A Practical Guide to Evil II: The Last Thread's On Fire, But It's Not Our Fault

[lord_khaine]

Picking up from the popular web serial A Practical Guide to Evil
Where the bad girl has gone pragmatic, and the good guy isnt always dumb.

And going by overwhelming general support, we now need to quickly gather excuses for why the spontaneous ignition of the last thread wasnt our fault.

Though speaking of distracting stuff, i also found this nifty collection of Non-Cat POV chapters.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PracticalGu...ed_by_chapter/

Going though the previous ones with Hanno has made me change my mind.
He does indeed play around with stories, though perhaps not -quite- on the meta level Cat does.

[druid91]

Of course it's not our fault. History shows that whenever something catches fire it's Cat's fault. Especially if she didn't set the fire.

[Lord Raziere]

Of course it's not our fault. History shows that whenever something catches fire it's Cat's fault. Especially if she didn't set the fire.

Meh, all you people talking 'bout Cat are don't remember the original, the real person to blame. the real person whose fault it for the fire is Harry Dresden, he did it first therefore she is just being a copy-Cat and trying to swipe at his infamy for herself.

[Aotrs Commander]

I blame 2020.

I don't think I need to elucidate further than that, do I?

[The Glyphstone]

Going though the previous ones with Hanno has made me change my mind.
He does indeed play around with stories, though perhaps not -quite- on the meta level Cat does.

Yeah - it's more of an instinctive thing for him - he doesn't think in terms of specific tropes and how to pull their strings like Cat. But he knows how stories go in a general sense, and how to shape the direction he wants it to go. I wasn't specific enough last time.

[Iruka]

Yeah - it's more of an instinctive thing for him - he doesn't think in terms of specific tropes and how to pull their strings like Cat. But he knows how stories go in a general sense, and how to shape the direction he wants it to go. I wasn't specific enough last time.

I think Cat has an innate understanding of stories and tropes (I do not remember, was it explained where this comes from?), while Hanno just has the stories seen play out so many times in his memories that he can tell where things are heading and where he can influence it.

[Thomas Cardew]

Part of it was natural talent, at least according to Black in the early book. My personal suspicion is she also stole/activated a trap when looking at the bard's memories in Arcadia and got a bit of the bard stuck in her. Like how Heirophant got part of the DK stuck in him as his two dads explained. The Tyrant seemed to suggest something along those lines as well.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I think Cat has an innate understanding of stories and tropes (I do not remember, was it explained where this comes from?), while Hanno just has the stories seen play out so many times in his memories that he can tell where things are heading and where he can influence it.

The key difference, I suspect, is that to Hanno, knowledge of stories is a nice bonus to have, but for Cat it is a matter of life and death - so many stories (including her original fall from grace, the Three Battles) will lead inevitably to her death - she needs to be on top of it all the time, or risk being set up for execution (see the Grey Pilgrim's attempt). Hanno is not as pressured by stories - he can win without them, and I don't think there are any stories where he'd die at the end if he let them play out.

Grey Wolf

[The Glyphstone]

He might have died if the Mirror Knight's rebellion played out badly enough. But the Mirror Knight also could have died, or Sidonia, and he had to weave the story in a way that none of these happened. He weighs the lives of his allies equal to or greater than his own, since he's a hero, so he has just as many pitfalls to dodge despite the lower personal stakes to him.

[lord_khaine]

I would like to contest the notion that Hanno has less on the line.
Perhaps some of the stories he has been involved in has been less directly fatal to him.
Because he has not fought an opponent who used stories as directly as weapons against him (Taric or the Bard).

Instead he has had freaking Black try and get rid of him on a couple occations.
Anyway. The bit that directly made me change my oppinion on him, was the red vale fight.
There he directly send heroes away from a fight, so it was just him and the Witch against Black and Warlock.

His reasoning was it would prevent all the different stories of the attending heroes from competing with each other for importance.
That made me realise how aware he was of them on a meta level.

edit.

So. New chapter

Spoiler

Show

Its of course not a surprise that the woman is the Bard.
The interesting bit is why its important.

[Mith]

Spoiler: Portents

Show

So the start of the Doom that they all avoided by the grace of Karios. It's gonna be interesting.

I also love that we now have proof of a solid band of five with Heroes and Vilnians. It's good to see.

One thing I am curious is that Angels and Demons seem to be the diametric opposites of each other regarding the balance of classical Graces and Sins (and the corruption versus reset of Creation). I wonder if Devils are a holdover from the Garden as a balance to the immortal and cyclical Fae? It would explain why Below seems to have two resources to draw on compared to Above's one.

