[WoD 2.0] Moral(ity) Quandry

[Robert Bohl]

Something you can't do now, but it might be worth considering in the future; Have yoyu considered asking the players whether they actually want to make a Morality roll for thier character or just take a Fail without Derangement.

Hm.  I don't know about fail without derangement, but maybe institute Morality loss and derangements when we all feel it's appropriate narratively.  I'll consider that.  Thanks.

I am increasingly starting to think of making a Hunter's Heart Merit that essentially gives you a second Virtue that relates to defeating the efforts of a given type of supernatural creature.

Not familiar with the system. If I understand correctly, it doesn't however include player choice in these morality check situations. The check is an objective property of the rules, and has nothing to do with characters.

In what sense do you mean "player choice"?  Do you mean it doesn't allow for a player to say, "No, I don't think I deserve a ding in Morality for that action?"  Technically it does not, but the social contract of any given table will obviously have a roll in that.  It does not say, "Do not let the players get away with not losing Morality."  The system is actually very nonspecific about the nature of the different sin levels, which is an explicit attempt to give you (you probably meaning the Storyteller by default but again, social contracts) the ability to interpret these "sins" more freely.

Means effectively that the character's morality score goes down until it's down enough so that killing vampires won't bother him anymore. Does he still get derangements in that situation? If not, where's the problem?

A brief primer:  When you commit an act that is at or below your Morality, you roll a number of dice based on the level of that sin (so a sin at Morality 2 gives you only 2 dice where a sin at Morality 4 gives you 3 dice).  You need to get at least one success (8 or better on a 10-sided die), and if the act relates to your Virtue (the Judeo-Christian Seven Heavenly Virtues) you gain an additional die (or in extreme circumstances, up to three).  If you succeed, no problem.  If you fail, you lose a point of Morality.  You then roll your new Morality as a dice pool.  If you get at least one success on that roll, you're fine.  If you fail, you get a derangement.

So basically, the lower you go, the better your chances of going crazy.

The rules say that this die result means that the character feels this way, but the player won't be having it. Fundamental disagreement with the rules

Let me quote exactly what the books say.

[*] "If the roll succeeds, the character's overall sense of compassion remains intact. . . ."
[*] "If the degeneration roll fails, your character's sense of right and wrong is altered by his experience. . . . His soul hardens to the needs of others and he becomes inured to greater acts of selfishness or violence."[/list:u]Technically, the only narrative direction in the rules is a failed roll means you harden.  The question is how to describe the success as something other than guilt, that does not make it indistinguishable from a failed roll.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear about that.

Talk with your players about the themes and ideas you want to see in the game. If the players do not dig the themes you like, it won't be happening, whatever the rules. It's not even a choice of balancing anything, you have literally no say in the matter at all. The best you can get is mute players watching as you play with yourself if you try to introduce theme against their wishes.

I think you have a misapprehension about how our table dynamics are working out.  That's fair, you don't know us.

If the players are presenting a hard stance and/or unified front, yeah, what you say above is correct.  The thing is, I actually have had this conversation (or at least part of it).  Two of the players don't seem to have a problem with this.  And the player in question here only has a problem with it with regard to killing "monsters".  They all seem to agree that they should degenerate as they commit violent acts, and this player even said he likes the idea of a hunter as a psychologically damaged person.

Now you're just prattling nonsense. It's clearly not a moral question you're concerned with, it's a moral dictum.

There is absolutely no call for that kind of attitude, okay?  I welcome dialogue but try and be polite, please.  I was afraid of this kind of hostile reaction, which is why I was hesitant about asking around here.  I had hoped my request at the top of the thread would help avoid this sort of thing.

You are correct, it's not a question of whether it's right or whether it's wrong to kill sentient humanoids.  You are incorrect to say that both the rules and I say that it's wrong, we are both merely saying that making those choices leads to psychological degeneration.  The moral question here is, is it right to kill monsters, even though they're sentient creatures?  They're undeniably monsters that feed on humanity--literally.  But they're also intelligent creatures with their own hopes, dreams and fears.  And emotions.  They can be terrified of the oblivion you are pushing them into.  Reframe it as criminals instead of monsters and perhaps what I find interesting about these questions will become clearer to you.  Criminals feed off of people (though usually not literally).  Does that make it right to kill them?

I consider this to be an interesting dramatic tension.  It's one of the themes I'd like to play with.

I get the feeling you think I am imposing my will unilaterally on my friend.  Doesn't the fact that I'm here and I'm discussing it belie that?  Should I just do whatever he wants?  Why does his desire as a player unilaterally negate my desire as a player, or the desires of other players?

Or is your irritation directed at this system you find odious?

