• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Personally, I think I'd prefer Kyros to be an actual, individual person, mortal, insofar as Archons are mortal but long lived due to some alchemy of their mastery of magic. I wouldn't be averse to the idea of Kyros being a gestalt being, god entity or demi-urge, but I think that an actual person would make for a more engaging antagonist and would be a step away from the usual, "great and unfathomable" evil and be a more personable or relateable evil.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Personally, I think I'd prefer Kyros to be an actual, individual person, mortal, insofar as Archons are mortal but long lived due to some alchemy of their mastery of magic. I wouldn't be averse to the idea of Kyros being a gestalt being, god entity or demi-urge, but I think that an actual person would make for a more engaging antagonist and would be a step away from the usual, "great and unfathomable" evil and be a more personable or relateable evil.
Well there's a difference between a social construct and a gestalt incarnation of evil. I agree that the latter has been done to death, I remember reading wheel of time and when it turned out that there were nothing more exciting about shai'tan than that I felt so disappointed. I was kind of hoping it'd turn out that he was like the dragon from the last cycle or something.
On the other hand a social construct big bad I don't think I have ever seen.

Truth be told I would probably prefer it if Kyros was a title or a persona that was taken on by every overlord to it being one single individual. It would fit the "lawful is lawful evil" setting much better.
 
As the resident feminazi, could I please ask you not to use female as a noun? We usually refer to people as men or women, regardless of whether the person is human or supernatural.

I remember reading early on that Kyros is a women. Lately, I've been surprised to see Kyros referred to as a man. At first I assumed it was a mistake, but now I'm not sure.

I share your sentiment as in general it really bugs me too, but not sure that it is appropriate to use man/woman in this setting given that Kyros does not really fall into the definition of man. For most other entities we have other gendered expressions, such as stag/doe, god/godess etc, or we could use e.g. male/female deer. However, when we don't know what entity Kyros is, it seems like one of the rare exceptions where female as a noun is the best option, even if it refers to somebody/something with personhood.

Well the Lady of Pain and the Queen aren't exactly women... The Queen is an insane supercomputer, and the Lady of Pain is an entity so powerful that she straight-up murders anyone who suggests she might be a god because in the city she rules belief shapes reality, and so she doesn't want to be weakened by people believing she's a deity.

Doubt the above comment was directed at you. You used female as an adjective which is perfectly correct and stylistically the best choice, despite the recent jarring trend of hyper-correcting so that people say e.g. Hillary would become the first woman president of the US. This is asymmetrical given that nobody uses "man" in that way, and I really hope that the trend doesn't spread to become the new norm. In other words - keep on doing what you're doing!
 
I share your sentiment as in general it really bugs me too, but not sure that it is appropriate to use man/woman in this setting given that Kyros does not really fall into the definition of man. For most other entities we have other gendered expressions, such as stag/doe, god/godess etc, or we could use e.g. male/female deer. However, when we don't know what entity Kyros is, it seems like one of the rare exceptions where female as a noun is the best option, even if it refers to somebody/something with personhood.

Remember, this is fantasy and not sci-fi. We need beautiful romantic gothic language. Things like "Kyros is a female of the supernatural overlord species" is going to sound out of place.

I know this is nitpicking. I'm doing it because I'm bored, not because I really care that much.

By the way, have people seen this:

female.jpg
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I suspect Kyros doesn't even exist.
I think I'd find this really disappointing! After Kyros Law, Kyros Rule, Kyros Conquest and Kyros, Kyros, Kyros! I'd feel let down :p Like someone stole my climax. so to speak.

I guess the cabal using Kyros name for order would be tolerable, if handled well and with compelling writing and characterisation for the empire's movers and shakers. But I think we'd be trading one all powerful authoritarian figure of evil, for a small group of less powerful, possibly (most likely) infighting figures of ruthless authority. In short, politicians with magic.... o_O

Would be great to have a distinctive arch-antagonist that really made an impression, even if that impression was in the ground as Kyros booted foot pushed our faces into it for getting uppity. Give us a Kreia, a Revan, an Akashi, an ELdar God or Kain. An opponent that makes us really question ourselves for oppossing them or leaves a sour taste in our mouths of such degrees that they just gotta go!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think I'd find this really disappointing! After Kyros Law, Kyros Rule, Kyros Conquest and Kyros, Kyros, Kyros! I'd feel let down :p Like someone stole my climax. so to speak.

I guess the cabal using Kyros name for order would be tolerable, if handled well and with compelling writing and characterisation for the empire's movers and shakers. But I think we'd be trading one all powerful authoritarian figure of evil, for a small group of less powerful, possibly (most likely) infighting figures of ruthless authority. In short, politicians with magic.... o_O

Would be great to have a distinctive arch-antagonist that really made an impression, even if that impression was in the ground as Kyros booted foot pushed our faces into it for getting uppity. Give us a Kreia, a Revan, an Akashi, an ELdar God or Kain. An opponent that makes us really question ourselves for oppossing them or leaves a sour taste in our mouths of such degrees that they just gotta go!
Loads of things have been done in the name of god in reality. Doesn't mean we have seen any proof he is real. Kyros could be similiar. In fact no individual character could ever live up to the hype they have about him, they better keep him mysterious otherwise he's going to let everyone down.
 
