Personalizing Humanity

[Bailywolf]

Something occors to me.

Much is made of defining Humanity for a given setting of sorcerer, but what I've come to think is more importiant is defining Humanity for each character individualy.

I often wondered why Humanity was the score with no Descriptor.

Here is what I'm thinking:

Humanity must have a descriptor.  This describes precisly what it is for a given character.  Faith, sense of duty, love, hope in the future, grounding in reality, belief in good in the world.

This makes dangers to humniaty as unique as the characters who suffer them.

It also opens an entirely new avenue for character developement:  Redefinition.



I just saw The Count of MonteCristo.  A great movie.  Both well acted and lots of fun.  It's not the book.  I didn't expect it to be, but it is a great character drama.  Go see it.

Edmond begins with a high humanity.  I would define it as Faith in the Greater Good.

Betrayal, imprisonment, torture, releazation.  He looses some humanity, but instead of simply shriveling up spiritualy, he Redefines what his humanity represents:  Hate and Revenge.

He persues this, using it as his inner strength and drive.  It serves him as well as his early faith and hope, but for darker purposes.

When he is forced to choose between the culmination of his plots and the woman he loves... he again redefines, choosing Love and Repetence for his Humanity rather than loosing it.  He will then use all the riches (demons) he has to do good.




It adds an additional axis for Humanity.  And it need not always be nice.  "Lust for Immortality" makes a great descriptor for a gnarly old sorcerer who fears death... and taking any kind of personal risk challanges this definition... it could even paralize him in some circumstances.

GM's keep this central drive in mind when plotting against particular characters, tempting the evil with redemption, the good with corruption.

Thus humanity becomes "what is most central in your life" rather than any particular, external definition.  It is as unique as the character himself.

Actions which may cost a character humanity will vary with his descriptor as well.  When Edmond gave up his revenge for Love, he certainly risked loosing a point or two.  

So how would this Chrisis of Faith mechanic work?

Perhaps, instead of loosing a point of humanity if the rules so dictate, a player may instead elect to Redefine.  This transition must reflect real character evolution (or devolution- going from Lover to Hater).  Successful Redefinition (perhaps with a Will vs Humanity roll to represent the conscious decision to fight natural tendencies), allows a new Humanity descriptor to be written.






Thoughts?

[Clay]

Baily,

Theoretically that idea works.  But it's already been done to death by White Wolf, and frankly I found that the whole scheme didn't work well in WW's games.

The advantage that I see to a setting-wide definition of humanity is that it reinforces the players into a constant struggle to remain within the bounds of society.  In many ways I use it more as an indicator of how others see the character, not how the character sees the character.  The character's internal conflicts with their own goals is what drives the story (and should be represented in the kicker and the character description).  Humanity is a constraint put upon them that they must deal with.

This sounds limiting, and it is.  Any story that you create is more successfully  defined by its limits and what it does within them than by its freedom.  Compare Raymond Chandler's "The Big Sleep," which has a fairly explicit take on morality and humanity, with William S. Burroughs' "Naked Lunch," which has no real restrictions on anything.  People have read and enjoyed both, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that a whole lot more people are willing to re-read "The Big Sleep" than are willing to re-read "Naked Lunch."

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

In the main, I agree with Clay.

However, I think the texts of Sorcerer state clearly that Humanity is not utterly constrained to be one single thing per play group. Based on the main book, it's pretty wide open and may cover quite a few things in a given group; based on The Sorcerer's Soul, a limited range is recommended - but that's a limited range, not one single word. Even in the example scenarios, where that range is very narrow, I hope that people can see that a word like "Honor" or "Parenting" contains within it a plurality of both Humanity-increasing and Humanity-increasing acts, not a single scalar.

I also see merit to Bailywolf's suggestion about the redefinition - although I do not see it as redefinition so much as a changing means of expression. In the case of The Count of Monte Cristo, one might use "sincere passion" for Humanity.

On the other hand, I think that Bailywolf's suggestion, taken to the extent that he describes, misses the point of Humanity in the first place - which is to impose risk into the ethics of one's character's actions. I argue that the Count incurs a risk in his drive for revenge - the risk of becoming a Bad Guy. How close does he come? Very. Does the enjoyment of the story rely on our understanding that risk? Yes. Is there a danger of him losing our sympathy due to that risk? Yes. Is he validated as a "hero" in demonstrating that he cares about more than revenge? Yes.

