On the Theory and Conduct of Malkavians.

[D-503]

I watched the Paradox/Mitsoda clan reveal for Malkavians today, and he mentioned BL1's "fishmalk" style, and how BL2 will focus more on paranoia rather than humor.

I would just like to point out, for once and for all, that BL1's Malkavian player character was not a fishmalk.

First off, every single dialogue was not humorous. I just played it from the start to the Society of Leopold mission, to refresh my memory. Many dialogues allow you to say things in a very sober, dry delivery. When there is humor, it has a straightforward, logical flow to it. For example, when speaking to Isaac in Hollywood, he asks you to kill the gargoyle in the old theatre; to which you can reply a bit of the "let's all go to the lobby" ditty.

That is not fishmalk. Fishmalk is having someone ask you something, and you reply: "kumquat xylophone." That's random. That's stupid. Singing a little ditty to yourself, as it applies directly to being in a movie theatre? That's not random. It's not stupid.

What the BL1 Malkavian's humor is, the vast majority of the time: a reflection of the fact that Malks are in their own world, and don't really give a flying f*ck what anyone else thinks. Be it a prince or a baron or a hooker. The Malk engages in word-play and jokes that amuse them at that moment. And that fits the character, just fine.

One of the best and most endearing qualities of the Malkavian, I believe, is not caring about the world around them. Not caring what people think, not caring if your bad pun (as a Malk) gets you killed. They just don't care. It's gallows humor, born of indifference, which in turn is born of separation from reality. They can laugh at reality because they're not really a part of it.

Therefore, a Malk without humor is less of a Malk in my eyes.

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

Eh, I'd say that arguing with a Stop sign is absolutely Fishmalk-esque.

So even if it wasn't a proper Fishmalk it definitely strayed a little too close to the archetype.

On the rest of your post, I completely agree. The humor and fundamental eeriness of the Bloodlines 1 Malkavian definitely made it great.

Still, I feel the need to point out that focusing on the paranoia of being a Malkavian isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with humor. After all, there's pretty good potential for black humor and since the devs have said they don't to keep that kind of humor around I think it's more than possible that we'll see that kind of comedic potential.

[D-503]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

You know, after giving it some thought, I think people are jumping the gun when they expect our Malkavian's speech to be as whacky as it was in the first game. You can have a character speak in prophecy, without making them a walking dispensary of internet memes.

All the devs have to do is sprinkle in the occasional bit of metaphor, or have a voice in your head give you some information regarding who you're speaking to. This would allow your character to seem like they have supernatural insight, without making them seem incapable of coherent speech with people.

Have you ever watched this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42UVBB9T9pI

Mitsoda explicitly states that in BL2, Malkavian dialogue will be difficult to understand and you won't always know what's going on in the game. And that the most authentic Malkavian experience will be to play them for your first playthrough (since then you really won't understand things).

[D-503]

Originally posted by Fourthspartan56:

Still, I feel the need to point out that focusing on the paranoia of being a Malkavian isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with humor.

I tend to think it is, based on this interview. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that's what I came away with.

I agree that the darker side of Malkavians shouldn't automatically exclude humor, but I'm thinking we'll definitely see less humor than BL1.

[D-503]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

There are as many different ways to play a Malkavian as there are forms of lunacy. Not every one of them has to be comedic. In fact, I would even go so far as to argue that NONE of them should be depicted as comedic.

"Objectively false" is unwarranted. Your view is entirely subjective. And to say none should be humorous is even more untenable.

All Malkavians do share a particular shade of insanity. They all hear voices, at least occasionally, and they all have hallucinations at some point.

Regardless of what the Malkavian's original mental disorder was while human, if any, they all share a fictionalized form of schizophrenia after the embrace. The more the Madness Network influences a particular Malkavian, the more separated from reality they become.

We're not dealing with a perfect translation of mental disorders from real life into fiction. We're dealing with fictional insanity. That same insanity is what makes many Malkavians superficially similar; it's their common bond.