I'm just spit-balling here. It just seems odd that most of Creation is ultimately mirrored, and this is a case where that doesn't happen.

[Forum Explorer]

The key difference, I suspect, is that to Hanno, knowledge of stories is a nice bonus to have, but for Cat it is a matter of life and death - so many stories (including her original fall from grace, the Three Battles) will lead inevitably to her death - she needs to be on top of it all the time, or risk being set up for execution (see the Grey Pilgrim's attempt). Hanno is not as pressured by stories - he can win without them, and I don't think there are any stories where he'd die at the end if he let them play out.

Grey Wolf

No, Hanno is a hero. It's not that he can win without stories, it's that stories usually result in a win for the heroes. He's not pressured by stories, because they are a good thing for him. He can win without them sure, but he doesn't need to fear them like Cat does.

[Rydiro]

Hanno winning the easy bets here. The woe is woefully naive.

[Mith]

Also in Hanno's favour is the fact that the threat of a Barrow Lord may be fairly common.

I wonder if that has always been an issue for the tribes that founded Levante, or if it's something shaped up by Nemeshah or Bard. Why are barrows not considered holy ground to prevent necromancy?

[tyckspoon]

Also in Hanno's favour is the fact that the threat of a Barrow Lord may be fairly common.

Wonder if it that's an actual Name, or just a title? Seems like possibly a title, as one of the other undead claimed to be the new 'Barrow Lord' after the first one was put down, and having an actual Name spawn in a new bearer that close to the previous one that quickly doesn't seem to match up with what we know of Name mechanics, especially with a case where there's no real narrative link between the two beings.

[The Glyphstone]

I suspect it was both - the other undead were trying to claim the authority over their group the Named had possessed.

[Thomas Cardew]

No, Hanno is a hero. It's not that he can win without stories, it's that stories usually result in a win for the heroes. He's not pressured by stories, because they are a good thing for him. He can win without them sure, but he doesn't need to fear them like Cat does.

I REALLY feel this is overblown, sour grapes whining by Cat and Black who are incredibly untrustworthy narrators. Tarquin's point about the 'evil empire exists' is major deal here. There are just as many stories about the villains winning or at best being temporarily stymied. The heroes might have thwarted the latest scheme and escaped with their lives, but the villain still rules the empire. Because villains get immortality, they will eventually lose. Because if they didn't, every villain would be the Dead King. Or you get some Grimdark nonsense where even temporary victory is impossible.

Heroes get screwed over by stories all the time. Particularly, if you're in a tragedy or are the side-kick who gets sacrificed to show how serious the story is getting. Or how Bard gets the other bumbling hero killed in the first book instead of her. Or if you're the stepping stone the villain needs to beat to get to higher things. Or the Mentor figure who needs to get toasted for extra motivation. After all, Saint and Grey were exceptional because they were basically the ONLY OLD heroes.

On a side note, I feel the real difference between the two is how they think about stories. Cat is very meta and academic, looking at things from the outside as component parts. Hanno feels more like experiential knowledge: 'I've lived a thousand lives, I know how this story goes and I can change it' versus Cat's 'I know a thousand stories and I can swap between them at moment's notice'.

[Forum Explorer]

I REALLY feel this is overblown, sour grapes whining by Cat and Black who are incredibly untrustworthy narrators. Tarquin's point about the 'evil empire exists' is major deal here. There are just as many stories about the villains winning or at best being temporarily stymied. The heroes might have thwarted the latest scheme and escaped with their lives, but the villain still rules the empire. Because villains get immortality, they will eventually lose. Because if they didn't, every villain would be the Dead King. Or you get some Grimdark nonsense where even temporary victory is impossible.

Heroes get screwed over by stories all the time. Particularly, if you're in a tragedy or are the side-kick who gets sacrificed to show how serious the story is getting. Or how Bard gets the other bumbling hero killed in the first book instead of her. Or if you're the stepping stone the villain needs to beat to get to higher things. Or the Mentor figure who needs to get toasted for extra motivation. After all, Saint and Grey were exceptional because they were basically the ONLY OLD heroes.

On a side note, I feel the real difference between the two is how they think about stories. Cat is very meta and academic, looking at things from the outside as component parts. Hanno feels more like experiential knowledge: 'I've lived a thousand lives, I know how this story goes and I can change it' versus Cat's 'I know a thousand stories and I can swap between them at moment's notice'.

