The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Questions and Answers About the SotSverse

Moderator: Erinys

Post Reply
User avatar
duty
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by duty » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:06 pm

The Black feeds like any other Great Elder: he consumes life. Draining Psi and Life energy from living worlds, Fleets and his opponents in battle is a necessity to maintain fighting strength.


That makes sense. So the Black could be fueled entirely by his victories.

I get the impression that Muur put on The Black suit out of a feeling of necessity. He is not The Black because he wants to be, but because he has to be.

If he feels he doesn't have to go prowling the stars for Liir super villains, I think he will stop. He may have stopped already, which is why he is dormant. The Liir and their allies can attain a tech level where they can engage and potentially defeat the Suul'ka on their own. The Black may start to see himself as obsolete or inefficient.
Q: What's big, and red, and filled with shaped neutronium shells?
A: Everything in my fleet.

-a bit of Hiver humor

User avatar
GildedBear
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:18 am

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by GildedBear » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:31 pm

JPThunda wrote:I always thought the Liir were evil, so maybe this is just my paranoia coming through, but I don't think The Black is this 'great savior' he's supposed to be. Looking at history, every time one of the elders goes Suul'ka he controls the entire species/planetary population to do it. What if The Black is doing that this time, and manipulating the Liir into thinking he's the good guy coming to save them from their old evil elders. What if this is all a power play so he can be the last man standing, king of the hill, the head honcho? I think it's possible he's just another Suul'ka and his obsession is being the universe, becoming the black sea, removing all opposition and becoming so powerful through manipulation of the 'lower' races that his thoughts and his darkness expands throughout the universe. :evil:

But I could just be paranoid about the evil fish people that perform unspeakable acts 'for your own good', who knows? ;)


Well, word of Arrin says that The Black is not Suul'ka. That being said, those motivations sound very much like the Usurper's motivations. As for the Liir being evil I present a few platitudes: with great power comes great responsibility, those who are capable of the greatest good are capable of the greatest evil, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's not to say that the Liir ARE evil, just that they can be just like anybody else. They do tend to go evil spectacularly though.

User avatar
Erinys
Kerberos Goddess of Lore
Posts: 7461
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:58 am

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Erinys » Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:49 pm

JPThunda wrote:What if this is all a power play so he can be the last man standing, king of the hill, the head honcho?


You're thinking of the Usurper.

--Arinn
Support my independent fiction campaign on Patreon.
_______________________________________________
Twitter
Sword of the Stars Gallery on Facebook
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” --Hemingway

Azrael Ultima
Posts: 3052
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:20 am

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Azrael Ultima » Sat Oct 27, 2012 5:40 pm

GildedBear wrote:power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'd argue that true omnipotence would just cause you to get bored. Nearly absolute power, on the other hand...
I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts.
The zeppelin of bluster Feldman excoriated Freddy with suddenly popped into a cloud of humility. (David Grand, The Disappearing Body, 2002)

User avatar
Ludovsky
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:51 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Ludovsky » Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:34 pm

Thinking of the Usurper, I'll admit I am curious about "his" motivations and visions.

That is, I can't help(knowing what I do of his background) but think of him as the "anti-black", with his use of Zuul forces in his bid to be the last Suul'ka left standing. Knowing his past, I wonder what would happens -if- he achieves this goal though? Would he just turn his gaze to the rest of the universe? Let himself die, since his goal was attained... though his means possibly horrible beyond Liirian comprehension(since I doubt he is flagged as a Suul'ka for nothing, especially since if his "reasons" for rising were still slightly different than other Suul'kas... his means certainly were quite similar. It makes me wonder what happened of his world -after- he was gone).

It also makes me wonder how he see his ex-Liirian brethren, or the Black himself, considering their shared goals of eliminating the Suul'kas(though their means are radically different, and how).

User avatar
That Schmuck
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:52 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by That Schmuck » Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:19 am

I'm pretty sure the Usurper has a double dose of the trauma-induced crazy, which would make post-suul'ka highlander combat... erratic.

User avatar
Sevain
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:41 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Sevain » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:05 pm

Yeah, I seriously doubt the Usurper would be any good for anyone were the Suul'ka eliminated. Even though he is the youngest Suul'ka and therefore presumably would have the least to atone for it is difficult to imagine a way for him to redeem himself. A Darth Vader style sacrifice in a final showdown of ultimate destiny against the other Suul'ka is perhaps the best we might hope for. There is no shortage of ways it might go worse than that.

User avatar
Ludovsky
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:51 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Ludovsky » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:46 pm

Well, it's mostly that I'm wondering if the Usurper would go the "Now there is only One" and try to take down the Black and go in a bid of Galactic Conquest to submit All under His Unique Rule.