Can you make a Malkavian with zero humor and an emotional flatline? Of course. But is that outlier representative of the majority? No. BL2 is about archetypes. Of course our Brujah is a passionate rebel. Could they be more like a True Brujah? Maybe. But then it wouldn't fit the norm, would it? Our Toreador will be beautiful and seductive. Again, the standard expectation. Why should the Malkavian differ from other expected archetypes?

[LotR[Henchman]]

The thing with prophecies and insights - as malks are described to possess - it's that it's a disaster for storytelling to offer players to much of that. So either you cipher the underlying informations through anaologies and pictures, or limit the frequency very much.

Just think a second about how the PC knew that Jeanette/Therese were the same person the second they met - if that wasn't ciphered one would have to ask why your character couldn't confront her about that.
Simply said - budget restraints and the actual writting suggesting that your character doesn't even grasp all the secrets and prophecies he's talking - made the reason as to why it was done that way.

Not to mention that the tradegy of the PC - being prophetic without noticing and unable to react towards that - might be more fun to a lot of people if lightenend in tone.

-edit-
@GrandMajora
Speak for yourself - judging from the onyx path forums you're otherwise simply wrong in your judgment on how Malks were depicted.
You know having worked in a school for mentally challenged people - you'll see dozens of tradegies, from people whos brain got crushed because of their body not forming the nessecary outlet for brain fluid to people who had accidents - but you'll soon realize that they themselves don't fell tradegy all the time, nor won't they make humour of stuff.

[LotR[Henchman]]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Being mentally handicapped and being insane are two completely different things, and I am frankly shocked that you would believe otherwise.

As for the Onyx Path Forums, those are the exact people I went to, when discussing ideas for comedic Malkavians.

Yeah - i think the APA io quite in disagreement with your judgment - given they judge intellectual disability as a mental illness. But maybe you want to enlighten me what you percieve as huge difference.
I mean your use of 'insane' implies to me that you don't percieve mental disorders as a huge spectrum of symptoms, from illogical fears, over perceptional problems towards impuls control problems and yes even cognitive problems also ranging from mild toward heavy.

Maybe you want to work on your reading comprehension then. As i remember quite a few voices in the last topic about BL2 actual pointing out that they felt the PC Malk wasn't that horrible. And that there was quite a discussion about how to actually do it.

And onto the whole fishmalk talk - the PC in BL1 surely had some moments of that (talking stop sign). But overall the term is coined towards completly random and nonsensical behaviour. And 90% of the time the player Malk didn't act that way. Also one of the major reasons as to why fishmalk is a term - is because such a character won't work (read annoy others) within a pnp group. That not a problem in a single player game.

I'm looking forwards to see what Brian will have done with the Malks. But i haven't heard any real insightful suggestion as to what they should change, other than leaving talking towards objects out...

-edit-
By the way, read actual texts about Malkavians from WW - they're decsribed as the dark-site court jesters - so nothing funny eh?
And as you can see in the wiki 'fishmalk' is actually a depiction of a malk.
So discussing if they're archetypical is nonsensical to me - as they (meaning some of the malk to actual make that an archetype) were described as that within some books.

[Snailor Lazzy]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Originally posted by Jock McSteed:

Again, the standard expectation. Why should the Malkavian differ from other expected archetypes?

When I watch videos made by people who have far more experience with the game, even to the point where they were hired to write some of the material for their books, they seem to be in agreement that Malkavians are supposed to be tragic, broken characters. There is nothing fun about being insane in real life. Just as there is nothing fun about being insane in a world that is supposed to be a darker, crueler, more corrupted version of the world we live in.

You think being stuck in your own world, haunted by visions and having difficulty being understood by others isn't somebody who's tragic and broken?

I really don't care about what these veterans think; if they don't have experience with mental illnesses either in themselves or with loved ones, they don't know what they're talking about.

I suffer from several mental illnesses, including a latent schizophrenia that I'm terrified will someday manifest itself completely and it often makes me extremely paranoid. Even then, my friends and family find me to be very funny to the point that it took them years to even realize how much I am suffering. This all has one very simple explanation.