The truth is, though, this isn't even necessarily about the player.  This player feels that his character doesn't see monsters as the same as people.

[Robert Bohl]

Dialetic: One thing is true becaus the other is not true, I.E., humans are against killing so killing makes humans feel bad; if a person is not hurt by his killing, it must be because they become less human.

Ah.  Well, no, the stat isn't called Humanity.  That's the vampire thing.  The operating theory here is committing acts that cause suffering to other sentient creatures are likely to lead you to psychological breakdown.

As to the questions of what the derangements do, all sorts of things.  Lower level ones, and the most common penalty, tend to focus on losing some dice in Social rolls, sometimes generally, sometimes only under specific circumstances.  Others lead to aberrant behavior that will draw attention.  Some might shut you down under certain circumstances.  Some are more annoying than others, some are very flavorful and would be fun to play.

I would never just drop a derangement on someone, btw.  I would negotiate it with them.

[mindwanders]

I need to point out that I haven't read the rules for this, so I may be way off base.

I think the problem that Euro is having is that the fact that it looks like you have already decided (with the aid of the morality list in the book) whether killing monsters causes a descent into madness.

Anything that you decide goes on that list of things people need to roll for is required by the rules of the game to be a "Sin". The whole question aspect needs to be placed before the dice roll is called for, otherwise you are dictating the morality of the character through the dice roll rather than letting the player or character choose.

Maybe you should allow each player to try and argue his case as to why he shouldn't have to roll his morality in this specific situation. If he can win over the rest of the party and yourself then he doesn't have to roll because it's not actually a sin. This might work a lot better for getting the players actually thinking about morality and exploring what is and isn't acceptable.

Not sure if this is something that's workable in your game, however I think it might bring morality and moral judgement more to the fore.

[Robert Bohl]

I think the problem that Euro is having is that the fact that it looks like you have already decided (with the aid of the morality list in the book) whether killing monsters causes a descent into madness.

Well, that killing sentient creatures can (that is, only may not definitely does) cause a descent into madness.

But that's a known rule of the game, so I could just as well say, "You've arbitrarily made the decision that not wearing armor means you're going to get damaged."

Now, behavioral rules are arguably different, but I did make clear my interpretation of the rules, and how I was going to play it.  The player in question didn't balk at my interpretation, per se.  He said that his character didn't see killing monsters as the same as killing people.

Either the rules can be changed, or something can be done narratively to make it work (or some combination thereof).  I feel it would be damaging to the mood of the game for one to be able to kill anything you like without psychological consequence.  That's in-mood for something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer or D&D, but it's not the mood of World of Darkness, or the chronicle we've set up.  I feel that that has been made clear before the game to the players, and during the game where necessary.  So it's not like this was dropped from on high.

[Callan S.]

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 do not want the "world" to "say" that killing intelligent creatures is okay just because they're different from you.

The world isn't saying that, your player is. It's because you used the system, but his responce ended up replacing what the world/the ruleset says, that the world says this (for now). Your players ended up putting words in the worlds mouth (he had no choice, if he wanted to nar it)

I think your going to have to partition. I think weve all done something, but perhaps felt bad or good about it even though this conflicted with how we wanted to feel (like feeling nothing at a funeral for example). I think here your going to have to make it clear to the player that his PC feels as he feels, but his mind can be in disharmony and some other part feels differently (even though this will annoy the PC). It's sort of like doing somthing fun, but stubbing your toe. Just because you feel happy doesn't mean your toe isn't in pain...its just not important to you.

Basically just like the player addressed premise by killing the monster, he should also address premise with this effect, saying how he feels about this abberant feeling. He can treat it just like a leg wound and ignore it utterly...but that's still an address of premise and says something about his PC.

Get what I mean?

[Robert Bohl]

First, no, it's not really Narrativism vs. Simulationism.  Something people seem to keep missing is the player is saying the character doesn't feel guilty killing monsters.  I'm not a GNS-savant, but it seems more like he's got a simulationist concern here.  He's worked out exquisitely how Harris feels about things.  He doesn't feel it accurately simulates Harris's personality for him to feel guilt over killing this monster.  He is not disputing the potential Morality loss (at least not in this circumstance).  He's got a problem with the narration of, "Harris feels guilty about this killing."  So again, the problem is how to narrate a non-loss of humanity as something other than coldness or guilt.

I do not want the "world" to "say" that killing intelligent creatures is okay just because they're different from you.

The world isn't saying that, your player is.

Not really, no.  He's saying his character feels that way.  But Harris's personal feelings and what the rules of human psychology are in the game are different.

Also, I think that in deciding how to interpret the Morality rules, we decide what the world says is degenerative and what is not degenerative.