I disagree. I mean, Cat and Black are very focused on the endgame sort of thing, but Tarquin's point about the 'evil empire exists'? There is basically one power on the planet that is full on Evil, and it is a garbage dump that is so blighted that it has to sacrifice it's own people to farm, and even then they still have overpopulation problems. They only started winning when they stopped being so pants on head evil. And even then, it's been a very short term win in the scheme of things.

Another point of proof against is how Tariq operates. When he was interacting with Cat, he kept trying to lean into stories because he knew they would favor him. Frig, that is entirely the justification for what the Saint of Swords was doing. She knew her actions and intolerance would cause short term devastation but had faith that they'd pull through because she knows that heroes always win the endgame. She pretty much said as much.

[lord_khaine]

I REALLY feel this is overblown, sour grapes whining by Cat and Black who are incredibly untrustworthy narrators. Tarquin's point about the 'evil empire exists' is major deal here. There are just as many stories about the villains winning or at best being temporarily stymied. The heroes might have thwarted the latest scheme and escaped with their lives, but the villain still rules the empire. Because villains get immortality, they will eventually lose. Because if they didn't, every villain would be the Dead King. Or you get some Grimdark nonsense where even temporary victory is impossible.

Yeah, its 100 % sour grapes. It is a good point about villains immortality.
If you get enough shots at a villain, then sooner or later one will get though.

I disagree. I mean, Cat and Black are very focused on the endgame sort of thing, but Tarquin's point about the 'evil empire exists'? There is basically one power on the planet that is full on Evil, and it is a garbage dump that is so blighted that it has to sacrifice it's own people to farm, and even then they still have overpopulation problems. They only started winning when they stopped being so pants on head evil. And even then, it's been a very short term win in the scheme of things.

Nahh.. your not correct there. We also got a couple free cities that follow the gods below.
And i would not call getting to hold a nation for a generation short term.
Besides that they had had victories in the past. Remember every crusade send against them failed.

Another point of proof against is how Tariq operates. When he was interacting with Cat, he kept trying to lean into stories because he knew they would favor him. Frig, that is entirely the justification for what the Saint of Swords was doing. She knew her actions and intolerance would cause short term devastation but had faith that they'd pull through because she knows that heroes always win the endgame. She pretty much said as much.

No. Tariq kept trying to set up specific stories where he would win. If every story would favor him there would not be a need for someone like Tariq that could manipulate them.
As for the saint of swords. The key term here is faith. Of course one of the two oldest and strongest heroes in the continent would have faith in her ability to handle something.
That does not mean she would have been able to.

[Forum Explorer]

Nahh.. your not correct there. We also got a couple free cities that follow the gods below.
And i would not call getting to hold a nation for a generation short term.
Besides that they had had victories in the past. Remember every crusade send against them failed.



No. Tariq kept trying to set up specific stories where he would win. If every story would favor him there would not be a need for someone like Tariq that could manipulate them.
As for the saint of swords. The key term here is faith. Of course one of the two oldest and strongest heroes in the continent would have faith in her ability to handle something.
That does not mean she would have been able to.

We've got Stygia, and Bellaphron who are consistently evil. One is Evil, sure, but they are a pretty bit player who basically has no influence on the wider scale of things besides selling mercenaries. And Bellaphron is considered a joke, to the point where the Free Cities make a game of trying to get them to kill their own diplomats. Helike can be evil, but that depends on who is ruling at the time. They were Good before the Tyrant took over.

I would. Any empire that collapses after losing its current ruler is a good example of short term, particularly in the eyes of history.

You are incorrect about that. The first crusade against them actually succeeded and conquered Praes for quite some time. And I think the crusades usually succeed in toppling whatever Dread Emperor/Empress ruling at the time, but they can't actually hold onto Praes as the place is a Wasteland.


Not really. He set up whatever story fitted him which is pretty much any story. Cat didn't try and shift the story to something that favors her, she had to derail the story entirely.

She was flat out predicting her death, and that she wouldn't see the end of the crusade. The faith wasn't in herself, it was in the fact that good always wins in the end.

[lord_khaine]

And at the same time, we got what Callow? thats consistently good.
Proccer who care more about its own plots than anything else.
And Levant who seems largely occupied with raiding and honor duels.

And if thats the standard for short term we use. Then all of Above's gains are short term as well.
Mostly they just at some point put an end to things.

And i count 1 crusade failing for semantics. Point remain that they have fought off plenty of crusades.
Giving them plenty of defensive victories.

Yes of course she had to detail the story the Gray Pilgrim sets up.
He isnt going to pick one that could go either way.

