Forums of the Megaverse®

The original Nightspawn made a big deal outta foundlings. The Survival Guide, not so much. Has that bit of lore fallen by the wayside?

thorr-kan wrote:The original Nightspawn made a big deal outta foundlings. The Survival Guide, not so much. Has that bit of lore fallen by the wayside?

It appears so.
My personal take is that the original foundling think was tied into a particular direction CJ wanted to take the line (the ghosts of the formless is one that I hear a lot). As that direction is no longer the offical direction the support for that direction is no longer being emphesized either.

If it was a matter of ghosts, they could possess human kids like the Athanatos. I was thinking more like altered / mind-wiped formless ones or abandoned half-breeds.

Axelmania wrote:If it was a matter of ghosts, they could possess human kids like the Athanatos. I was thinking more like altered / mind-wiped formless ones or abandoned half-breeds.

I'm just relating what I have heard from the various discussions with CJ.
If you want more details on what he was thinking of with the 'ghosts of the Formless Ones" and why they turned into Nightbane showing up in cabbage patches or whatever... you can ask him.
*shrugs*

We know that they are NOT formeless ones per se (mindwiped or otherwise) because the books are pretty clear about the Formeless ones either being all dead or being the Reshapers.

In my opinion what they are is Nightbane. For more details ask your specific GM how they do things in their game.

Reshapers being Formless Ones wouldn't necessarily exclude Nightbane from also being them. Maybe there are different breeds, or ones who went through different processes.

Heck wasn't there even something about Dopplegangers being some kind?

eliakon wrote:

thorr-kan wrote:The original Nightspawn made a big deal outta foundlings. The Survival Guide, not so much. Has that bit of lore fallen by the wayside?

It appears so.
My personal take is that the original foundling think was tied into a particular direction CJ wanted to take the line (the ghosts of the formless is one that I hear a lot). As that direction is no longer the offical direction the support for that direction is no longer being emphesized either.

That is the same thing I read. They got rid of the orphan story line, with them being reincarnated formless ones (not exactly ghost) due to the author leaving. They even answered about human/ nightbane coupling (20% chance of nightbane child) nightbane/nightbane (90% chance) and nightbane/guardian (not compatible). So that definitely ends the orphan story.

Lord Loppage wrote:They even answered about human/ nightbane coupling (20% chance of nightbane child) nightbane/nightbane (90% chance) and nightbane/guardian (not compatible). So that definitely ends the orphan story.

What page has those percentages?

It sounds like to be a Nightbane your parent has to be one, so perhaps the compromise here is that the ORIGINAL Nightbane were orphans/foundlings (or perhaps the children of other nightbane) but after interbreeding with humans, some normal humans managed to give birth to some too?

For extra horror: these percentages should only apply if impregnation occurs while in morphus.

Axelmania wrote:If it was a matter of ghosts, they could possess human kids like the Athanatos. I was thinking more like altered / mind-wiped formless ones or abandoned half-breeds.

It's not "Ghosts possessing people" so much as "Formless Ones being reincarnated"

Reincarnating souls inhabiting babies is basically possession IMO. Ethically speaking there doesn't seem to be much different between what Enlightened Immortals / parents of Athanatos do and what Dyvalians do to speed up rebirth.

Axelmania wrote:Reincarnating souls inhabiting babies is basically possession IMO. Ethically speaking there doesn't seem to be much different between what Enlightened Immortals / parents of Athanatos do and what Dyvalians do to speed up rebirth.

The formless ones were not inhabiting babies, that's what the foundling thing meant: there were no parents, they just spontaniously took the form of a mortal baby on someone's doorstep.

IIRC at the POH Mark was saying that them being born now doesn't eliminate the foundling concept nor does it eliminate the souls being the formless ones. Their can still be foundlings. They don't possess children they are reincarnated as children.

To me I just figure that Dark day made it possible.

So you have humans spontaneously becoming nightbane and formless ones spontaneously becoming nightbane?

Axelmania wrote:So you have humans spontaneously becoming nightbane and formless ones spontaneously becoming nightbane?

Formless ones were extinct in the first Carmen books are they not in Mark's? So if they're extinct how are they spontaneously becoming Nightspawn?

Humans don't spontaneously becoming Nightspawn. They either are or are not and then the only becoming is when they have their becoming when their nature is revealed.

So really depends on what you mean as becoming. The in-game reveal or a change in original nature. First yes, second no.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Formless ones were extinct in the first Carmen books

Which page established that?

Zer0 Kay wrote:if they're extinct how are they spontaneously becoming Nightspawn?