Humor and comedy is a coping mechanism.

That's why depressed people are frequently very funny and seemingly very happy on the surface, the way Robin Williams was. You use it to hide that you're not okay and you do it so much that it becomes nature to you and done completely reflexively while you're screaming on the inside.

All my malks reflect that--they're all funny, gleeful and occasionally whacky--but sometimes, you can see through the cracks, but only sometimes. That makes the times when you can see the shattered persona within much more meaningful.

That's why humor on a malk is not a bad thing nor does it mean they're not tragic nor broken. Having a character who's always paranoid, serious and "woe is me" becomes really old pretty fast and makes for a boring and exhausting character.

[[Countess]Vol†z]

I kind of agree with above. Everyone seems to forget that humor is used as a coping mechanism, some of the funniest people are really dark and tragic on the inside. Laughter is powerful in the face of fear and tragedy. Dark humor makes light of horrible events and can alleviate stress. It's a type of escape from the malevolence of existence.

[D-503]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Because, and I feel like I might have pointed this out before, the more veteran players of the PnP version of the game actually don't like the comedic, whacky Malkavians. They find the concept to be childish at best, and offensive at worst.

This is all a matter of perception. I can see why pen and paper players would hate bad acting with awful Malk players. But that doesn't mean the entire theme of the clan needs to be changed as a reaction. As to what's offensive to whom... personally, I find the idea of the Malk in the clan reveal, sitting in an empty room and talking to himself while staring into a broken mirror... I don't know, is that really a positive portrayal? I would find him more relatable if he acted more "casually" insane. Like, just going about his business and dealing with his insanity as it comes. Whereas, sitting alone while talking into a mirror... all that does is make the character look non-functional and like they're about nothing other than insanity. At least humor gives Malks a redeeming quality. You might actually want to hang around one, at least in small doses. This leads me to my next point, below.

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

When I watch videos made by people who have far more experience with the game, even to the point where they were hired to write some of the material for their books, they seem to be in agreement that Malkavians are supposed to be tragic, broken characters. There is nothing fun about being insane in real life. Just as there is nothing fun about being insane in a world that is supposed to be a darker, crueler, more corrupted version of the world we live in.

So, they're supposed to be tragic and broken all the time? Every single one of them?

"There's nothing fun about being insane." Well, there's also nothing fun about war and famine and disease and old age and the inevitability of death. Yet, people still manage to find things to laugh about, even at the worst of times. Why would insanity be one iota different?

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

Bloodlines 1 is what originally introduced me to this franchise, and I loved it. To this day, one of my favorite games of all time. But I had never even heard of WoD before then, so I was given the impression that all Malkavians were these whacky, comic book style characters. At the time, I guess I overlooked the fact that the Voreman sisters were anything but that.

The Voermans. Funny thing about them. I never liked Therese. She is horribly unlikeable. Not just because she won't screw you--she just has zero personality. Jeanette, who fits the more typical Malkavian characterization, is infinitely more likeable; even being annoying and troublemaking.

Now, I mention this distinction because in real life, I'm much more similar to Therese. But even I don't like her. Do you see my point? In a story, in entertainment, you can't expect to have emotionally flat, personality-less characters bond with the audience. They need to have something going for them. And the Malk in the clan reveal looks just about as exciting (and far less functional) as Therese.

I find it funny that, in trying to make mental illness more sympathetic and realistic, they arguably went in the opposite direction. "Hey, let's make the Malkavians out to be tragic, broken, humorless losers no one would ever want to be friends with! That'll make mental illness seem better, won't it?"

[D-503]

Originally posted by Lady Alice Von Jiggletits:

All my malks reflect that--they're all funny, gleeful and occasionally whacky--but sometimes, you can see through the cracks, but only sometimes. That makes the times when you can see the shattered persona within much more meaningful.

That's why humor on a malk is not a bad thing nor does it mean they're not tragic nor broken. Having a character who's always paranoid, serious and "woe is me" becomes really old pretty fast and makes for a boring and exhausting character.