In D&D you wade through hundreds of hobgoblins who have babies and wives and lop off their heads.  No consequences other than maybe getting killed.  The world is saying evil is evil and there's no problem with killing it.

In World of Darkness, you're faced with undead bloodsuckers playing games with humanity and sometimes murdering them at their whim.  But these creatures are still intelligent, feeling, living beings.  When you kill them, you run the risk of losing your sanity over the long term.  The world is saying that causing suffering to sentient creatures leads to psychological degeneration.

--

I'm in the midst of writing some mail to this player.  Hopefully this will help resolve it.

[Robert Bohl]

The email to my player:

The core of the problem here is we've already described Manny's morality loss when he went hog-wild in the store as, "I don't know why I ever had a problem with this, this is okay."  Now Harris has SUCCEEDED at a Morality check, how do we describe it?

Winning the Morality check, according to the book, just says, "If the roll succeeds, the character's overall sense of compassion remains intact. . . ."  If that satisfies you, we don't need to narrate how you feel about it (though I am stymied as to what to put in the story hour).

If you prefer, we can say that you experience guilt over the death of the fetus, the effect this will have on Vickie's friends, family and boyfriend, whatever.  Or we can just leave it inscruitable and say "fuck it".

In the long term, I think I'm going to develop a Merit.  Preliminarily I'm calling it Hunter's Heart.  Here's a first pass, not sure about any of this:

Mental Merit

Hunter's Heart (* *)

Effect:  Your character's psychological makeup is such that he is able to more easily cope with the suffering of a particular kind of supernatural being.  This may be due to ignorance (perhaps willful) of the creature's nature and sentience, a religious or ideological framework that stresses the otherness of this type of supernatural creature, etc.

While your character is not immune to the psychologically degenerative effects of inflicting suffering on supernatural sentient creatures, he is better able to cope with the consequences of it.  A character with Merit essentially has a secondary, very specialized Virtue which applies only to Morality checks with regard to this one type of supernatural creature.  As per Virtues and Degeneration (p. 92), he gains a bonus of +1 die to your degeneration roll to any checks that involve an act committed against the person or property of this type of supernatural creature.

You must specificy which type of supernatural creature your character has become alienated toward when purchasing this Merit (e.g., vampire, werewolf, mage, etc.).  This Merit may be purchased multiple times for different types of supernatural creature.

[Callan S.]

First, no, it's not really Narrativism vs. Simulationism.  Something people seem to keep missing is the player is saying the character doesn't feel guilty killing monsters.  I'm not a GNS-savant, but it seems more like he's got a simulationist concern here.  He's worked out exquisitely how Harris feels about things.  He doesn't feel it accurately simulates Harris's personality for him to feel guilt over killing this monster.  

Narrativism isn't exactly arbitrary. You put a cop who likes killing criminals in front of a crim and he'll shoots them, all the time. The player worked out the cop likes killing crims. That doesn't make it simulationism unless the whole goal is to just enjoy depicting a dirty harry lifestyle. Now if the crim turns out to be his cousin, it might change...and that's up to the player, not mechanics. And its nar.

I'm not missing that he's saying he doesn't feel guity about about killing monsters. That's why I'm bringing up the whole narrativist angle here. It is, in fact something for both of us to look at again, you and me. He's saying his PC doesn't feel guilty for this act...isn't this interesting in itself? Something to examine in future stories...like with the cop and facing his cousin the crim, this PC could face a monster who is close to heart.

But currently your looking for interesting results from this morality mechanic, trying to apply them. Your enjoying some sim or trying to, because these mechanics could show an interesting slide in a world more ambiguous than D&D for example.

He is not disputing the potential Morality loss (at least not in this circumstance).  He's got a problem with the narration of, "Harris feels guilty about this killing."  So again, the problem is how to narrate a non-loss of humanity as something other than coldness or guilt.

I think any descriptor decided on is all to likely to do one side an injustice. And as I said, I think there are two sides in terms of play here. In terms of that I've given my partition idea.

I do not want the "world" to "say" that killing intelligent creatures is okay just because they're different from you.

The world isn't saying that, your player is.

Not really, no.  He's saying his character feels that way.  But Harris's personal feelings and what the rules of human psychology are in the game are different.

From my cop example, in one game the human psychology rules might just determine the cop kills the cousin crim. Or in a similar vein, determine how he feels about the moment, or how he feels about what he did.

In another game, it's left up to the depiction of the player. Both are valid and fun play styles...but don't mix. That's what you've got here and I don't think it'll get toward solved without that understanding.

Anyway, forge policy notes that I shouldn't keep pimping my idea once I've given it and I've said my bit. If you disagree and post, keep in mind if I don't follow up its in keeping with policy rather than quiet assent. :)

PS: Would your player be able to comment here?

