beast the primordial observations and fix suggestions

1. For as much as it goes on about beasts teaching "lessons" it never states how they know that this is what they do, other than from other Beasts (who are biased). It isn't the Dark Mother, who is never defined, and it isn't the Horror, who just mindlessly wants to feed. It says it's a part of Beast "culture", but what does this mean? Who decided that and why, if the Horror doesn't care? Who enforces this?

2. The whole concept of "teaching lessons through fear" is deeply flawed and actually makes things worse, because it turns feeding into effectively gaslighting. Even if it was shameless, selfish feeding, the text still dismisses it as a "lesson gone wrong" or "meant well." There is no need for the whole "lesson" angle.

3. There isn't really that good of a mechanical difference between Nightmares and Atavisms. Find some way to clarify them.

4.Literally everything about Kinship is garbage. Trash it entirely.

5. The book is relentlessly hypocritical. It will occasionally say something sensible, close in line with the changes I intend to make, and then take it back in the next paragraph and go right back to the smug 'Beasts are always right' attitude. Such as: "Many Beasts feel sympathy for Heroes because Beasts can naturally be destructive and frightening" and immediately saying "But Heroes are still wrong because every one of them is in it for personal glory",  encouraging the players to still not see Heroes as sympathetic 'villains' because as written, they're objectively wrong.

6. Are Beasts born that way or not? The text officially says no, but there is the constant implication that a Beast always "knows" their true nature. Why, then? Indeed, fatalism and the element that you can't choose your family is listed as one of the themes, implying that it was never a choice.

7. If Beasts are this shitty and smug to the other splats, why are we expected to believe those splats automatically love them?

8. I actually think that for the most part the Families are fine and open up a lot of possibilities for different monster designs and concepts. Just need to be written less smugly.

9. If Beasts are there to "teach lessons" then why are so many of them such shitty, petty goddamn people? Poisoning people to gain an inheritance given as an example of a PC? Going on a yearly killing spree? Drowning people and stealing their shit? What the fuck does any of that teach?

10. The Stories are much better than the example characters and actually give one a taste of the types of Beasts they could choose to be. They make the book feel more flavorful. For a splat that lets you play a fuck-mothering dragon it's shockingly dry so far.

11. Hungers: Power, Hoard, Prey, Punishment, Ruin. These are kind of.... vague. They're also really incongruous with the idea of "teaching lessons", which only Punishment really applies to. I don't think these need to be changed, necessarily, because they fit the idea of what classic monsters generally want, they just need to be defined better and given better examples. The example characters, like every example character so far, have been shit.

12. The idea of the Primordial Dream is a good direction for this concept, and in some places it's described in a pretty interesting way. But they still overstate fear as a "teacher" (and oh fuck there's that owod "ppl just forgot how to listen maaaaaan" shit again), and the idea that Beasts are people who "learned the lessons the bestest" just adds to the unbearable smugness. Perhaps better would be that Beasts are people who, by accident or intentionally tapped into some vast, Lovecraftian-style truth of the Primordial Dream and were found by a creature that latched onto their souls. Or something attracted said creature. Something other than "Beasts are just that super special".

13. The fact that the only morality they seem to have is "if you kill too many people you might attract heroes" is really fucked up. Humanity's altruistic teachers my ass.