Humanity as a mechanic provides (for lack of a better word) a pacing and tension device for role-playing for purposes of these exact narrative aims. To permit positive Humanity score to stand in for any activity through redefinition, constant personal customization if you will, introduces a brand of relativism that erases "ethical story power" entirely.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

There are a couple of things missed out by not addressing such crises, though.  I think for many characters, the moment of their translation from Average Joe to Wrong-Rightin' Hero occurs precisely because of a personal epiphany.  Arguably, such a "crisis of faith" may be an important part of the characters story.

One way to address this would be to say that such crises occur "off camera" - they could be used for Kickers (On Monday my humanity was defined by Protestant Work Ethic; on Tuesday it was defined by Taking Vengeance For The Deaths Of My Children, and now Mild Mannered Accountant has become Anguished Avenger).  This would frame the game as resolving the kicker (moral crisis) by the adoption of a new philosophy (humanity falls to 0 and must be restored by a new conception of self and world).

IIRC, Rambo could be described this way; having recanted his violent ways once, he is then persuaded to recant his pacifism.  It might be an interesting exercise to make this whole thing a lot more developed, and keep track not only of what Humanity means to the character today, but what it meant last time too; this way a character develops a "psychological history" to some extent.

Humanity, in this conception, becomes less of a threat (loss of character) and more of a prompt (redefine character).  It should be noted, however, that I can easily imagine a fucked up character being driven to 0 humanity and the player being unable to imagine a "belief system" which would still be acceptable under the current circumstances; thus I could still imagine character being retired after falling to 0 humanity.

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth,

I think you are agreeing with me, not disagreeing. Yes, the Humanity mechanic as well as Kickers are about personal ethical crises and transformations - in fact, during play, I have yet to see an example of anything else. "Not addressing such crises," which you seem to be reading in my post, is not an option. The psychological history you describe is the entire point of Sorcerer and its design.

That's why I agree with much of what Bailywolf is driving at, in terms of his examples, but also with what Clay is saying, that both positive and negative judgments of the range of human options are integral to the process.

Best,
Ron

[Bailywolf]

Ah, but I never thought of a relative humaity definition as lacking risk, rather it makes that risk much more personal.

In fact, the very act of catharsis and redefination can only occur when risks taken or circumstances push a character beyond their moral and ethical limits; when their very identity is called into question.  Frankly, this is in my mind the sinlge most importiant dramatic conflict which fiction or game can represent.  And it is unique for each character.

Take the Count again, since the movie is still fresh...

He begins innocent- a bit of a fool- but a believer in good and in ultamate justice.  After his imprisonment, he maintains this for a few years... but slowly the trials he suffers erodes his Humanity.  But when presented with a chance for escape, for revenge- not just againt those who have wronged him, but against God (in the form of his denied faith).  He Redefines.  Now, when he is tempted to show mercy, when he is swayed by love, his redefined humnaity is placed at Risk, until he finaly is forced to Redefine once again at a moment of chrisis.  

In either direction- turing to the darkside or turning back- the transition involves risk, it involves a character who's nature is being challanged and called into question.  The Evil will be placed at Risk with temptations to the good, the Good with temptations to the evil.

Everything becomes character.  

Relativist, sure, but I do like it.

But yes, it does do away with any kind of over reaching definitions of ethics, right or wrong, and morality.  But then, my gaming style tends twords the inner conflict and self actualization or self destruction rather than adherence to external moral strictures.  Humanity in this scheme represents less a yard-stick to measure all characters by, but more an ever present goad and hook by which a GM can make a game that much more personal.

[contracycle]

of anything else. "Not addressing such crises," which you seem to be reading in my post, is not an option. The psychological history you describe is the entire point of Sorcerer and its design.