Loads of things have been done in the name of god in reality. Doesn't mean we have seen any proof he is real. Kyros could be similiar. In fact no individual character could ever live up to the hype they have about him, they better keep him mysterious otherwise he's going to let everyone down.
While I get what your saying, i don't entirely agree. While the mythos of Kyros is considerable, I think a single individual, well written, multifaceted, with relateble drives and goals, character and temperament, would far exceed the unfathomable god like entity we are so familiar with or the collection of "greater" archons, which would simply be "lesser" Kyros's in larger numbers we would be likely to see with a cabal. Given a choice, I'd rather the former over either of the latter and if the IP becomes a series, sooner or later, the question of who and what Kyros is, will have to be answered. That need not be a disappointment if we can feel some connection and relation to Kyros.

Whats been done in the real world in gods name, really doesn't have much relevence here, It's not a question of what is done in Kyros name, it's what drives Kyros, its motivation and agenda, purpose and vision and how we relate to those things that will define how we as players regard the character of Kyros, be that in opposition or support of Kyros, whatever it might be. I personally believe that most people will respond more favourably to something that they can either identify with, or understand in human terms, without it becoming a watered down version of what it has already been portrayed as.

God like entities are, when you get right down to it, all the same, pretty much unknowable and too open to interpretation to be truelly engaging, while cabalistic councils are too amorphous and indistinct to be all that engaging either and both have been done to death. Imho
 
While I get what your saying, i don't entirely agree. While the mythos of Kyros is considerable, I think a single individual, well written, multifaceted, with relateble drives and goals, character and temperament, would far exceed the unfathomable god like entity we are so familiar with or the collection of "greater" archons, which would simply be "lesser" Kyros's in larger numbers we would be likely to see with a cabal. Given a choice, I'd rather the former over either of the latter and if the IP becomes a series, sooner or later, the question of who and what Kyros is, will have to be answered. That need not be a disappointment if we can feel some connection and relation to Kyros.

Whats been done in the real world in gods name, really doesn't have much relevence here, It's not a question of what is done in Kyros name, it's what drives Kyros, its motivation and agenda, purpose and vision and how we relate to those things that will define how we as players regard the character of Kyros, be that in opposition or support of Kyros, whatever it might be. I personally believe that most people will respond more favourably to something that they can either identify with, or understand in human terms, without it becoming a watered down version of what it has already been portrayed as.

God like entities are, when you get right down to it, all the same, pretty much unknowable and too open to interpretation to be truelly engaging, while cabalistic councils are too amorphous and indistinct to be all that engaging either and both have been done to death. Imho
Well I'm not talking about a god per se, just a concept being, an ethos, think the evils committed in the name of communism. Or the idea of the a nation state. I like the idea of Kyros simply being the idea of the world, united, in order, whatever the cost. Kyros being one with the empire raised in his name.
And no I disagree such revelations are always disappointing. Look at games workshop their background mythos was a lot better before they started writing out exactly what happened. It was a lot more effective to tell many different versions of the event with unreliable narrators, that gave the setting a depth that knowing the absolute truth couldn't. Because any ideas and theories that the players craft will always be better in their mind than what the writers come up with.
Kyros is best if kept only as he relates and/or connects to the player. And Kyros can have both motivation, agenda purpose and vision without being an entity (or certainly revealed as an entity) in the normal sense of the word.

While a person is just that, even a well written well intentioned extremist is only a human with certain ideas. Ever worse they may bring in a lot of meaningless drama about why Kyros did what he/she did and so on that would totally ruin the ever present almost all powerful overlord.

And the player supporting or opposing Kyros is pretty much just him opposing or supporting the invasion of the tiers, Kyros should not be possible to beat, if they do they destroy the setting. Far to many writers do the mistake of allowing the hero to actually defeat the big bad and change the world, because if people liked the world changing it will ruin it.

And people villains are also pretty much all the same or rather come ina few boringly familiar archetypes. There's the well intentioned extremist, the for evulz, the one who just wants to take over the world, and worst of all the tragic villain who for some emo reason or other does what he/she does, despite having had centuries to get over it. Oh yeah and the omicidal maniac.
But none of those feel very real, becuas in reality situations cause villains not villains situations. Hitler did not create nazism, nazism created Hitler, he's just he stupid smuck thrust foward by the greater evil, the bitterness in the soul of the people, the fear that they would lose everything and the need to blame their problems on someone. Now that is real believable evil, not some person but an idea an ethos. A concept that is immortal and invulnerable. Even should someone strike the actual person of the overlord down that person will just become the new overlord (or be struck down by someone who does) and Kyros (If Kyros is this) abides.
 
