Dreadfulness
Socio-Cultural Contexts
Layman’s Understanding
Public knowledge is fragmented due to the effects of the
Global Egregore. The term “Dreadful” is euphemistic, originating from rural or isolated community response to unexplained events. Common phrases include epithetical “the Dreadful” or colloquialism “how very Dreadful.” In most regions, Dreadfuls are known indirectly through mythic or religious reinterpretations. If the Dreadfulness is a positive communal benefit, it’s often rebranded as a “gift,” while destructive or anomalous cases are assigned to demonic, cursed, or monstrous status. Eventually, due to the
Egregore, most Dreadful encounter accounts will form a dual folkloric element and plausible rational explanation.
Fairy-tales are culturally embedded sanitizations of historical Dreadful events following the effects of the
Global Egregore. “Witches,” “changelings,” “curses,” “beasts,” and “heroes” often represent misinterpreted or romanticized Dreadful encounters. This includes narratives involving enchanted objects
(sentient tools, cursed rings), altered landscapes
(forests that consume, lakes that speak), and anomalous fauna
(talking animals, shapeshifters). Most tales omit the singularity rule
(one ability per entity) and exaggerate moral frameworks.
Legal Status
Legal classification of Dreadfuls varies, but at least among Dreadful academics, it’s an observable but irreplicable anomaly. Open acknowledgment is impossible due to the effects of the
Global Egregore, and most Dreadfuls remain undocumented. Research is suppressed, censored, or obscured depending on regional policy, since
academic efforts can only be spearheaded by Dreadfuls themselves. Academic efforts by Dreadfuls continue in secrecy or under pseudoscientific labels. Most research is anecdotal, fragmentary or speculative, while formal research can only be circulated in insular Dreadful communities.
Dreadfulness is not contagious except in transmissible cases, but public fear treats all cases as biohazardous or heretical. Urban environments may obscure Dreadfulness through bureaucracy or institutional containment, but these initiatives inevitably deteriorate. Some nations' unofficial Dreadful organizations issue licenses, track registries, or implement extermination policies.
Manifestation

All entities—human, animal, plant, object, or geographic—may possess or host Dreadfulness. Its effects are empirically consistent and materially observable; however, the common academic assumption that Dreadfulness is non-symbolic and detached from cultural belief is incorrect. Evidence increasingly indicates that fear, caution, and social terror—particularly folkloric or communal belief—directly influence Dreadfulness acquisition, intensity, and form.
Dreadfulness appears to interact with belief systems. Inanimate Dreadfuls
(e.g. cursed trees, haunted wells) exhibit power levels proportional to the fear assigned to them by their surrounding community. Higher communal terror correlates to stronger, more anomalous behavior. Semi-sentient Dreadfuls
(e.g. animals) follow an interpolated model:
both local mythic reputation and the creature’s own reactive fear contribute to its anomaly expression.
Human Dreadfuls are entirely self-modulated. Their power scales with internal fear—specifically, the degree of personal terror they hold toward their own Dreadfulness or what it metaphorically represents. A Dreadful who fears their anomaly
(e.g. fearing fire while wielding flame; fearing loss of identity while wielding shapeshifting) exhibits heightened potency. If a Dreadful becomes desensitized, accepting, or indifferent to their anomaly, its output diminishes. Suppression, self-loathing, and existential dread intensify power expression; resolution, confidence, or disassociation reduce it.
While there is no verified evidence of collective Dreadfulness—no group-based sorcery, no coven-linked effects, no simultaneous bloodline-wide manifestation—incidents of community-level hysteria called
Local Egregores do show statistically significant spikes in new Dreadful cases. This supports a caution-based acquisition model. However, these events still follow individual manifestation rules, barring cases with Vector-type transmission.
The causal loop between communal fear and material Dreadfulness creates a chicken-egg dilemma. Myths may generate anomalies, or anomalies may retroactively generate myths. Both appear true, with culture acting as a passive amplifier.
Elemental Affinity Tiers
Most Dreadfuls exhibit a singular ability, with potential for application-based evolution through refinement. For instance, a Dreadfulness may evolve from elemental kinetic
(manipulating an element) to transmutative
(becoming an element). These evolutions do not introduce new elemental domains or cross-ability expansion, except where previously dormant. The exception to this is a
Local Egregore augmenting the Dreadfulness of a Dreadful active within its boundaries through communal belief.
Acquisition
Acquisition Modes
Note: Dreadfulness hybridization is possible; individuals can acquire multiple Dreadfulness concurrently. However, separate anomalies cannot coexist independently within a single host. The individual enters a critical destabilization period, often marked by systemic failure or neurological collapse. Survival is contingent on the anomalies fusing into a unified singularity, forming a new, coherent domain. The resulting synthesis may produce severe physiological or cognitive mutations, often permanent, and carries high risk of deformity, dysfunction, or death.
Note: The augmentation or acquisition of new Dreadfulness traits through the communal belief of a
Local Egregore does not trigger hybridization. Instead of having to reconcile a
new Dreadfulness within the body, the
Local Egregore feeds the Dreadful communal terror, which serves to augment, alter, or add to their
existing Dreadfulness. This is seamless and non-threatening to the Dreadful undergoing it.
Extended Classification
Function Classes
Stability Classes
Control Classes
Visibility Classes
Divine Classes
Religious institutions interpret Dreadfulness through divine schema (angelic, demonic, saintly, prophetic), but these classifications are culturally subjective and unsubstantiated by scientific methodology. Inversely, Dreadful academies treat Dreadfulness under fixed taxonomic systems (as seen above), and some suggest that religion (e.g churches effecting some Dreadfuls) might in and of itself be a Dreadfulness. Some Dreadfuls are hunted, institutionalized, or concealed by local communities. Villages may conceal a local Dreadful, reinterpret them as a saint or monster, or exile them.
Comments