First, an-intended-to-be-polite and hopefully-not-seen-as-snarky request: If you hate the World of Darkness's Morality system, I would rather this not turn into a thread railing against that. Suggested ways to manage it, or even to tinker with it and improve it, are welcome. As are any other comments. Thank you. Now, to set the scene:

Faith/Wrath, Morality 7 guy stands above an Aswang who had taken a chunk out of his forearm, shoulder and neck with the hot muzzle of a flare gun inches away from the back of her skull. It is only luck that got him here, as he was moments away from being another corpse in a desert cave full of them. She's crying and cradling the body of her unconscious lover who tried to take out the gunsel's friends. She had been fleeing but after taking a few shots that also spattered on her lover, she stoppped and made a plea for their lives. "Please, let us be, we'll leave you alone!" she howls, crying.

He fires the flare into the back of her head and simultaneously she cries, "We're pregnant!" The flare turns her head into a living Jack 'O Lantern.

--

This is murder, in my opinion, and the player rolls the two dice for the sin, but manages to avoid degeneration. The player insists his character sees absolutely nothing wrong with this. Even though she was no longer an immediate threat to him, she is a monster.

So my problem is this: how do I narrate this moment? My read of the various consequences of a Morality check are:

Success: the guilt assails you but you manage to find equilibrium in the end.

Failure w/o derangement: You come to realize what you did was okay, and you are able to assimilate it into your psyche successfully.

Failure w/ derangement: You cut off part of yourself and let it deal with all such problems in the future. As a psycholgical amputee, you don't "look" like the other folks.

--

The player, however, is rejecting categorically that his character would feel bad about this. I don't want to override him. How should I narrate this successful degeneration check?

I don't want to pull the, "That's what the rules say and this is the game we agreed to play," card. I welcome sharing narrative control to varying extents in different contexts (and the one area where I respect and value it most has to do with narrating a character's psychological reactions to any given event). This is also one of my best friends, and I want him to enjoy the game.

This might come down to a philosophical disagreement. The player said to me, "If someone came into my house, and I had a gun, I wouldn't have a problem shooting him."

I said to him, "You may think that, but how do you know? Maybe you'd be psycholgically damaged by that. After all, even soldiers in war, who are killing people who are trying to kill them, are damaged by the experience."

This player wants his character to be a hunter. I further pointed out to him that I was going to consider the planning of the killing of a sentient being who poses no immediate (and especially if they pose no eventual) threat to you an act of premeditated murder, even if they're a monster.

I said, "You could certainly have a hunters game where you blow away monsters willy-nilly without consequence, but that's not as satisfying to me as something more psychologically realistic."

He agreed with this. So he's not completely inflexible. His point I guess is that killing monsters is different from killing people. Or at least that his character would feel that way.

What should I do? I am thinking maybe of a Merit that gives you a couple of bonus dice to degeneration checks if you're killing the monster of choice.

More importantly, and more immediately, how does that roll get described. That's the vitally important concern I have right now.

An elaboration on one facet of the issue to follow in an ensuing post (copies and pastes and then edits of a parallel discussion on the White Wolf World of Darkness forum). I will also add and edit appropriately anything that comes up over there that might be helpful or relevant here.

An elaboration on the desire to make the character a hunter:

The player was pretty dispirted out of game when I had the supernatural revealed so quickly to his character. In the very first session the characters discovered something supernatural that Harris's (the character in question) senses would not let him deny had happened.

The player had foreseen a longer and slower buildup to something actually supernatural plopping down in front of his eyes in such an unambiguous way. (Unambiguous in terms of whether it was supernatural or not, not unabmiguous in what it meant--they still don't know that). He saw the character's entire life leading up to this point, and having that given to him so easily was a major downer. The player really loved the character. He intends to write stories about him (outside of the World of Darkness) and told me about 1/4-in-jest that he likes Harris more than he likes some actual people. He felt like Harris had lost his narrative purpose and was thinking of retiring him.

At the end of the penultimate session, he got undeniable-to-him evidence of the existence of vampires. The player found a new reason for the character to exist, a target for his Wrath Vice, and maybe even a way to escape his dark secret (compulsive violence toward hookers). His hate and unfocused and self-destructive and self-endangering rage would be transferred to the extermination an example of unimitgaged and unarguable evil in the world: vampires. Evil has been given form for him. Something concrete can be done about this shitty world.

I don't want to take this all away from him. I don't want to tell him, "No, the game says you can't do that." I don't think it does, either. I just have to figure out how to make it work for him, and me, and the other guys at the table.

It seems to me that your player has already narrated the results for you: the character rationalized the killing to himself as not counting because it was 'only' a monster. "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" didn't become a pop-psychology commonplace by accident; denial is a very commonplace response to psychological trauma.

If that's what it takes, I'm willing to settle for that explanation. However, I am reluctant. Faililng a degeneration check, losing a point of Morality, but not getting a derangment feels like the perfect opportunity to say, "You're okay with this. It had to be done." I've already used it previously, in fact, when a guy who'd been a petty thief all his life finally got a Morality ding for it.

How do I narratively distinguish between a character losing Morality and one that goes through the same thing, but does not? That "I'm okay with it" thing was my dividing line. If I go with that, what's the distinction?