I was just operating under the impression that the only established risk in Sorcerer regarding humanity was loss of character; in this regard the crisis is not really addressed, its shuffled off camera.  So, I was largely agreeing with you, merely proposing that redefinition occur instead of character loss, and that space on the character sheet might be assigned to recording the various definitions of humanity the character goes through.  This effectively removed Humanity from being at risk; losing Humanity has no impact on the status of the character, merely the mindset of the character.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey there,

This discussion needs to be clarified for me. Are we discussing Humanity loss or Humanity going to zero?

Regarding Bailywolf's point, this distinction is crucial. If, for instance, a player redefines Humanity to mean "Hate and Revenge," then that means that actions of this type are grounds for Humanity gain rolls. Is this what you intended? Your clarification tends to read that way. It seems to me to be a fairly needless complication: the way I see it, the Count loses Humanity insofar as he starts using non-target individuals as tools, and he gains it when he focuses on the target-individuals more carefully.

If, on the other hand, you are only discussing the aims and venues and general emotional state of the character, with the basics of Humanity loss remaining unchanged, then all those things can be played without changing what Humanity is. Again, as I explained, lots of nuances or options per definition of Humanity are already a part of play.

Regarding Gareth's point, apparently the topic is Humanity going to zero. The rules options in the The Sorcerer's Soul offer a lot of alternatives to the admittedly simplistic "lose your character" baseline in Sorcerer, and I think they deal with your concerns pretty well. The concept of rewriting the character as a result of Humanity hitting zero is one of my favored approaches, especially if it's distinct from the similar procedure in the basic rules of rewriting descriptions once the Kicker is resolved.

Another element of this discussion that puzzles me is the hat I'm supposed to be wearing: game designer, publisher, or fellow-Sorcerer-fan? Sometimes I am enjoying a "Gee, I do it this way" discussion, only to be blindsided by resentment that I'm apparently laying down some kind of law. So to clarify, all my points in this thread are in the "Just chatting about how we play" mode, not in "You aren't understanding the rules" mode.

Best,
Ron

[Bailywolf]

Arp!  No worries Ron.  One of the reasons I hang out in these forums so much is the fact the the Ministers Responsible chime in so often.  

As for my origional (and since evolving) conception,

Humanity is defined for each character individualy.  It need not fit any conventional understanding; rather both "positive" and "negative" definitions are possible.  And yes, when taking actions which afirm a negative definition (such as a Will to Power character who successfuly betrays and murders his way into control of his Black Wheel cabal), then Humanity can be gained.  

However, if tempted to kindness, self sacrifice, or other "waekness", that same black hearted adept will find his 'moral' center sliding off kilter.  His faith in his own right to crush and control shaken.  With kindness, he risks compromising his identity, of destroying his life's meaning.  

To the demons, it makes no difference whether this esential center derives from altruistic feeling or raging psychosis.  To other humans, it makes a huge difference.

But his 0 humanity, and you're still SOL.

But this scheme provides another route- redefinition.  When you hit bottom (drop to one of two Humanity) but before you self destruct (zero humanity), you have the chance to Redefine yourself.  This dramatic trial can make an awesome centerpiece for an intense session, and can represent either a descent into darkness or a shot at redemption.

The Redefinition mechanic- intense personal challange + Will vs Humanity contest.  Victory means a new lease on life- a redefined (if reduced) humanity, failure and the spiral to 0 humainty continues.

In this scheme both the good and the evil face the same risk to their esential self; and unless they either stay afloat or redefine, when humanity hits zero, the demons take their due.

[Ron Edwards]

H'm,

I still feel the need for "constraint," in terms of my play ... in the sense that Redefinition could be an easy out, as opposed to "the moment of reflection."

So if I were to do this ... I'd permit Redefinition where it already stands in the rules, with Kicker resolution. That provides enough structure that I'd be comfortable with.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I know exactly what you're saying Ron.

Is it possible to keep Redefining from being an easy way to evade paying the consequences of your actions? The answer is probably; if you have a group dedicated to not abusing such things...but if you have such a group than you really don't need a mechanic to cover the Redefinition, the group would simply go with it.

I do think that a descripter for Humanity is probably a very good idea, but a descripter doesn't change the foundational meaning of the term any more than "Athletic Regimen", vs "Chemically Enhanced" changes the fundamental meaning of Stamina.

A Humanity descripter could take the general concept of what Humanity is and personalize it a bit...even provide bonus dice at appropriate times, but the character would still be bound by the global definition of Humanity.