Well I'm not talking about a god per se, just a concept being, an ethos, think the evils committed in the name of communism. Or the idea of the a nation state. I like the idea of Kyros simply being the idea of the world, united, in order, whatever the cost. Kyros being one with the empire raised in his name.
And no I disagree such revelations are always disappointing. Look at games workshop their background mythos was a lot better before they started writing out exactly what happened. It was a lot more effective to tell many different versions of the event with unreliable narrators, that gave the setting a depth that knowing the absolute truth couldn't. Because any ideas and theories that the players craft will always be better in their mind than what the writers come up with.
Kyros is best if kept only as he relates and/or connects to the player. And Kyros can have both motivation, agenda purpose and vision without being an entity (or certainly revealed as an entity) in the normal sense of the word.

While a person is just that, even a well written well intentioned extremist is only a human with certain ideas. Ever worse they may bring in a lot of meaningless drama about why Kyros did what he/she did and so on that would totally ruin the ever present almost all powerful overlord.

And the player supporting or opposing Kyros is pretty much just him opposing or supporting the invasion of the tiers, Kyros should not be possible to beat, if they do they destroy the setting. Far to many writers do the mistake of allowing the hero to actually defeat the big bad and change the world, because if people liked the world changing it will ruin it.

And people villains are also pretty much all the same or rather come ina few boringly familiar archetypes. There's the well intentioned extremist, the for evulz, the one who just wants to take over the world, and worst of all the tragic villain who for some emo reason or other does what he/she does, despite having had centuries to get over it. Oh yeah and the omicidal maniac.
But none of those feel very real, becuas in reality situations cause villains not villains situations. Hitler did not create nazism, nazism created Hitler, he's just he stupid smuck thrust foward by the greater evil, the bitterness in the soul of the people, the fear that they would lose everything and the need to blame their problems on someone. Now that is real believable evil, not some person but an idea an ethos. A concept that is immortal and invulnerable. Even should someone strike the actual person of the overlord down that person will just become the new overlord (or be struck down by someone who does) and Kyros (If Kyros is this) abides.

Fair points and well reasoned. It comes down to what one wants from the over arching setting I would suppose. For me, I like my stories with a definitive ending and not some perpetual scale of escalation in which, nothing ever changes. No matter what the player does. Thats how we end up with world of warcraft. As you say, situations cause villains not villains situations, what interests me more is their motivations, human ones, not god like ones and not a smorgasbord of petty squabbles by lesser lords. The setting is Kyros setting and I'd like to know who Kyros is by the end of it, what drove Kyros to conquer the world in such a wantonly destructive manner. I can appreciate that some people find it more rewarding to leave the question open, to wonder and imagine, but I like to know.

I shall leave it there for the moment as I need to sleep (work shortly and im tired... boo) but may elucidate further later. Enjoyed your points however, give me something to ponder as I drift off :)
 
Fair points and well reasoned. It comes down to what one wants from the over arching setting I would suppose. For me, I like my stories with a definitive ending and not some perpetual scale of escalation in which, nothing ever changes. No matter what the player does. Thats how we end up with world of warcraft. As you say, situations cause villains not villains situations, what interests me more is their motivations, human ones, not god like ones and not a smorgasbord of petty squabbles by lesser lords. The setting is Kyros setting and I'd like to know who Kyros is by the end of it, what drove Kyros to conquer the world in such a wantonly destructive manner. I can appreciate that some people find it more rewarding to leave the question open, to wonder and imagine, but I like to know.

I shall leave it there for the moment as I need to sleep (work shortly and im tired... boo) but may elucidate further later. Enjoyed your points however, give me something to ponder as I drift off :)
No world of warcraft changes things all the time, but then some other former hero goes mad and becomes a villain But setting like the warhammer world the warhammer 40k universe and the forgotten realms are more what I mean. What can I say I hate stories where any single individual can save the world, the world slowly changes because of people's actions yes but I find that saving a single kingdom is itself a sufficient act of heroism to tell a story about. So yes we may be able to turn on Kyros and free the tiers, or we may be able to rule them as a tyrant ourselves, or rule them as a benevolent or malevolent servant of Kyros. But the fate of the tiers is interesting enough. Just like when playing dragon age I prerered the first one where saving ferelden was enough to the later saving the entire world stuff. I like my heroics kept in a believable scale.
 
I doubt they'll ever bother to reveal specific details; instead, they'll let everyone try guess from the scraps of information you'll given instead of killing the mystery. Which is often the best way to do it; more often or not a big reveal only serves to take away from the fun (the thrill is in the chase, I suppose).

The best example I remember was the sitcom One Foot In The Grave. The main character tries to make a teddy as a present for a child, but makes something so hideous it traumatises anyone who looks at it. The camera never shows it, because anything the show made could never live up to what you can imagine.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I find the mileage this and the women-control-land & men-control-oceans is getting (not just on here) hilarious.

That's only in the Tiers, it's part of their culture.
The game takes place in the Tiers but the Tiers is only a small part of the actual world.

Men and women are seen as equals in Kyro's army. And what's wrong with that?
 
Kyros confirmed male from the stream.

Not really. Eb exclaiming something along the lines of 'well fuck me with Kyros' cock' might just be a common expression, she is after all the same character who asks about Kyros' sex as it seems to be an unknown.

... aaaand I just had a completely juvenile idea for a custom spell name.
 
  • 1
Reactions: