Quote from: K Peterson;901236But, weren't Reavers a pretty clear 'alien' threat that were demonized by most everyone in the series? They might not have had the features associated with most space opera aliens but there was no moral ambiguity about them. Brutal space savages that were universally feared - cannibals, rapists, murderers - a very clear "Enemy".

That's true, and if I recall correctly, it went beyond that. They were victims too and were chemically made into Reavers. So while they were not a BIG THREAT, they were a threat everyone had to deal with. Their origin was a nice twist which further amplified the Alliance as the BIG BAD.

I'm not all that impressed with Whedon as a writer. Personally, any wild west in space leaves me cold, largely due to the fact of that Texas was the first place I lived when we moved here. Not being able to represent aliens as anything other than targets? Hello? In Serenity, no aliens ... who is the nemesis again? I was rooting for him, I kinda hate Fillion. I wouldn't have watched any of it if it wasn't for my ex-wife, she dug westerns, but really just for the horses as we owned horses. In reality, most powerful nemesis type aliens would probably be left over AI's, the time scale is just too vast to have multiple competing species with equivalent technology. Low tech, they wouldn't be threatening. Part of a big nemesis is that it is a easy way to do 'Against A Dark Background', Ethos standing out against Pathos, English 101 kind of stuff. Even if aliens are alien-y, natural equilibrium would force a balance over time, depending on a variety of factors.

Here's a problem I have with the 'big bad' and save the world scenarios: In published adventures, the big bad is rarely all that bad. Take the latest 5E adventure book, the Storm King's Thunder. It seems giants are stealing grain and livestock, and press-ganging humans into labouring for them. Ooh, how awful. Clearly, these giants need to be hacked to pieces and exterminated (which is the default way of dealing with threats in D&D).

Want to make the big bads more dangerous and dramatic (and worthy of extermination)? Make them bad. They flout the gods, they destroy civilization, they rejoice in cruelty. They eat people. Raiding livestock and burning farms? That's really the best you can come up with?

Quote from: Haffrung;901270Raiding livestock and burning farms? That's really the best you can come up with?

That sounds like the neighbors in a lot of setting.

Quote from: Ravenswing;901169It was the explicit motivation for Joss Whedon to leave "aliens" out of Firefly.  His take was that aliens made it too easy for a SF audience to identify The Enemy and promptly demonize it: oh, they're Klingons (Cylons, Bugs, Cardassians, Others, Puppet Masters), so of course they're evil.

That's just because Whedon's not a very good writer.  Rockne S. O'Bannon had no problem doing it in Farscape.

Quote from: HaffrungIt seems giants are stealing grain and livestock, and press-ganging humans into labouring for them. Ooh, how awful. Clearly, these giants need to be hacked to pieces and exterminated (which is the default way of dealing with threats in D&D).

I think some of this is the "Ren Faire with Magic" nature of most D&D settings, where the fact that survival in the vaguely-Dark-Ages-Europe setting ought to be a great deal more precarious than it is is elided.  They're stealing your grain and livestock?  Well, then you and your family are going to starve to death.  Those of you who weren't carried away and enslaved to be worked to death.  Yeah, that's awful.  And since we can't exactly phone up the local constabulary to pop round and sort them out, you're damn right that murdering the fuck out of those giants is the best way to ensure that a) they never do it again, and 2) nobody else gets the same idea.

Quote from: daniel_ream;901308That's just because Whedon's not a very good writer.  Rockne S. O'Bannon had no problem doing it in Farscape.



I think some of this is the "Ren Faire with Magic" nature of most D&D settings, where the fact that survival in the vaguely-Dark-Ages-Europe setting ought to be a great deal more precarious than it is is elided.  They're stealing your grain and livestock?  Well, then you and your family are going to starve to death.  Those of you who weren't carried away and enslaved to be worked to death.  Yeah, that's awful.  And since we can't exactly phone up the local constabulary to pop round and sort them out, you're damn right that murdering the fuck out of those giants is the best way to ensure that a) they never do it again, and 2) nobody else gets the same idea.

Sure. But if orcs, goblins, giants etc. know that the human response to raids on their livestock and farms is extermination, why not just wipe out those farmers and villagers in the first place? And again, in my world monsters eat people.

You're being facetious, but I'll answer straight because it makes for a better thread.

Quotewhy not just wipe out those farmers and villagers in the first place?

