits quite well with what information you've given on the Blight Wolves' philosophy:
"There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named. First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads. The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it. The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy. The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between its friends and enemies. So do they recognize as friends those who are suited to philosophy, and receive them kindly, while those unfitted they drive away, like dogs, by barking at them."
You mentioned in another post that the Blight Wolves represent a more "liberal" school of thought vs the "conservatism" of the Seraphim, but then later said that maybe that analogy doesn't make sense in light of American conservatives, but I do think that strikes upon an interesting point. Many conservatives laud "law and order", but oftentimes this just means "laws for thee and not for me". Not to get too stuck into politics, but often the "upholders of the law" end up being the ones exempt from its rule (unfortunately, there are many people like Steele in the real world). But I think as you described it, the difference between the Blight Wolves and Seraphim would be more one of "invidualism vs paternalism", broader in scope than the typical left/right cleavages in modern politics.
3
Tobias 1104~4Y
I never knew the term Cynical was related to dogs; that's very interesting! And in many ways it fits wonderfully well with what I imagined these Blight Wolves to be!
It's more philosophical and cerebral than their motivations, though; I don't imagine most of them would be in it for high-minded reasons. But it is all about living in nature. I've been seeing the Blight Wolves vs Seraphim as 'beasts vs divine', or mundane vs transcendent. Enjoying Earth vs preparing for Heaven.
I care about psychology more than politics, and it seems that conservatism is associated with low Openness and high conscientiousness, I think? Rigidity. Or something like that; I can't remember the details. Whereas liberalism is the opposite. That's what I had in mind when comparing these ideas to those. But I corrected myself since it does seem to fall apart when we look at the real behaviour of hardcore conservatives making a big point of not being controlled by the government. I don't understand politics enough to get that, but I can definitely see how those traits would produce "I control you but you can't control me" behaviour.
Ideally the Seraphim and Blight Wolves' philosophies would be familiar enough to be easily understood, but different enough from real politics to avoid seeming like I'm trying to do commentary about real political beliefs (which I'm not).
2
Ampersand68~4Y
Don't be too fast in dismissing Cynicism as overly cerebral or high-minded- the originator of Cynicism, Diogenes, would put his philosophy into action by publically masturbating and defecating in the theatre! And though I'm sure the Blight Wolves (at least "currently") don't think deeply about philosophy, that doesn't mean they wouldn't live according to one, even if it's "merely" passed on by example, as opposed to ancient texts or teachings.
American conservatism is actually somewhat "liberal" in nature (or at least, aesthetic), as oxymoronic as that might sound at first blush. America's founding myth is one of independence, of freedom hard-fought from tyranny, as well as of intrepid pioneers and entrepreneurs. Obviously the truth falls far short of the romanticized version of things, but that version is what American conservatives revere, which leads to the phenomenon you describe (not that they aren't massive hypocrites when it comes to -actual- government tyranny, but let's leave that aside for now).
I think framing your story as a political debate would indeed be unwise, especially as nowadays more people than ever are questioning the legitimacy of our "lawful authorities". Not that it isn't important to address questions like that, but it is the sort of thing you'd need to think carefully about before approaching. That said, this won't necessarily stop people from reading into the story in certain ways, which I think is only natural in a time of heightened political consciousness such as we have now. As it stands, though, I'm interested to see where you take the story, and how (or even if) you'll resolve the tension between the two philosophies.
When you lack love growing up, that tends to come out in weird ways. And I do think the fangirl angle would give some easy laughs, and it's in line with my general sense of humour anyway, and I'd say it's not deviant for how hormonal teenage girls think about male celebrities, but I won't do something the majority of people will dislike. We'll see how it goes.
I've got a lot planned for Collie's arc and the exploration of the Seraphim and Blight Wolves' philosophies (I don't intend to paint either as 'bad' or 'good'), but like I said, I can't really just blurt it all out in a post like this without spoiling everything! Which is a shame, because I like what I've come up with, but what that is won't be apparent until the game's actually made.
Speaking of the Blight Wolves and their philosophy though, their canine motif immediately brought to mind the Cynic philosophy, which is named after their tendency to act as dogs, i.e. in accordance with nature and eschewing established social customs. This quote for example, really fits quite well with what information you've given on the Blight Wolves' philosophy:
"There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named. First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads. The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it. The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy. The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between its friends and enemies. So do they recognize as friends those who are suited to philosophy, and receive them kindly, while those unfitted they drive away, like dogs, by barking at them."
You mentioned in another post that the Blight Wolves represent a more "liberal" school of thought vs the "conservatism" of the Seraphim, but then later said that maybe that analogy doesn't make sense in light of American conservatives, but I do think that strikes upon an interesting point. Many conservatives laud "law and order", but oftentimes this just means "laws for thee and not for me". Not to get too stuck into politics, but often the "upholders of the law" end up being the ones exempt from its rule (unfortunately, there are many people like Steele in the real world). But I think as you described it, the difference between the Blight Wolves and Seraphim would be more one of "invidualism vs paternalism", broader in scope than the typical left/right cleavages in modern politics.
It's more philosophical and cerebral than their motivations, though; I don't imagine most of them would be in it for high-minded reasons. But it is all about living in nature. I've been seeing the Blight Wolves vs Seraphim as 'beasts vs divine', or mundane vs transcendent. Enjoying Earth vs preparing for Heaven.
I care about psychology more than politics, and it seems that conservatism is associated with low Openness and high conscientiousness, I think? Rigidity. Or something like that; I can't remember the details. Whereas liberalism is the opposite. That's what I had in mind when comparing these ideas to those. But I corrected myself since it does seem to fall apart when we look at the real behaviour of hardcore conservatives making a big point of not being controlled by the government. I don't understand politics enough to get that, but I can definitely see how those traits would produce "I control you but you can't control me" behaviour.
Ideally the Seraphim and Blight Wolves' philosophies would be familiar enough to be easily understood, but different enough from real politics to avoid seeming like I'm trying to do commentary about real political beliefs (which I'm not).
American conservatism is actually somewhat "liberal" in nature (or at least, aesthetic), as oxymoronic as that might sound at first blush. America's founding myth is one of independence, of freedom hard-fought from tyranny, as well as of intrepid pioneers and entrepreneurs. Obviously the truth falls far short of the romanticized version of things, but that version is what American conservatives revere, which leads to the phenomenon you describe (not that they aren't massive hypocrites when it comes to -actual- government tyranny, but let's leave that aside for now).
I think framing your story as a political debate would indeed be unwise, especially as nowadays more people than ever are questioning the legitimacy of our "lawful authorities". Not that it isn't important to address questions like that, but it is the sort of thing you'd need to think carefully about before approaching. That said, this won't necessarily stop people from reading into the story in certain ways, which I think is only natural in a time of heightened political consciousness such as we have now. As it stands, though, I'm interested to see where you take the story, and how (or even if) you'll resolve the tension between the two philosophies.