[Grover]

In regards to the narrativist/simulationist issue.  This is something I had a problem with for a long time, so I'm speaking up in the hopes that it will clarify things (or maybe I'm trying to spread my confusion - keep reading and find out :)  My original confusion can be found in this thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13211
Slightly related confusion can be found here:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7838

The point (as I understand it right now) is that 'Believability' is not intrinsically a Sim concern.  It is entirely possible for a primarily narratavist player to say 'My character wouldn't do/think that' even in situations where that denies him an opportunity to address the premise.    In fact, character integrity is very important to narratavist players, because a character which isn't believable can't effectively address premise.

I may be off base here - but it seems to me that your player is working on a 'redemption' theme - i.e. here's this guy - he's done lots of bad things, but now he's trying to make the world a better place.  And now the system is telling him that he feels bad about trying to make the world a better place.  This screws up his premise - there's interesting ways to go from here, but they all involve changing the nature of the premise he's trying to explore.  A more compatible narratavist agenda for the mechanic you describe would be 'How do I address the paradox of killing people(monsters) to keep people safe'.

I think a simulationist wouldn't have a problem with the system as you've described it, if he knew going in what the setting was like.  Someone who thought they'd be playing a lower-powered version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer would be upset, because the system does a poor job of simulating Buffys ability to make wisecracks and kill vampires at the same time, but someone who expected a world like Fevre Dream wouldn't have a problem (Great book - read it if you haven't - it's got some interesting ideas about getting along with vampires).

[John Kim]

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.

That doesn't match what I've seen of GNS.  In particular, Sorcerer is a game which is widely considered Narrativist by those who believe in GNS.  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.

[Robert Bohl]

PS: Would your player be able to comment here?

I'm not sure that he'd be interested, and he might think I'm overthinking it.  I'll bring it up to him.

[sirogit]

That doesn't match what I've seen of GNS.  In particular, Sorcerer is a game which is widely considered Narrativist by those who believe in GNS.  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.

[Robert Bohl]

That sounds rather like Morality in World of Darkness.  The game doesn't make a value judgement on it.  You can be doing the things you're doing for a good cause, or even believe that what you're doing is right.  It may in fact be the right thing to do.  That doesn't mean it won't fuckyou up.

Even guys who killed Nazis in WWII came back troubled.

[Trevis Martin]

Hey Rob.

I'd like to submit that you needn't narrate anything for a morality check at all.  The real consequence of loosing Morality in the game is that it brings the character closer to the beast, weather they feel anything in particular or not.  I suggest that in the mere act of making the roll and its result lets everyone who is important, that is yourself and the other players, know of the significance of what has just happened.

You seem to be concerned about descibing to the player the characters feelings and processing of the event as if it were outside that player.  Strictly speaking that is the player's domain and if he insists that there is no conscious reaction to what he has done then there isn't.  The reaction may be subconcious, but, in fact, he has degenrated and everyone knows it.  No description is necessary.  The consequences are real.

If he is disagreeing with your interpretation of the morality scale then that is something you have to work out player to player.

best,

Trevis

[DaGreatJL]

Okay, first off, you stated that there are no other dice that can effect the roll, other than those derived from Virtue. That need not be true.
In the Vampire book, a specific form of Morality called Humanity is used. Starting at the bottom of page 182 and going on to page 183, the book suggests that, instead of making degeneration of Humanity a simple roll, ask the player how they feel about what they did, and apply a bonus or a penalty to the roll because of it. Do they act guilty and try to make up for it? Give them a bonus? Do they act unashamed, and feel no remorse? Apply a penalty. Now, using this system with Morality may help deal with your quandry.

Now, on an interpretation that both honors what the book says without invalidating the players' interpretation of the character: Murder is bad, right? And murdering someone who doesn't pose a threat and is vulnerable is bad, right? So. A failed roll would have had the player feel "I am justified in killing these monsters regardless of the circumstances, because they are monsters."
Maybe when he passed the roll, something that went through his mind was "Killing is bad, and that I had to kill then was bad, but in spite of the apperance of being non-threatening, the creature was still a threat to both me and others, therfore my act was justified this time." This view means he can feel no guilt for the act, has not had his morality become suspect, and though it kind of implies that maybe some circumstance might come up where killing the monster would be wrong, it doesn't truly address the fact (which leaves the player open to act all vicious, and get to make morality rolls for the same damn thing in the future.) This kind of seems like a form of denial; it is certainly an incorrect interpretation of events. However, if the player wishes to consider the character truly ignorant of the fact that the creature was no longer a threat, let him.