I guess the key here is that Sorcerer's mechanics are very much targeted at transgression, meaning individual violations of societal norms.  All of the "inner struggles" and "personal demons" in Sorcerer can be seen in this light.  While it may be possible to adapt Sorcerer to fulfill more of a "quest for personal fulfillment" type of roll, with what the character finds fulfilling being periodically redefined; it will probably take more than a simple reworking of Humanity to accomplish effectively.

By this I mean the whole nature of what actions call for a Humanity check would need to be reevaluated.  Certain Sorceries ALWAYS require a Humanity check because the act itself is a transgression.  But if you go with a more personal definition of Humanity than for some sorcerers these acts would be transgressions and for others they wouldn't.  That would have a far reaching impact into the overall game mechanics and (dare I say it) balance in the system.  It would essenitally overturn the tradeoff between power and the price you pay for it which is the core concept of the entire game.

Interesting idea Baily, but I think one that would require reworking large parts of the rules to work effectively.

[Bailywolf]

Is it possible to keep Redefining from being an easy way to evade paying the consequences of your actions? The answer is probably; if you have a group dedicated to not abusing such things...but if you have such a group than you really don't need a mechanic to cover the Redefinition, the group would simply go with it.

This certainly is a concern... one I am considering a number of solutions for.  Perhaps only 1 redefining moment per story arc?  Have to ply with it.

I guess the key here is that Sorcerer's mechanics are very much targeted at transgression, meaning individual violations of societal norms.  All of the "inner struggles" and "personal demons" in Sorcerer can be seen in this light.  While it may be possible to adapt Sorcerer to fulfill more of a "quest for personal fulfillment" type of roll, with what the character finds fulfilling being periodically redefined; it will probably take more than a simple reworking of Humanity to accomplish effectively.

I find the prospect of transgressing against personal norms much more striking than 'individual vs society'.  I always figured sorcerers were outside the normal loop of society anyway by the nature of their craft... in the end, the only sure judge at the end of the day is the face in the mirror.  Can you live with what you are and have become?

And if you want the kind of character who is defined primarily by societal norms, then there is nothing stoping you from describing humanity in just such a way.  

This sheme allows introverted or extroverted character transgression/conflict.  It's all in the definition.

By this I mean the whole nature of what actions call for a Humanity check would need to be reevaluated.  Certain Sorceries ALWAYS require a Humanity check because the act itself is a transgression.  But if you go with a more personal definition of Humanity than for some sorcerers these acts would be transgressions and for others they wouldn't.  That would have a far reaching impact into the overall game mechanics and (dare I say it) balance in the system.  It would essenitally overturn the tradeoff between power and the price you pay for it which is the core concept of the entire game.

As I said:  it doesn't matter how you define humanity, the demons don't care.  They (in this conception) represent an almost anti-humanity .  Dealing with demons can destroy the psychotic as easily as the saint, the selfish as well as the benenolent, the sinner as well as the just.  Demons & sorcery will destroy ANYONE given the chance.  It just manifest different.  

As for non-sorcerous actions which cost humanity, then certainly it will vary based on the descriptor.  Perhaps players should be encouraged to write up half a dozen examples for affirming and degrading actions to give the GM something to work with.  

Interesting idea Baily, but I think one that would require reworking large parts of the rules to work effectively.

Actualy, other than individualizing non-sorcerous humanity loss/gain situations, I see no need to change anything.  Well defined humanity provides an additional layer of character definition because (conscious or not to the character) it defines what is most central in their existence; their core values.  These may differ from 'norms', but these are sorcerers.  A wierd Bunch'O'folks.



I don't have a good answer for the 'easy out' delima.  I'll give it some thought.

Thanks all, it always helps me cement my thoughts to have them worked over by others.

[Ron Edwards]

Bailywolf,

Did you miss my post above? It seems to me that my stated solution to the "easy out" problem is necessary, sufficient, already present in the rules, and fun.

Or am I missing something?