Perhaps "were" rather than "are"?

Zer0 Kay wrote:Humans don't spontaneously becoming Nightspawn. They either are or are not and then the only becoming is when they have their becoming when their nature is revealed.

Spontaneity of the zygote?

Axelmania wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Formless ones were extinct in the first Carmen books

Which page established that?

Zer0 Kay wrote:if they're extinct how are they spontaneously becoming Nightspawn?

Perhaps "were" rather than "are"?

Zer0 Kay wrote:Humans don't spontaneously becoming Nightspawn. They either are or are not and then the only becoming is when they have their becoming when their nature is revealed.

Spontaneity of the zygote?

1. You made the first claim you show the citation.
2. Sure... it really doesnt matter
3. In part sure, especially when dealing with one or both parents being nightspawn. But then there is the other side where they're reincarnated.

I am not sure I like the whole changing of the orphan thing for Nightbane.

Eh, the whole orphan thing always struck me as conceptual borrowing from Highlander more than a useful plot hook. I've never really bothered with it.

My go to explanation was that in a lower magic era the Becoming was much less likely to happen so any potential Nightbane would be stuck in their Facade anyway to live and die as a human. The bloodline thus got spread through humanity with those who had the potential starting to go through the Becoming a ton more on Dark Day and after, when the overall magic level rose precipitously.

I was just never interested in making a whole game or major plotline about the age old question of "Who's Your Daddy?" y'know?

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Axelmania wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:Formless ones were extinct in the first Carmen books

Which page established that?

1. You made the first claim you show the citation.

What claim? You said this in response to my question "so you have humans spontaneously becoming nightbane and formless ones spontaneously becoming nightbane?"

I have no claim: I honestly can't recall whether they were explicitly extinct or not. I had thought it was one of the world's mysteries, further complicated by Reshapers.

MadGreenSon wrote:the whole orphan thing always struck me as conceptual borrowing from Highlander

Richie Ryan .. Duncan MacLeod .. I actually never noticed that! Could be due to gaps in episodes I've seen in the TV. Was this ever referenced for Connor MacLeod or Quentin MacLeod or Colin MacLeod? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_(Highlander) mentions being born in an abbey...

Axelmania wrote:Richie Ryan .. Duncan MacLeod .. I actually never noticed that! Could be due to gaps in episodes I've seen in the TV. Was this ever referenced for Connor MacLeod or Quentin MacLeod or Colin MacLeod? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_(Highlander) mentions being born in an abbey...

I recall it being referenced a few times in the show that no immortal had birth parents that they were aware of. Amanda may have turned up at an abbey, but I don't think they witnessed her birth. That's why it was a big deal in one of the awful made for TV movies that Duncan got his girlfriend pregnant and they could sense the kid was a pre-immortal, or something. It's been awhile.

Either way, the whole "Nightbane are orphans" thing reminded me of that and it also seemed like the kind of thing my players would obsess over, so I ditched it. <shrug> It seems that the current canon has ditched it as well. Either way, it's hardly a pillar of the setting. Whether or not a Nightbane can ID their parents or have kids of their own doesn't really have an effect on the overall metaplot of "The Nightlords have already 80% won and we gotta do something about it now"

To clarify: The original mythos indicated that Nightbane were all "foundlings" without known parentage. When Irvin Jackson and I came onboard to revitalize the line, Kevin made an executive decision (which we supported) that this piece of the mythos was no longer valid. Call it a retcon if you will. Personally, I found that detail to be too restrictive for character creation, and to cause issues with plausibility of the setting. There is absolutely nothing stopping individual G.M.s from maintaining that part of the mythos. There is nothing stopping a player from creating a Nightbane that is a foundling. Now it is simply an option rather than a mandate.

I wish you could keep some vestige of the original foundlings. Like instead of ALL foundlings, if you want newborn nightbane, maybe that only happens when at least one parent has Nightbane DNA in them (those who never had a Becoming essentially had recessive DNA) and the original nightbane from centuries/millenia past were all foundlings (formless ones perhaps)

Warwolf wrote:To clarify: The original mythos indicated that Nightbane were all "foundlings" without known parentage. When Irvin Jackson and I came onboard to revitalize the line, Kevin made an executive decision (which we supported) that this piece of the mythos was no longer valid. Call it a retcon if you will. Personally, I found that detail to be too restrictive for character creation, and to cause issues with plausibility of the setting. There is absolutely nothing stopping individual G.M.s from maintaining that part of the mythos. There is nothing stopping a player from creating a Nightbane that is a foundling. Now it is simply an option rather than a mandate.

Thank you!!