For the same reason border raids, Viking raids and cattle raids have existed since time immemorial: because you don't think you're going to get caught.  The human response to raids is extermination when they can get their shit together and there happens to be a powerful enough force within riding distance that can do something about it.  Think of the PCs as the US 7th Cavalry responding to an Indian raid: sure, they're going to respond with overwhelming genocidal force, but that's actually a pretty rare occurrence from the POV of both the settlers and the local tribes.  To the tribes, it's an acceptable risk.  If what a monster wants is an easy source of food and slaves, it's much easier to let the soft humans do all the work and then take what you want, and leave them somewhat intact so you can come back later. Again, there's tons of historical precedent for this.  And lastly, wiping out a farmstead probably isn't going to keep the 7th Cavalry from hunting you down eventually.

If in your world monsters eat people, then great - that's reason enough for wiping them out.  My point is that raiders that steal your food supply and your kin are just as much an existential threat

Quote from: Haffrung;901270Here's a problem I have with the 'big bad' and save the world scenarios: In published adventures, the big bad is rarely all that bad. Take the latest 5E adventure book, the Storm King's Thunder. It seems giants are stealing grain and livestock, and press-ganging humans into labouring for them. Ooh, how awful. Clearly, these giants need to be hacked to pieces and exterminated (which is the default way of dealing with threats in D&D).

Want to make the big bads more dangerous and dramatic (and worthy of extermination)? Make them bad. They flout the gods, they destroy civilization, they rejoice in cruelty. They eat people. Raiding livestock and burning farms? That's really the best you can come up with?

You mean, "they're going to make those peasants die from starvation in the winter" isn't enough for you?
I don't know if that's what the adventure assumes, but that would be my assumption if I hear that line, knowing that preparing for winter was a full-time activity for most villages. Of course, if it's clear from the adventure that this isn't the case, most of my PCs probably wouldn't go for the lethal options.

Quote from: Haffrung;901377Sure. But if orcs, goblins, giants etc. know that the human response to raids on their livestock and farms is extermination, why not just wipe out those farmers and villagers in the first place? And again, in my world monsters eat people.

There has to be some villagers left to raise livestock and plants for food, otherwise there is nothing to raid. If the humanoids are smart, they will have a protection racket going. A small tribe comes in and protects the village from any other raiders - just to make sure that the threat is tangible, another aligned small tribe conducts occasional raids against homesteads that do not get along with the first tribe. The "defenders" drive off the "attackers", but never before the defiant homesteaders are killed in a gruesome manner.

Quote from: David Johansen;898491If I use a big threat I usually let my players be the ones who release it.  They're good at that.

Quote from: K Peterson;901236But, weren't Reavers a pretty clear 'alien' threat that were demonized by most everyone in the series? They might not have had the features associated with most space opera aliens but there was no moral ambiguity about them. Brutal space savages that were universally feared - cannibals, rapists, murderers - a very clear "Enemy".

They were Space Vampires, he hadn't figured out how to make a show different enough from his hit series.

Seems to me actual human cattle raids are a tradition of mild theft and balance, and have little or nothing to do with wiping anyone out. Tribal people generally don't exterminate each other. It's when agriculture brings kings that people start wars in earnest, fighting to the death or last man, sowing the ground with salt, etc. I wouldn't say that's because they always wanted to do that, but lacked the resources. It's more about being able horde and protect wealth and land ownership with farms, fences, walls and forts, and having hereditary kings and trying to dominate and control everything based on land. Yes agriculture and kings and armies lead to more resources and destructive potential, but I'd say it's more about land ownership and running out of resources. Using up and dominating the land leads to more stocks but also more population and limits to abundance, so actually more scarcity in the end because the needs keep growing and available land runs out.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;901670They were Space Vampires, he hadn't figured out how to make a show different enough from his hit series.

No, they're Cherokee.  Firefly is a Western.

EDIT: Agents of SHIELD. ironically, is Firefly 2.0.

People have a tendency to flee, so that they aren't automatically killed when raiders attack, that's the root of refugees and such like.

Quote from: Skarg;901899Tribal people generally don't exterminate each other. It's when agriculture brings kings that people start wars in earnest, fighting to the death or last man, sowing the ground with salt, etc. I wouldn't say that's because they always wanted to do that, but lacked the resources.

They dont? Native American history has ample tales of tribes pretty much exterminating and/or capturing other tribes to the point they effectively ceased to exist. And that was before europeans arrived.

Quote from: Omega;901962They dont? Native American history has ample tales of tribes pretty much exterminating and/or capturing other tribes to the point they effectively ceased to exist. And that was before europeans arrived.

I'm not sufficiently familiar with that situation to comment on it, but no, generally, they don't. There are some exceptions, but they tend to raid to take things and assert themselves, not to murder their neighbors. There's usually no worthwhile reason to risk pitched battles. Raiding provides one way to balance scarcity and overabundance.

Even medieval European raids and even some battles were generally about taking stuff and balancing power, rather than wiping people out. After all, the leaders were all of a class and inter-related - the guys in armor who tend to be ransomed rather than killed.