[WoD 2.0] Moral(ity) Quandry

[daMoose_Neo]

Your remark earlier about how the first four deaths may be able to slide as long as something helps the player realize that what he's doing is, on some level, wrong, brought up pair of my characters from Twilght to mind.

Kerra Neil is a young woman who's entire life is predicated on the belief that Mages are deadly (yes), dangerous(yes), and a threat to mankind (depends). The teachings of the Order have made her a perfect killing machine. She's got a hard shell about her, but she's not devoid of humanity- she's still thoughtful, courtious, and generous, to humans. She, herself, is something a little more than human and is able to sense Mages by their consumption of power, but is far and away, undeniably human.

Mark Jarus is a vigilante, who grew up on the streets of the city he now patrols. Jarus is also a Mage. Known as a respected citizen, assistant to the New Metro PD, and author of a few insightful books on criminal psychology, Jarus the Citizen is beyond reproach. As Jarus the Vigilante, however, he's breaking the law, but for a just cause. His powers enable him to do things Officers of the city can't, for reasons obvious and those in red tape. He's also a prime target for Kerra, who tracks him as opposed to the true villian who keeps his own power use to a minimum, making Mark a glaring beacon.

Several situations arrise in the novel where Mark and Kerra meet. Before this, Kerra's adopted brother had been killed, as had her parents when she was a child, by Mages. Thus, she has an incredible hatred, incredible skills, and a faultless (by her account) talent for tracking them. Thus, Mark = Sense of Mage = Mage = Monster. Many of these encounters, Mark doesn't fight back at full force as he's unsure of who or what he's dealing with, something he later regrets when badly wounded. It isn't until the end of the story, a final encounter, where Mark stops her dead in her tracks as she's about to attack him, to rescue a vehicle about to fall off a bridge damaged in the duel between the three (Jarus, Kerra and the villian, Charles Faust).
At this point, Kerra reconsiders her position, namely because she let her passion get in the way of truly seeing the world. Not only did her hatred blind her to the fact the Jarus was actually quite similar to her, looking to protect and defend those he loved and those he never knew, but that *not* seeing that almost put others (the vehicle occupants), who had NOTHING to do with the conflict at hand, to suffering. Had she struck that killing blow, the people in the vehicle would have died. THAT is what shakes her up, not that "Oh, he's a good guy", but that "Oh, I almost killed the one thing that kept those innocent bystanders alive."

Being a "Monster" is a perception. Prior to this 'eureka' moment for Kerra, Mark was a monster.
An episode of Angel tackled this somewhat. This kid was possessed Exorcist style and when the demon was driven out and tracked down, he told Angel and the other guy that he had nothing to do with the acts of violence the kid commited. The kid had no soul, the demon was a prisoner of the child, and the kid acted on his own. Sure enough, first chance the kid had, he torched his sisters room with her in it, because earlier in the episode she had more marshmallows in her choco than he did. The demon was a demon, yes, but the kid was the real monster, not the demon.

A de-Monsterising encounter or nemesis may be in order. Without getting too mushy, an example may be a Vampire whos just trying to live an ordinary life. Killing only when neccesary, and in ways that are still humane, a Native American approach to it I suppose. He's still a Vampire, he still needs human blood (none of this cow-blood crap from TV), just that he honors those whose lives he does take, and takes them in a 'humane' way(?).
This players character, like Kerra with Mages, regards the Vampires/supernatural as faceless evil, each wholly like the others. Like Kerra, he needs to some how realize differences exist even among the faceless, they are more like us than we may want to admit.

[TonyLB]

Nate, I disagree.  The player has made his opinion very clear.  Rob already humanized the monsters ("We're having a baby!")  The player is not interested in the moral possibilities that open up when you humanize the monsters.

So, Rob, you fired a shot, it didn't hit.  The player is not interested in that question.  You cannot force him to be interested in that question, though you can make everyone miserable by trying.

If your goal is to play a game with a player who considers this moral question fascinating then you need a new player.

If your goal is to play a game with a moral question this player finds fascinating then you need a new question.

If you think that the player should be interested in the question because you and the rule system are both telling him to... well, you're wrong.  He shouldn't, and he won't.

[John Kim]

Let's consider a parallel case in Sorcerer.  A player makes a Sorcerer PC whose personal philosophy is utilitarian -- i.e. greatest good for the greatest number.  This character believes that there is nothing wrong with summoning and binding demons.  By your logic, Sorcerer is anti-Narrativist, because the system still forces him to make rolls and lose Humanity for summoning a demon.

The Humanity system in Sorcerer is not anti-narrativist because it doesn't dictate character reactions; a character can go believing that it's great to try to benefit as many people as one can even as they summon demons. They just still risky their Humanity and still have the same consequences as everyone else when they hit Humanity 0.