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

By this I mean the whole nature of what actions call for a Humanity check would need to be reevaluated.  Certain Sorceries ALWAYS require a Humanity check because the act itself is a transgression.  But if you go with a more personal definition of Humanity than for some sorcerers these acts would be transgressions and for others they wouldn't.  That would have a far reaching impact into the overall game mechanics and (dare I say it) balance in the system.  It would essenitally overturn the tradeoff between power and the price you pay for it which is the core concept of the entire game.

As I said:  it doesn't matter how you define humanity, the demons don't care.  They (in this conception) represent an almost anti-humanity .  Dealing with demons can destroy the psychotic as easily as the saint, the selfish as well as the benenolent, the sinner as well as the just.  Demons & sorcery will destroy ANYONE given the chance.  It just manifest different.  

But what is it that humanity is then?  This doesn't really make sense to me.  The act of performing Sorcery results in the loss of Humanity.  What is being represented by this loss if the demons don't care what your definition of Humanity is...what are you actually losing?  I understand the point that demons don't care if you're a sinner or a saint.  I don't understand what the physical game mechanic is supposed to portray once you define humanity in this manner.

The act of sorcery may result in the loss of Humanity because it is a transgression against whatever it is Humanity represents in the game.  But if you allow Humanity to be defined individually than I could easily come up with one in which consorting with demons is NOT a transgression against my own values/motivators.  Yet you indicate that I must still make a check and may lose Humanity anyway...so what is it that I'm losing and why.

For instance I define my personal Humanity as being something totally despicable and evil.  I committ several nasty atrocities and under your system I could gain Humanity.  But if I summon a totally foul and vile demon to help me commit my atrocities I lose Humanity.  Why...this is what doesn't make sense to me and led me to conclude you'd have to rework alot more than just the definition of Humanity.

Does that make sense, I'm having a little trouble articulating.

Interesting idea Baily, but I think one that would require reworking large parts of the rules to work effectively.

Actualy, other than individualizing non-sorcerous humanity loss/gain situations, I see no need to change anything.  Well defined humanity provides an additional layer of character definition because (conscious or not to the character) it defines what is most central in their existence; their core values.  These may differ from 'norms', but these are sorcerers.  A wierd Bunch'O'folks.

I guess I'm not seeing what is being accomplished by trying to use the Humanity mechanic to portray this.  Sure individuals all have their own values and core beliefs but how does that alter the fundamental nature of what Humanity is.  Humanity is "humanity" its not "social mores" or "ethical behavior" or anything like that.

The core root definition of humanity is simply what it is about the Sorcerer that is risked being lost by engaging in acts of sorcerery.  I guess thats my ultimate question for you.  What is it the sorcerer is losing?

By definition it must be something of value to the sorcerer or the whole premise of Sorcerer breaks down.

[Bailywolf]

The core root definition of humanity is simply what it is about the Sorcerer that is risked being lost by engaging in acts of sorcerery.  I guess thats my ultimate question for you.  What is it the sorcerer is losing?

By definition it must be something of value to the sorcerer or the whole premise of Sorcerer breaks down.

It seems you have my point exactly.  What I've done is seperate sorcery and demons ENTIRELY from the scope of normal humanity- which covers saints to psychopaths.  Demons represent an entirely different order, over reaching in it's human descrutiveness.

I never thought the humanity loss from summoning was due to violation of ethics/social codes/beliefs or what not... but because summoning demons is fundamentaly and absolutly beyond the scope of humanity.]

Sorcery is the Universal Solvent of the human condition; it makes no difference who you are, why you summon, what you tell the demon to do, what kind of demon you choose... it makes no damn difference at all.  Play it too fast, and sorcery erodes you.

If you command your demons to take actions which run counter to your Humanity definition, you put your humanity at risk.  If a summoner saint calls forth his Guardian Angle and orders it to kill, thus violating his humanity definition it impacts him in much the same way as a paranoid old adept sending his personal body guard demon off to rescue a loved one, leaving him unprotected- both are simply actions which violate their humanity.

But the actual acts of sorcery itself- the contacting, summoning, and especialy binding- shred humanity universaly.  Perhaps only this unifies humanity under this scheme- equality in destruction.

Did you miss my post above? It seems to me that my stated solution to the "easy out" problem is necessary, sufficient, already present in the rules, and fun.

Yarp!  It works... it works.  Thanks for the goad.