Or if rather he'd go "Now I've got my revenge. I can DIE!" and kill himself, a bit like the original Liirian goal(minus the truly revenge motivated part) but with much more heinous deals such as the sacrifices of his once-brethren if needed to achieve his goal... or deciding the death part the spiteful path and indeed seek death... by wreaking havoc on the puny mortal races until they can finally take him out of his misery.

Then again, considering his other name is "The Prince" I feel it is more likely to be the first option... (it's also an interesting name since Prince implies rulership... but not the first of a line. Which makes me wonder if he, in a fashion, see himself as the "inheritor" of the Suul'ka's legacy as "payment" for what they had him endure... hence his quest to slay them all so he can "inherit" their throne from them in the most bloody fashion possible).

User avatar
Erinys
Kerberos Goddess of Lore
Posts: 7461
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:58 am

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Erinys » Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:56 pm

The Usurper also uses Horde Zuul as his shock troops, while the Black uses Liir and Prester Zuul, who enjoy warring much less. When he says "there can be only one", perhaps he means that there can be only one master of the unified Horde, and he intends to be that one.

If you ever kill him, of course, you may find that his pessimism runs a bit deeper than you might expect. ;)

--Arinn
Support my independent fiction campaign on Patreon.
_______________________________________________
Twitter
Sword of the Stars Gallery on Facebook
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” --Hemingway

User avatar
Tarrak
Posts: 1668
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Tarrak » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:26 pm

Ludovsky wrote:Then again, considering his other name is "The Prince" I feel it is more likely to be the first option... (it's also an interesting name since Prince implies rulership... but not the first of a line.

Actually Prince is just another noble title (though it is a somewhat invented one, meaing a sovereign of non-monarchial status). It has in the western and nothern European kingdoms come to mean 'the king's son', but the kings's son has no real title as such, he is instead granted the primiere noble title, that of Prince. Meaning literally 'first' as it comes from the Latin word of 'Princeps', which was the actual title of the Roman Emperors (Diocletian started the use of Dominus as the primary title, ending the use of Princeps). Often it is taken to mean more expandedly 'first among equals', as that was how many kingdoms were ruled initally, with the king merely being the most powerful noble and the others having a great deal of say in the rule of the kingdom. Also, the old 'Princeps Senatus' has that meaning too, which appears to be the oldest usage of Princeps as a title.
You can see this in many smaller non-kingdom independant states that went by the name of 'principalities' (see Prince of Wales, as Wales was actually a principality, though today it has no legal basis). These noblerun states were not that different from kingdoms (in face their other name is 'princedom'), other than the main ruler was a Prince or Grand Prince. For instance Novgorod and several other Russian principalities (seems redundant to say it like that, but 'state' or 'nation' is even more wrong) were ruled by Princes. As were a great many of the German members of the HRE. In fact when Martin Luther speaks of 'the Princes' he speaks of the rulers of the land in a literal sense, he means the actual Princes, not as a metaphor for rulers. Even if the title itself is a metaphor for ruler. This convoluted way of explaining it comes from the fact that the German Princes had actual responsibilities pertaining to the title of Prince, even if they themselves were Dukes or one of the many types of Counts.

Thankfully in Danish we have a different title for Prince compared to king's son (Fyrste and Prins respectively), making this destinction more easily understood. Though I have to admit that it is a little silly as both titles have the same meaning, with Fyrste coming directly from the Danish word of first (første).

So The Prince can literally mean The Usurper is the First, the premiere, the greatest, the most grand, or if we look at the Usurper's story, the only. It is less likely, to me at least, that it is meant to induce a sort of heir system, with The Usurper taking over from the older Suul'ka. As that would indicate that they were entirely good enough, and the transfer of power is merely a formality of time (sooner or later The Usurper would get that power somehow). The Usurper hates the other Suul'ka greatly for the pain they have inflicted, and is adamant about pulling them down, as much as rising up (though technically it would amount to the same thing).
Every time you use 'fluff' for lore a Kerberos developer dies. And they are already an endangered species.

User avatar
Aedrion
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:03 am

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Aedrion » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:17 am

I actually don't think he knows what he wants, entirely.

Wasn't it his hatred for the Suul'ka that drove him (her back then) to become Suul'ka? Wouldn't that mean that right now, he is conflicted somewhat? He's Suul'ka himself, he's basically on their side, forced to fight alongside them, he's the youngest, so killing them won't be easy and there's the fact that he became what he hated most. I doubt he's feeling fantastic about all that right now.

I doubt suicide would be an option for him though, seeing how Suul'ka don't like death or dying much. If he'd get his way, he'd probably command the Zuul for a few millenia, have them massage him and such. But I doubt he'd stick with them forever, and after that... well all others have a purpose, if he's the only one left, he doesn't.