But, as Rob notes, that is identical to the case here.  I'm not familiar with WoD 2.0 more broadly yet, but at least Rob's dilemma here is the same.  The character action (i.e. shooting the pregnant Aswang) was determined by player choice.  Then a roll was made for whether or not he loses Morality on the basis of that action.  

Perhaps an answer for Sorcerer would be enlightening here.  Suppose you have the utilitarian sorcerer I described, and after commiting some morally questionable act (whether summoning a demon or otherwise), he has to make a Humanity roll.  Do you narrate differently based on whether he makes his Humanity roll or not?  That's essentially Rob's question.

Edited to add: TonyLB, would the same apply to the above Sorcerer PC?  i.e. The shot of whether summoning demons is bad missed the player, so maybe they should try a different system?

[Marco]

Uh, isn't this just classic narrativist Vs simulationist clash?

The player has addressed the premise and made his choice, even saying how he feels. Nar.

While Rob has a system that will let him explore how this PC feels, what his mind goes through and is eager to explore that. Sim.

And what's happening is the players responce is jarring the sim result, screwing it up.

I think this illustrates the problem with mapping GNS CA's, a measure of what was enjoyed/reinforced in a session, to player objectives of play. Objectives of play or preferred techniques are (usually) not expressed in terms of CA, but, instead technique ("I want a game that feels like 'bein-there!"). The question of a pregnant monster is certainly one rich with premise. A pat decision that a monster-is-a-monster is, IMO, side-stepping that question entirely.

A mechanic that makes a statement about what the consequences of that action are but does not prevent that action is well within (perhaps iconic to) the Narrativist spectrum (to argue that there should not be consequences if the player doesn't feel there should be is to present Narrativism as Munchkinsim--see the Places to Go People to Be essay).

More importantly, though, 'My Opinion' doesn't matter in terms of a GNS-assessment of player intent. If the player grooves on the moral gray area of an amoral hunter gunning down a pregnant sentient ("Man, wait unitl this guy's eyes are opened by running into a Vampire who sees humans the same way but in reverse!") then it's Narrativism. If the 'point' is declared to be ... I don't know ... 'Playing a hunter'? Then it's Sim (maybe--assuming that the point of playing-a-hunter is meant to exclude reveling in the moral gray areas playing-a-hunter would, IMO, logically entail).

What's happening here is a clash of vision about whether a game-rule penalty should be applied in the face of in-game context--that's a technique level issue which could apply to any CA (as they all can).

My Solution To Describing Degeneration: My description would be that of a sort of blood-red power-trip. Maybe he feels physically sexually excited by the killing. Maybe he feels 'righteous' and 'electric'--he feels he is truly (GM's voice drips with rumbling energy, and, perhaps, condemnation) doing God's will--he has become a vengeful instrument of the universe.

Then, next time he's in a diner, he sees a preganant woman and her boyfriend--no wedding ring--and catches himself fantasizing about setting them on fire for their sins. Is he repulsed by this? His choice. Does he do it--his choice ... but man, the image feels *right*!

-Marco

[TonyLB]

Marco:  Are you saying that the GM would tell the player that his character fantasizes about this?

What if the player responds (very justly, IMHO) that his character did not gain a Derangement, and therefore should not be having visions and fantasies foisted on him by the GM?

[Robert Bohl]

DaGreatJL, your comments were very helpful and are exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.  Thank you.

TonyLB: Again, the player is not disinterested in the question, the character is.  The character does not acknowledge that vampires (or in this case, Aswang) are anything like humans.

Marco: I really like your description, but that sounds like the result of a failed degeneration roll, doesn't it?  A successful degeneration check means that nothing's changed for you.  That's why a guilty patch with eventual recovery was my default notion for this.

--

Incidentally, I am very glad that the general tone of this discussion is coming around.  I feel like people are finally understanding me and addressing my concern.  Thank you all.

[TonyLB]

The player is interested in the question, but cannot explore it (yet) because the character is not.  So this is strictly a question of "What do we do with this one encounter?", because eventually you and he and the character will all end up on the same page.  Yes?  Just making sure I understand.

If so... why are you even worrying about this problem?  It's his problem, not yours.  You're working toward a shared agenda, and you've done your part.  Now it's time for you to give him the space to do his.

Why say any more than this: "I assume you have a plan for the eventual development of the character.  Is there anything I can do to help make this most recent hunt, which I put a good amount of effort into framing, an important part of that ongoing evolution?"

[Marco]

Marco: I really like your description, but that sounds like the result of a failed degeneration roll, doesn't it?  A successful degeneration check means that nothing's changed for you.  That's why a guilty patch with eventual recovery was my default notion for this.

You are correct--I misunderstood the situation. A possible ammendment would be to describe things to that character in-line with his black-and-white world view (i.e. there are men, and there are monsters--and then describe the couple in the diner as monstrous to him). The only real point of that, however, would be GM editoralizing on the player's take on morality--and I think that rather than moving in that direction there is a deeper problem to be resolved. See below:

Tony: My misunderstanding was that the character had failed a degeneration check but was unhappy with the circumstances that required it due to his character conception.