As for saint. You missed the key point i was making about faith.

[Mith]

Thinking of the shape of this book, and I wonder if any of the founding lines were actually Heroes, or if Bard changed the narrative with Manifestation of Mercy.

Really my hunch is more based on the fact that Hanno seems to have records of _all_ Heroes memories before him, since he seemed to be able to probably verify that Yolonda the Stern may or may not be a Villain, and the fact that the Blood are fighting the idea that the Barrow Sword should be added to the rolls of the Blood.

If Bard changed the narrative of the Levante 5 vs. the Proceran Empire into a heroic band of 5 when it in fact was a mixed or entirely villainous party, that may be the clever side reveal that potentially shapes the perspective of the Truce and Terms. If such an arrangement gave rise to the Dominion of the Levante, then it surely could do a greater good with the rest of the continent.

It would also make 3rd attempt to do large scale cooperation of Good and Evil: with the Free Cities, the Dominion of the Levante (if my theory is correct) being the other two.

[lord_khaine]

Ah.. i think your trying to twist events to fit an idea now.
For a start, its very predictable that the blood would fight tooth and nail against the Barrow Swords request.
They are a nation that has worshipped their heroic founders for ages. He is a villain. Its a change that goes against dogma and tradition = people going no! change bad!

And those names has been heroic for god knows how many generations, of course they started out heroic.
The Bard can twist and nudge the narrative. Not make blatant GM-style changes like "your all heroes now".

[HolyDraconus]

New chapter up....

[Mith]

Ah.. i think your trying to twist events to fit an idea now.
For a start, its very predictable that the blood would fight tooth and nail against the Barrow Swords request.
They are a nation that has worshipped their heroic founders for ages. He is a villain. Its a change that goes against dogma and tradition = people going no! change bad!

And those names has been heroic for god knows how many generations, of course they started out heroic.
The Bard can twist and nudge the narrative. Not make blatant GM-style changes like "your all heroes now".

I agree that even if they are all true Heroes, that the current Blood would fight the inclusion of the Barrow Sword as one of the Blood. I just wonder why Mercy would show up to smite the Pilgrim if he was a Hero. They are the "Greater Good" choir, so why would they care if a province separates from a mortal empire?

[The Glyphstone]

Because the first Grey Pilgrim asked them to, is my guess.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Because the first Grey Pilgrim asked them to, is my guess.

But the choir was helping the White knight, wasn't it? Why would the first Grey Pilgrim ask the choir to help his enemy? Did I miss something here?

Grey Wolf

[The Glyphstone]

But the choir was helping the White knight, wasn't it? Why would the first Grey Pilgrim ask the choir to help his enemy? Did I miss something here?

Grey Wolf

Maybe I had it backwards.

EDIT: Yeah, okay, looks like the Knight was the one who called them. So same answer, different person - the White Knight called them to aid, and they fulfilled his request. I imagine part of the Choirs having a mortal champion is, to some degree, trusting their judgement when they say 'this needs smiting'. The sort of people they'd select in the first place wouldn't be likely to abuse it, after all.

[Mith]

Maybe I had it backwards.

EDIT: Yeah, okay, looks like the Knight was the one who called them. So same answer, different person - the White Knight called them to aid, and they fulfilled his request. I imagine part of the Choirs having a mortal champion is, to some degree, trusting their judgement when they say 'this needs smiting'. The sort of people they'd select in the first place wouldn't be likely to abuse it, after all.

Fair enough. And I guess Mercy is one of the Choirs that does let their champions decide (see Tariq at the Prince's Graveyard).

[Forum Explorer]

I'm curious why Cordelia thinks this superweapon is a good idea at all. Learning it is basically a bomb that will wipe out all of Procer and then some seems to make it a losing choice. She can't even threaten the Dead King with it because he can reply that is she sure he's actually in Keter at the moment, or is he in Praes, enjoying the hospitality of Malicia?

At the same time, it scares her allies, and creates potential threats in the Dwarves who would not want that to be fired at all, and might just do a premptive strike to take it away (and destroy anyone who tries to stop them from taking it.)


Mind you, I can think of a way it would be useful, namely, as a weird bomb. Escort the bomb deep into the Hells so it doesn't activate while in Creation at all, and then the blast would likely not hurt anyone who isn't a demon anyways. Or maybe not. That could be quite the heroic story, so I think it's got a decent chance of working (particularly if there is a villain along the ride who can be redeemed and then sacrificed). But presumably, there's a reason that won't work. Maybe Angels, even their corpses, simply cannot be brought into the Hells, for example.