Well said. I, too, don't really care what the prevailing winds are in the RP community. Some lousy Malk acting shouldn't condemn the whole clan to permanent, insufferable, navel-gazing ennui.

[D-503]

Originally posted by GrandMajora:

If you think Therese lacked personality, then you weren't peering deep enough into her character. Like Jeanette said, she's a control freak. People, things, emotions, if she can't control something, she gets rid of it.

[...]

Because people aren't laughing at war, famine, disease, old age and the inevitability of death. They're laughing at things that distract them from it! Or possibly laughing at things that make such problems seem ridiculous.

About Therese: I never said she wasn't a complex character. That still doesn't mean she has a personality. She's a machine, mostly logical, no empathy.

She is one way to portray a Malkavian. But she shouldn't be the clan representative, and certainly not the player character's theme.

I liked Grout much more. Grout wasn't just a great Malkavian, but a great character. He truly did have quite a bit of personality, unlike Therese. But would I still call Grout a typical Malkavian? No. This being a video game, we're forced into playing one particular kind of Malkavian, just as we're forced to play one facet of each of the other clans.

If we have to choose only one type of Malkavian, I would vastly prefer one with a sense of humor, than one who was an unfeeling, paranoid psychopath.

As for "laughing at war," I never said that. I very clearly did not say or imply that. You completely missed my point. Insanity is just another affliction like any other. People find a way to laugh in spite of adversity. That's all.

[D-503]

My whole point for this thread, by the way, isn't just to hear myself pontificate. Based on what Mitsoda said, it's entirely possible that the Malkavian playthrough isn't fully written yet.

I am hoping, therefore, that there's a tiny sliver of a chance a dev will see this topic (they go on Reddit, at least), and it could influence them to abandon the "all humor is bad" mentality they seem to have adopted.

[D-503]

The whole discussion board is dead! E3 didn't resurrect it as I'd hoped. Alas, wherever shall I go?

I'm going to leave this thread with a (probably) final statement. Lady Alice's post does mention another reason for Malkavians to have humor; it is a separate argument from mine, but perfectly valid in its own right (or perhaps more valid than my own). For that reason I will highlight it.

Had I made this thread months ago, it would have many more perspectives. Oh well. A few must suffice.

[Esteem]

...Actually, I preferred Therese. Pfftha.
And while I do think she had personality, and I'm sure there are copious other versions of Malks who cover the scope of the curse. They just wouldn't be the best representatives of the clan to play as.

I absolutely agree with your sentiment of Gallow-humour. It gave Malks a seperation from the real world, in a good way.

The stop-sign incident was about the closest it got to fish-malk, but that was a droplet in the sea of Malk dialogue. Most all conversations made perfect sense in the context, so one stop-sign arguement wasn't jarring.

I'd welcome more exploration of the darker side of Malk's struggle; but also keep the humour.

[D-503]

Originally posted by dreamprisoner:

...Actually, I preferred Therese. Pfftha.

I'm still subscribed to this discussion, for some reason; hence I was alerted to this message.

But yes, I know what you mean. Therese would certainly be a more reliable ally. If a game had 100 hours to elaborate on every major NPC, I'm sure she could even be portrayed in a different light, once you got to know her; once you gained her trust and respect.

But based solely on what we saw? No, she didn't have much going for her in entertainment terms.

Strictly going by romance though (which I know almost everyone hates in games), I'd much rather romance a Therese than a Jeanette. Again, if we had a sufficiently long and realistic time to do it justice.

As for the stop sign. Funny, I either missed it in my first playthrough, or it just didn't rate with me as worth remembering. The time you speak to the news anchor was more impressive to me. I still didn't find that offensive.

Overall, yes, the darker side of madness is fine. The problem with removing or diluting the humor is that most people will, rightly, not identify with/care about a Malk who is constantly in self-pity mode. The Malk from the clan trailer looks to be of that type. Humor is the way Malks not only help themselves, but also attempt to seem--if not normal--more likable to the sane majority.