If the player agreed that what he did was evil but felt that grief was wrong for the character then another expression of that evil would, IMO, be appropriate.

If the player and I disagreed on what we considered 'evil' then I think the game would have to halt until that was resolved. In terms of your question, I used the term fantasizing in the sense of "having a vision"--the player and character reaction to it could be anything from revulsion to seeing it as a sign.

So in the sense I meant, yes I would. I'm not sure in what sense you meant.

-Marco

[Robert Bohl]

I am leaning more and more toward asking him to work it out.  "It's not guilt, it's not just cold acceptance, so what is it?"  I guess it could be cold acceptance but that doesn't feel nice and narratively distinct enough to me.  Anyway, that's probably how I'm going to run this.

[daMoose_Neo]

Well, Tony, with the details of the situation given, I can side with the player on the "Monster is a Monster". Yea, she's having a baby. Another little blood sucking terror. Better to get two with one shot and prevent that 'child' from becoming an adult when letting them go. Besides, both of them had tried to kill him as well without thinking twice. Two birds, one stone. Ripley does the same in Aliens, taking out the queen and her brood, using the eggs as a bargining chip then toasting the lot of them.

I can *see* where the character is. He's had no reason to believe that the Vampires were anything but evil, and thats why he doesn't see the problem. For example, Hitler loved children. He greatly enjoyed being around the kids of his understaff. Who'd have thought? If you had Hitler with a gun to his head an he shouted "I really like Kids!" I'd imagine most people would still pull the trigger. Pregancy/soft spots in monsters are humanizing, but they don't really make them human, especially to someone who is hunting them for whatever vengeful reason.

[Robert Bohl]

I'm not saying killing her wasn't the smart and safe thing to do.  I'm not even saying that killing her was the morally wrong thing to do.  After all, this woman was responsible for the murders of hundreds of people (maybe even thousands, the math works out to about 2 people per week, 104 people a year, 1040 people in 10 years, etc.).  And if it was a girl in her belly, once she hit puberty it would be another 104 people dying a year.  So killing her was probably the best possible thing to do.

That doesn't mean it doesn't fuck you up to do it.

[daMoose_Neo]

No, but there is a degree of rationalizing happening. The character now could easily not be affected, just as the player said. He can go about his life, kill another Vampire next week and be perfectly cool.
Soldiers have one thing happening here that isn't true of this character; its not that far of a jump to envision the life of your enemy before the conflict. Thus, you get conflicts because "Hes trying to kill me! Well, I'm trying to kill him...but I have a family, wife and kids, back home! But so does he..."

If the character can't see any of that in his enemy, he'll have no reason to feel guilt. Its like the guy who works for insect exterminators. Do they feel bad for the termites, even though they are destructive little buggers? Nope.

[Grover]

It seems to me that a large part of this conflict is caused by calling the relevant stat 'morality'.  It was troublesome for me because I believe that the moral thing to do in the situation was to kill the monster.  It's counterintuitive that you do the moral thing, and your morality drops.  On the other hand, if the stat was called something like 'empathy', then it would make a lot more sense - after all, even if it was the moral thing to do, it also involved killing a sentient being who didn't appreciate being killed.
 To get back to the original issue, as I understand it:
1) Character A steals from people - fails check - this is described as character A realizing that stealing isn't bad
2) Character B kills monster - passes check - this is described as character B believing that killing monsters isn't bad
 
 This is counterintuitive because the description looks the same for opposite results.  What I would do is append Character B's reaction to a realization that killing people isn't bad _because they were (monsters/ a threat to other people-leave this up to the character).  Either way - the distinction here is that Character B is making a nuanced judgement about killing - sometimes it's good (like now) but usually it's bad.  Character A, on the other hand, thinks that stealing is unconditionally good - the only reason not to do it is because you might be caught.

[Robert Bohl]

Well, we did involve some nuance in the stealing one.  "This company makes so much money all the time anyway, they can stand to lose a little now.  They're insured."  That probably shouldn't have happened, though, because at 6 Morality (which is what Manny's at now), petty theft will never cause him heartache again.

But thank you, Grover.  That's exactly the problem I'm facing and that may be a useful way to deal with it.

[Trevis Martin]

It seems to me that a large part of this conflict is caused by calling the relevant stat 'morality'.  It was troublesome for me because I believe that the moral thing to do in the situation was to kill the monster.  It's counterintuitive that you do the moral thing, and your morality drops.  On the other hand, if the stat was called something like 'empathy', then it would make a lot more sense - after all, even if it was the moral thing to do, it also involved killing a sentient being who didn't appreciate being killed.

I feel compelled to point out here that in the relevent section for Morality in WoD is

"Morality reflects a character's sense of compassion for a fellow human being and a basic respect for the rule of law." (p91)"  I agree that the name could be troublesome but the definition seems pretty clear.

best,

Trevis