Perhaps he'd take pride in being the only one left of his kind and relishing the fear and terror he could then sow as possibly the most powerful entity in the galaxy. Or maybe he'd attempt to reach all the goals the other Suul'ka never reached. Be loved, taste everything, create life, create silence (by creating a mute lifeform?) live forever, be the strongest, See without being seen... etc! That'd be completely insane and wicked.

But my guess is he'd roam, looking for something. Unless ofcourse, The Black killed him before then, I recon the two of them to not differ too much in power, seeing how they're the two youngest of the spacefaring Great Elders.

The Usurper is like batman! If batman became a drugboss to beat the drugbosses! After he'd be done he'd be all like; it's done but what's left for me now?

Boi, dis lore! :insane:

User avatar
usermist2
Posts: 1449
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:31 am

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by usermist2 » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:33 am

I imagine that if Batman finally eradicated all the mob bosses and wanted to do so so that he could be the last mob boss standing, he would then create a mob empire using his bat technology that he developed during the mob wars. Naturally, he would use all the other mob boss's underlings unified into that one grand mob crime empire.
Image

Things Go Better With C2H5OH.

User avatar
Heart of Storm
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:19 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Heart of Storm » Tue Nov 06, 2012 6:00 pm

Tarrak wrote:
Ludovsky wrote:Then again, considering his other name is "The Prince" I feel it is more likely to be the first option... (it's also an interesting name since Prince implies rulership... but not the first of a line.

Actually Prince is just another noble title (though it is a somewhat invented one, meaing a sovereign of non-monarchial status). It has in the western and nothern European kingdoms come to mean 'the king's son', but the kings's son has no real title as such, he is instead granted the primiere noble title, that of Prince. Meaning literally 'first' as it comes from the Latin word of 'Princeps', which was the actual title of the Roman Emperors (Diocletian started the use of Dominus as the primary title, ending the use of Princeps). Often it is taken to mean more expandedly 'first among equals', as that was how many kingdoms were ruled initally, with the king merely being the most powerful noble and the others having a great deal of say in the rule of the kingdom. Also, the old 'Princeps Senatus' has that meaning too, which appears to be the oldest usage of Princeps as a title.
You can see this in many smaller non-kingdom independant states that went by the name of 'principalities' (see Prince of Wales, as Wales was actually a principality, though today it has no legal basis). These noblerun states were not that different from kingdoms (in face their other name is 'princedom'), other than the main ruler was a Prince or Grand Prince. For instance Novgorod and several other Russian principalities (seems redundant to say it like that, but 'state' or 'nation' is even more wrong) were ruled by Princes. As were a great many of the German members of the HRE. In fact when Martin Luther speaks of 'the Princes' he speaks of the rulers of the land in a literal sense, he means the actual Princes, not as a metaphor for rulers. Even if the title itself is a metaphor for ruler. This convoluted way of explaining it comes from the fact that the German Princes had actual responsibilities pertaining to the title of Prince, even if they themselves were Dukes or one of the many types of Counts.

Thankfully in Danish we have a different title for Prince compared to king's son (Fyrste and Prins respectively), making this destinction more easily understood. Though I have to admit that it is a little silly as both titles have the same meaning, with Fyrste coming directly from the Danish word of first (første).

So The Prince can literally mean The Usurper is the First, the premiere, the greatest, the most grand, or if we look at the Usurper's story, the only. It is less likely, to me at least, that it is meant to induce a sort of heir system, with The Usurper taking over from the older Suul'ka. As that would indicate that they were entirely good enough, and the transfer of power is merely a formality of time (sooner or later The Usurper would get that power somehow). The Usurper hates the other Suul'ka greatly for the pain they have inflicted, and is adamant about pulling them down, as much as rising up (though technically it would amount to the same thing).




Huh - and there was me thinking it was a reference to Macchiavelli...

User avatar
Tarrak
Posts: 1668
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: The Black vs. the Suul'ka

Post by Tarrak » Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:33 pm

Not an impossibility, rule through fear... However The Usurper isn't so much a Machiavellian prince so much as a Stalin'esque dictator; there can be none higher or beside The Usurper, heck not even close to him.
The main problem I see with the Machiavellian connection is that The Usurper is frontal, he is direct and utterly aggressive. The perfect Machiavellian prince is one that work through the backalleys, backdoors, backrooms and everything else that is back-. To a great extent Machiavelli also supported the idea of pragmatism, a sort of early realpolitik so to speak (he would have been so very proud of Bismarck).
Every time you use 'fluff' for lore a Kerberos developer dies. And they are already an endangered species.

Post Reply

Return to “The Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests