[GroupDesign] Schrodinger's war: Nailing Axes

[Doug Ruff]

Hello?  Anyone here?

I'm here - I've been keeping a loose eye on this and waiting for more comments. But in response to the last two posters:

Nate: I think the amount of "control" is a direct relationship between the "score" for Will, and the "score" for the Passion in question. If one is much higher than the other, then either Will or Passion is likely to prevail every time. It's more fun if the scores are closer together, of course...

But yes, Passions definitely colour perception of an act - consider the "crime passionelle" defence. I'd also say that how we view an act also depends on how closely it validates our own Passions. The megalomaniac who thinks they are God will be viewed very differently by the people who believe in him...

Michael: I like the general direction you've introduced. I would argue that Transcendence (by it's nature) doesn't need to be split into "transcendent passions", as there would appear to be something "holistic" about the whole Transcendence thing.

But I very much do like the idea of the Archivist "lending" his Transcendence (somehow) to the Host to induce a satori like "revelation". However, is this possibly just another Logos (Revelation, Awareness Of All, There Is No Spoon)? Also, I can imagine the revelation as being potentially dangerous to the Host, possibly deliberately so (Secrets That Man Was Not Meant To Know.)

However, I'd still like to hear more about your original idea before twisting it out of all recognition - how did you intend for the "transcendent passions" to work?

Re: Archivist's "human" Passions - does the Archivist get a choice in whether or not to engage their Passions? Is this different form how the Host behaves? I'd assumed that Passions would trigger - for Archivist or Host - whether they wanted them to or not (but they could overcome the Passion by applying Will). Again, I'd like to know more about your ideas for this.

[Michael Brazier]

Michael: I like the general direction you've introduced. I would argue that Transcendence (by it's nature) doesn't need to be split into "transcendent passions", as there would appear to be something "holistic" about the whole Transcendence thing.

Yes; but the applications of Transcendence need not be uniform.  The closer an Archivist gets to the Transcendent, the more unified and coherent their knowledge of it will be; but that implies that the farther away one is from the Transcendent, the less unified or coherent one's knowledge of it can be.  In particular, if a Host experiences Transcendence (as with the idea of Archivists "lending" their motives to Hosts) he isn't going to understand it as well as even the rawest Archivist, and might well see it as multiple, different things.

However, I'd still like to hear more about your original idea before twisting it out of all recognition - how did you intend for the "transcendent passions" to work?

Exactly as the normal Passions do (whatever that turns out to be.)  The image I had, from the discussion, was of a balancing scale, with Passions as weights on one side or another.  The possessing Archivist brings new weights into the balance, some similar to the Passions that were there already, others (aspects of Transcendence) that aren't.

But I very much do like the idea of the Archivist "lending" his Transcendence (somehow) to the Host to induce a satori like "revelation". However, is this possibly just another Logos (Revelation, Awareness Of All, There Is No Spoon)?

If so, it's a very basic one.  And I don't see it working, mechanically, as Logoi are supposed to work.  Logoi, as I understood, are pure Transcendent effects, depending entirely on the will of the Archivist.  What I'm talking about is the "cooperative" option, where the Archivist suggests something to the Host, but leaves the Host's will free to assent or reject.  That's why dice come into it -- with Logoi there are no chances.

Re: Archivist's "human" Passions - does the Archivist get a choice in whether or not to engage their Passions? Is this different form how the Host behaves? I'd assumed that Passions would trigger - for Archivist or Host - whether they wanted them to or not (but they could overcome the Passion by applying Will). Again, I'd like to know more about your ideas for this.

As I conceived it, Archivists have no choice in how their Passions affect them, but do get a choice in which of their Passions will affect their Host.  Let's say Kilroy the Archivist has a strong Passion for survival, but wants his current Host to sacrifice his life for a Higher Cause -- it would be inconvenient if Kilroy's Passion affected his Host and kept him from doing what Kilroy desired.

[Doug Ruff]

Michael,

Some excellent points, sorry for the delay in replying.

Firstly, can you give some examples of what Transcendence can be "split" into? And how, as an Archivist learns more, these are unified into the wole? I'm having a real prolem seeing this, so please help!

Secondly, about Archivist Passions:

As I conceived it, Archivists have no choice in how their Passions affect them, but do get a choice in which of their Passions will affect their Host. Let's say Kilroy the Archivist has a strong Passion for survival, but wants his current Host to sacrifice his life for a Higher Cause -- it would be inconvenient if Kilroy's Passion affected his Host and kept him from doing what Kilroy desired.

That would depend - I'm assuming that Kilroy's Passion is for his own survival? Then the Passion won't trigger unless the Host's sacrifice will also hurt Kilroy.

Now, if Kilroy's Passion had been "Fear of untimely death" then the Passion may trigger for the Host's sacrifice as well.

And I think that part of the whole point of Passions is for them to be "inconvenient" - allowing an Archivist to choose which Passions to engage (unless they are "transcendent drives", that part makes more sense in this context) defeats this object somewhat.

[Michael Brazier]

Firstly, can you give some examples of what Transcendence can be "split" into? And how, as an Archivist learns more, these are unified into the wole? I'm having a real prolem seeing this, so please help!

Er, I can't actually think of any examples of parts of Transcendence.  But I can explain how advance in knowledge brings unity ... there are a number of physical phenomena which we now understand as operations of a single law: the behavior of light, magnetism, chemistry, organic life, and so on, are all described by quantum electrodynamics.  But we learned of this basic unity only by long study of the phenomena, which don't (on the surface) appear to be connected.

Transcendence in itself is certainly a "basic unity", but that doesn't mean the phenomena related to it are all so similar that their unity is obvious, or that the Archivists understand them to be unified, aspects of a single law.  

And I think that part of the whole point of Passions is for them to be "inconvenient" - allowing an Archivist to choose which Passions to engage (unless they are "transcendent drives", that part makes more sense in this context) defeats this object somewhat.

I suppose so.  But in that case it seems proper to say that an Archivist can't lend a Transcendent trait without lending all his Passions as well ...

Come to think of it, shouldn't this option -- an Archivist lending his mind, with all the knowledge and Passions blended together -- carry a risk of Fade, if the Host rejects and suppresses the new knowledge?

[Doug Ruff]

Michael,

Without any examples, I'm not sure where the idea of "transcendent passions" is going to take us. However, if I read the rest of your post correctly, Transcendence represents an awareness of the "fundamental" laws of the universe (which are beyond mortal reasoning and science - or at least, that of the 20th century - which could also explain the difficulty of explaining them in some examples!) Please let me know if this is an accurate representation of what you're thinking.

Also:

I suppose so. But in that case it seems proper to say that an Archivist can't lend a Transcendent trait without lending all his Passions as well ...

Come to think of it, shouldn't this option -- an Archivist lending his mind, with all the knowledge and Passions blended together -- carry a risk of Fade, if the Host rejects and suppresses the new knowledge?

I don't see the first bit as a problem. If an Archivist is in a position to lend Transcendence to a Host, then he is involved and any relevant Archivist Passions would come into play (but only the relevant ones would trigger for any given event, same as for the Host.) Archivists should still have enough Will and/or Transcendence to counter their own Passions and still have a bit left over.

As for the second point - Archivist Fade - I'd go even further - if the Archivist directly gives the Host a share of his own Transcendence (instead of using persuasion and or force), then this "enlightenment" automatically costs Fade. If the Host doesn't make a good use of the revelation, then that's just tough. This means that the direct "lending" of Transcendence is for special occasions only, but that feels right.

(BTW: I'm off for the next couple of days or so and won't have internet access.)

[Sydney Freedberg]

(Preface: my apologies for long silence; I've had a cold, Thanksgiving, and a tight deadline all at once, and my brain wasn't up to the very tricky concepts in this thread).

First some general comments, laying down markers for future exploration -- I don't think these are things we need to resolve at this time:


I. There is no spoon

Like Doug, I am intrigued by Michael's concept of Archivist-as-muse, lending Transcedence to the Host in the form of insight/satori. This might not always be intentional... definitely something to include.


II. The content of our characters

Doug made the point that not all possible values at stake could be collapsed into predetermined "axes," but rather would vary from individual to individual according to their passions, i.e. their Human traits --- and, I'd add, their Transcendent traits as well, if these are conceived of as not just Kewl Powerz but Uncanny Knowledge with a potential moral dimension.

All I want to draw out of this is that two characters -- or civilizations -- with similar total levels of Humanity or Transcendence may build those totals from very different parts, which may have very different moral content. I.e. a character with "loves my family: 5" and "obsessed with chess:1" has the same total passion/humanity (6) as a character with "hate inferior races: 4" and "obey the Great Leader: 2"; likewise an Archivist with "Wither the Flesh: 3" and "Mind-Blasting Horror: 6" has the same Transcendence (9) as one with "Healing Power: 4" and "Profound Sense of Oneness with All Things: 5" -- but there is definitely a moral choice to be made in each case.

And this scales up to entire societies as well, which implies that the history-making mechanics need to be mindful not only of how Archivist intervention affects total Humanity and Transcendence but also of what particular Human and/or Transcendent Traits are imparted to a particular society.


But now, back to the essential question which which we really do need to settle in this thread, and soon:

III. Transcendence vs. Humanity -- and Where's Free Will?

there really ought to be "passions", or something like them, on the Transcendent side of the balance, representing aspects of the terrible glory the Archivists know -- symmetrically to the way that Passions represent aspects of human experience.

This is what I was getting at when I questioned Doug's folding of Free Will into Transcendence: such superhuman knowledge of The Truth (two capital T's there) may cause a being to be compelled to act in a certain way. I think the term "passion" is misleading here, but the core idea is the same. Just as Humanity represents your connection to other people, Transcendence arguably represents your connection to the cosmos in all its terrifying glory, and either can override your ability to choose.

I think we have two alternative models here:

(1) The Michael Model: Both Transcendent and Human traits can act as compulsions -- a character may be able to override them, but at a cost, e.g. Fade or Burn. Free Will is therefore separate from either Transcendence or Humanity.

(2) The Doug Model: Transcendent knowledge gives you freedom from Human limits; free will is simply an aspect of Transcendence: "The truth shall set you free."

Both of you feel free to correct me if I misrepresent grossly in this boiling-down of your ideas, of course.

(As a side note, #2 is closer to the original mechanics I drafted, in which Human Traits were compulsions that automatically took effect in certain conditions, but Transcendent traits were activated at player discretion; but I now think #1 might be more interesting).

Some implications of each:

(1), where Free Will is an independent variable, has the attraction of keeping the spotlight on freedom as an issue. It also has some interesting resemblances to the ideas of "Presence" suggested halfway through Advanced Archivism. (Whether Presence is a good idea or not, I'm not sure).

(2), where Free Will is a dependent variable, has an attractive simplicity. It also raises the question of whether Transcendence can encompass all rationality, self-determination, and knowledge of the universe, in which case it's not a trait unique to Archivists at all, just something Archivists have more of than any mortal human. (Again, whether letting mortals have low levels of Transcendence is a good idea or not, I'm not sure).

Now it may be possible both to have Free Will as an independent variable and to allow Transcendence in mortal human characters, representing in this case not free will but knowledge of the cosmos -- e.g. great scientific, artistic, or mystical insight. In fact, a valid objective for an entire campaign might be to guide human society to higher and higher levels of Transcendence until it becomes capable of producing Archivists (who proceed to go back in time and guide human society...).

In any case, putting on my not-quite-moderator hat, I'd urge us to really wrestle with these intertwined issues:
Is Free Will an independent variable, or an aspect of transcendence?
Is Transcendence innately superhuman (and thus reserved for Archivists), or something mortal humans can get at least a glimpse of?

[Michael Brazier]

However, if I read the rest of your post correctly, Transcendence represents an awareness of the "fundamental" laws of the universe (which are beyond mortal reasoning and science - or at least, that of the 20th century - which could also explain the difficulty of explaining them in some examples!) Please let me know if this is an accurate representation of what you're thinking.

Close enough for horseshoes -- especially the difficulty of finding examples!  (My supply of 99.44% pure handwavium is on backorder.)

I don't see the first bit as a problem. If an Archivist is in a position to lend Transcendence to a Host, then he is involved and any relevant Archivist Passions would come into play

I didn't think it was a problem; it just needed to be mentioned.

As for the second point - Archivist Fade - I'd go even further - if the Archivist directly gives the Host a share of his own Transcendence (instead of using persuasion and or force), then this "enlightenment" automatically costs Fade. If the Host doesn't make a good use of the revelation, then that's just tough.

... I'll go for that.

wisdom of the gurus

points What he said.

Is Free Will an independent variable, or an aspect of transcendence?
Is Transcendence innately superhuman (and thus reserved for Archivists), or something mortal humans can get at least a glimpse of?

1: Independent, as far as the mechanics are concerned.  Whether free will is part of Transcendence in the setting can (and therefore should) be left open for the players to define.  In fact that's one of the Great Questions that philosophers and theologians have argued about for centuries, so there ought to be different opinions among the Archivists on the subject ...

2: I feel it's better to say that, in the setting, every instance of "great scientific, artistic, or mystical insight" is a Transcendent experience, and the game should represent that by giving Transcendent traits to mortal characters who have had such experiences.  One reason is that this lets the players (at least partly) characterize Transcendence, by referring to its effects in history -- which we, the designers and players, do know something about.  Without that Transcendence becomes difficult even to talk about, much less capture in a mechanic.  (See Doug Ruff's comment on the mysteriousness of "Transcendent passions".)

Whether, in the setting, mortals can have such experiences without an Archivist's help, is another point on which the Archivists ought to differ.  I envision, for instance, a "Calvinist" faction of Archivists who hold that Transcendence is divine grace, free will is part of Transcendence, that their role is to discover the Elect throughout history, give them knowledge of the face of God and the will to turn to it, and thereby save them from destruction by change of history, and that no one is saved without an Archivist's direct help.

[daMoose_Neo]

Re: Mortal Experiances

Syd, if I'm mistaken, let me know, but I *believe* the result of the HTT/ATT Thread includes a fair portion of my concept (and Doug's additions) of the Archivists being pure information/energy and a part of a larger, natural field. Under that concept, Humans become Archivists by possessing a (fictional) higher level of some wavelength associated with higher thinking/philosophy etc.
I theorized this could explain instances of pre/post cognition, seances, etc. for mortals with fairly high-but-not-high-enough wavelengths.

Under that, mortals could still touch it briefly, but it'd still be fun to see Archivists disagree ^_^ They could argue that for a truly effective connection to be made an Archivists help is needed, everything else is akin to looking at 1 piece of a 10,000 piece puzzle and not true "Enlightenment".

[Sydney Freedberg]

...it'd still be fun to see Archivists disagree ^_^...

Yeah, I think everyone is really warming to the idea of leaving the setting open enough not only to customize, but to allow in-game disagreements among characters and factions of characters about "what it all means." Which is why we don't to "nail down" any concept too securely -- there's a fine balance to strike here.

this could explain instances of pre/post cognition, seances, etc. for mortals with fairly high-but-not-high-enough wavelengths.

Okay, let me make sure I understand what you're saying, Nate, because depending on my mood & blood sugar level when I read this post, I get two possible implications:

1) Humans are occasionally capable of Transcendence, which always means "supernatural" abilities -- which implies scientific/artistic insight, no matter how extraordinary, are not Transcendent. In this case, Transcendence basically equals Kewl Powerz.

2) Humans are occasionally capable of Transcendence, which sometimes means "supernatural abilities" -- but which leaves open the possibility that great artists & scientists etc. are exhibiting Transcendence too, in a different way. In this case, Transcendence is anything that gives you extraordinary insight into The True Nature of Things.

(1) is incompatible with Michael's last post, (2) is compatible. (I personally lean towards (2), myself, because it allows for a wider range of possibilities). So the reason for pushing you on what seems a detail point is that I'm trying to figure out if we have a mere difference of emphasis or an outright difference of opinion.

P.S.: As a side note, if definition (2) is in order, then a shorthand way of describing Humanity vs. Transcendence is "humanity is everything that links you to the day-to-day experience of human beings; transcendence is everything that links you to the timeless truths of the cosmos." Both are good things (arguably) but the two perspectives are inherently hard to keep in balance -- which is what we want, otherwise the game's too easy!

P.P.S.: We still need to solve the problem of free will, remember -- specifically whether it's an aspect of Transcendence or an independent variable.

[daMoose_Neo]

(2), definetly. 'Kewl Powerz' hadn't even entered my mind. I was looking at the intent of the 'connection', and the length there of.

A seance will have the intent of looking at a specific point in time for a brief instant. They're not likely to keep their wavelengths elevated for any length of time outside of the gathering, and even then its not going to last that long.

A scientist or artist of philosopher will have the intent of exploration of possibilities, a much broader topic, and will likely have rather high wavelengths throughout their life, meaning they'd skirt along the edges, occasionally making contact for a brief glimpse of a place that becomes an inspiration for an artist or a flash of simple understanding for a scientist or philosopher.

In the case of Archivists, one could argue DaVinici was host to an Archivist who showed him many things, including brief glimpses of the future (he did draw up a rough schematic for a helicopter) for whatever reason. A sect of Archivists could point that out and go "Ah ha! See? They can't do it without our help!" whereas someone as say Edison had enough personal drive and commitment to his work (and enough underlings to boot) to make several applicable strides in science and technology without the assistance of the Archivists, to which others would point and say "You're wrong!".
But, maybe, they're both wrong...maybe DaVinici became an Archivist and muddled up the memories of which so that the rest of Archivisism assumes it was one of their own who inhabited him. In the case of Edison, maybe *HE* wasn't a host, but one of his underlings was, who turned around and offered up the 'best ideas' and problom solving solutions.

[Andrew Morris]

I think everyone is really warming to the idea of leaving the setting open enough not only to customize, but to allow in-game disagreements among characters and factions of characters about "what it all means.

I shall respond with a season-appropriate response of, "bah, humbug!" I remain distinctly frosty to the idea of leaving things open. But in the interest of unity, I'm certainly willing to go with the flow. I still maintain that leaving things wide open is leaving the game unfinished, but that's just my personal style and opinion. If, however, you're referring to the ideas where we offer up a few variants and let the players pick one, ignore what I just said -- I'm cool with the "menu" options.

Now, moving on to free will. What's the contention here? Whether Archivist energization of the host dampens free will or not?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Okay, everyone but Andrew. Actually, the ultimate goal is I think to give the menu-of-options approach for various isuses -- albeit the players may not necessarily know which option is the active one in their campaign, allowing them to exist in genuine uncertainty about who's right

Now, moving on to free will. What's the contention here? Whether Archivist energization of the host dampens free will or not?

That's a relevant issue, actually, although not the immediate one at hand. The question of the moment is whether Free Will is an aspect of Transcendence or a separate thing (in game-mechanical terms). If Free Will is an aspect of Transcendence, that implies that Transcendence lifts you above everything that might restrict your decisions; if Free Will is separate, that implies Transcendence can bring you face-to-face with Terrible Truths that compell you to act a certain way.

How would this impact on the possession dynamics? Well, if Free Will is an aspect of Transcendence, then anything the Archivist did to impart a little Transcendence to the Host would presumably increase the Host's Free Will, and thus ability to resist the Archivist (note we're not talking about just channeling powers through the Host, here, but about actually sharing them with or having them "rub off" on the Host). If Free Will is separate from Transcendence, then conceivably revealing Terrible Truths to the Host could blast his/her mind and reduce Free Will. Both of which are interesting dilemmas.

Either way you go, though, if the Archivist just uses the Host as a conduit for its own power (as opposed to somehow sharing/donating/enlightening the Host by giving him or her  a bit of Transcendence) that could do bad things to Free Will.

Hmm. That was much clearer in my mind than on the page.... it's this damned head cold, sorry.

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, Sydney, I think I have it.  My first thought is that free will is tied to Transcendence, but inversely. The higher the Transcendence, the lower the free will. Just to check, though, we're talking about the free will of the host?

[daMoose_Neo]

I'd say the Free Will has to be tied to the Host.
And actually, not a bad idea (Re:Inverse).
OO!

The Archivist must somehow hammer down the Host's Free Will to a balanceable point: where the Arch can guide the host and take action when needed, but not enough to Destroy the Host. BECAUSE-
High Free Will means the Host is free to believe whatever they want. If they hear a voice, they can think anything from hearing someone else across the street to "OMG I'm Crazy!"
The Arch can Fade itself to transfer some Trancendant Quality to the host (Knowledge of the Truth, Kewl Powerz, whatever the groups decide is fair currency) to get the Host to realize "Wait, this is really happening...".

Too much Trancendence into a Host runs 2 Risks:
1) Driving the Host under and the Archivist practically moving in (and losing their own Trancendant Status) or
2) Fading out themselves and the Host acending to Trancendance.

I'm seeing the free will, at the moment, as the Host's ability to accept or reject the Archivist. Too much free will and they can drown the Arch out. Just enough and the Host realizes they're in a position "I have to do this because the fate of the world now rests on my shoulders" (Which, to my mind, constitutes little "Free" choice in the matter). Too little, and the Host is nothing but a motivationless Zombie, possibly now inhabited by a former Archivist (which could place a distinction between Archivists and DA's- the DA's immedietly drown the Host and Take Over).

Thus I see two stats: Host:Free Will, Archivist:Trancendance.
Fade is the Archivist lowering the FW with its own Trancendance and granting new abilities/skills/knowledge to the host. Burn is the Archivist hammering down free will for complete control at the risk of locking itself out of the GL.

:Edit:
Now that I look at it, I just mangled your idea Andrew ^_^ Ah well, this is one possibility.
Just thought too, I saw (someones) post where they have like "Hates Everyone (2)", "Likes Puppies (3)" type  thing...this can tie very well to the above concept: Fade takes points off the Archivists traits and transfers them to the Host (IE "Knowledge of Cosmos" (5) on an Archivist becomes (4) and the Host earns Knowledge of Cosmos (1), while losing a point of Free Will. Burn takes those off the Host, as well as the FW, thus losing options for the riding Archivist.
Doing something via Fade, the Archivist can still make use of the Host's traits. Burning the Host however, eliminates those traits while keeping the Archivist's traits intact. They run the risk of locking themselves out of the GL somehow though when they Burn through...

[Sydney Freedberg]

Aha. I hadn't even thought of it in these terms, but the two ways of defining Free Will (as an aspect of Transcendence or as an independent variable) give two very different answers to Nate's and Andrew's thoughts in the last two posts.

I'm going to try to take this step-by-step, so (1) feel free to object to any step and (2) be tolerant of my tendency to do lists with (1s) and (2s) in them. (So I'm compulsive. Hey, it's my main qualification for Foot).

First, some underlying assumptions (of mine; others may debate them):
(1) Under either model, "Free Will" is an attribute of Hosts and other humans -- it's meaningless for Archivists (including, I'd argue, NPC Archivists) because (a) they're the protagonists (b) no one's able to Possess them.
(2) Under either model, an Archivist exercising its Transcendent abilities through the Host -- i.e. using the Host as a channel -- doesn't have an impact on the Host's Free Will. Pouring too much power through the Host may Burn them, possibly unto death, but it's not affecting their Free Will because it's not swaying them to make a choice one way or another -- they're a merely passive participant.

So what we're talking about is an Archivist imparting Transcendence to a mortal human -- possibly at the cost of Burn along the way -- which is the "Archivist-as-muse" or "enlightenment" or "satori" concept. (Note this presumes that yes, mortal humans can have some degree of Transcendence, however it may manifest).

And in the Satori Scenario, we have two very different outcomes depending on how we define the relationship between Transcendence and Free Will:

(1) If Free Will is an aspect of Transcendence -- i.e. if knowing the Big Truth about the Cosmos inherently liberates you from all the constraints of existence ("the truth will set you free") -- then every time an Archivist plays muse and imparts Transcendence to a Host, that Host's increased Transcendence means increased Free Will -- which makes the Host harder to control.

(2) If Free Will is not linked to Transcendence -- i.e. if knowing the Big Truth about the Cosmos can sometimes set your mind free and sometimes blast it with the awful knowledge of What You Must Do -- then when an Archivist imparts Transcendence to a Host, it does not necessarily impact Free Will at all. It could increase it, decrease it, or leave it unaffected, depending on the circumstances.

So this is another area in which the answer to the question "is Free Will an Aspect of Transcendence?" has a big impact. Which is why I keep coming relentlessly back to that question. All roads of inquiry keep leading us back to that particular Rome; we have to resolve it before we can move on.