It seems (from reading between the lines of your prose) that you're less concerned with this particular "in the moment" outcome than you are with the possibility if the same situation happens every single time.

So, in short, is it okay with you for the character to rationalize this killing, and the next three, if the fourth helps him realize that he's been rationalizing, and causes him to reconsider the previous actions?

TonyLB wrote: It seems (from reading between the lines of your prose) that you're less concerned with this particular "in the moment" outcome than you are with the possibility if the same situation happens every single time.

TonyLB wrote: So, in short, is it okay with you for the character to rationalize this killing, and the next three, if the fourth helps him realize that he's been rationalizing, and causes him to reconsider the previous actions?

I should probably add that I am also worried about the player eventually chafing under the onus of these "rules" that he, the player, may not agree with. I'm not sure what can be done about that though.

One of the things you can do, if you want the player not to chafe, is to consult him. Now we have answers to two of the questions for his character -- because these don't need to be the answers for all of the characters in the chronicle:

Successful check: rationalize the act
Failed check w/ derangements: well, the character gets derangements

So you only have to fill in the blank for narrating a failed check w/out derangements. Maybe the failed check leads to the guilt and the sleepless nights, with an eventual rearrangement of moral priorities. Collaborate with the player on how this works out, and you should be good to go.

I think this consultation/negotation is how you balance the two desires. I suspect that if the loss of control of the character is the result of a failed roll then the player will be happier with it -- but you have a better idea of how the player will react than me.

And you preserve the sense by calling for checks. The rolling of the dice confirm that something is at stake, but without dictating the result. I suspect your initial suggestion of allowing characters a merit to reduce the effect of morality tests w/r/t monsters might be useful if the player is feeling a little hosed.

Good suggestions, all.

I like the idea of a Morality drop without a derangement as a "cold around the heart" moment. You say, "Yeah, that's okay. Nothing to worry about." It feels right to me. Maybe I could continue to use it that way for the other characters.

Its part of a problem with the Morality system.

A) It describes results of the check in game with a dialectic choice, they rejected the act as evil and regret it, or they shrugged it off and said it was okay for them to do that and become more evil.

B) The choice is decided by a die roll. A character's ability to see the errors of their ways is aided by several factors such as how much of a good idea it was and how much they were following their vices and virtues, things that should have the directly oppoiste effect of proving to the chararcter is what bad to do.

Now, in order to recouncil your wanting the in-game dialectic choice, and wanting to give the player the ability to express no remorse for vampires, I see two options.

1) Give him more leash, and tell him that his character can express the regret of "I'm going to hell for this, but I'm going to take them with me."

2) Allow him to purposefully miss a Morality check. Therby it is a challenge to regret an act, but easy to shrug it off.

As towards establishing that his character with these perpetual actions -should- have a low Morality, you can tell him that you have interpreted to the rules to say that all killing humanoids is murder, and that does not become acceptable to someone except at Morality 4 or whatever.

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.

Strikes me that had you had a conversation with the player about this before he made the roll he might have just said he thought his character would fail and be happy with that.

Just an alternate way of handling it.

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.

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?

That is, unless you change the rules. It sounds to me that you'd want a rules system where player choice does matter in what's wrong and what's not. And more importantly, you feel that the player should get to decide about the psychological impact, too. I quote:

The player, however, is rejecting categorically that his character would feel bad about this. I don't want to override him. How should I narrate this successful degeneration check?

How do I describe this specific successful degeneration check without making it indistinguishable from past and future failed degeneration checks?

How do I balance my desire to take advantage of the thematically-appropriate, satisfying and interesting theme/idea/whatever that committing violence and generally being shitty to people will degrade your psychological integrity with

my desire to respect my friend's wishes, make the game fun for him, and not bleed off his enthusiasm by doing something worse than telling him how to play his character (i.e., telling him how his character feels about something (which would strike me as the absolute most extreme instance of taking away player control))?

How do I preserve a sense that killing sentient creatures is a moral question, even if they're non-human, even if they're monsters?

sirogit wrote: A) It describes results of the check in game with a dialectic choice, they rejected the act as evil and regret it, or they shrugged it off and said it was okay for them to do that and become more evil.

B) The choice is decided by a die roll. A character's ability to see the errors of their ways is aided by several factors such as how much of a good idea it was and how much they were following their vices and virtues,

sirogit wrote: how much they were following their vices and virtues, things that should have the directly oppoiste effect of proving to the chararcter is what bad to do.

sirogit wrote: Now, in order to recouncil your wanting the in-game dialectic choice,

sirogit wrote: and wanting to give the player the ability to express no remorse for vampires,

sirogit wrote: 1) Give him more leash, and tell him that his character can express the regret of "I'm going to hell for this, but I'm going to take them with me."

sirogit wrote: 2) Allow him to purposefully miss a Morality check. Therby it is a challenge to regret an act, but easy to shrug it off.

As towards establishing that his character with these perpetual actions -should- have a low Morality, you can tell him that you have interpreted to the rules to say that all killing humanoids is murder, and that does not become acceptable to someone except at Morality 4 or whatever.

By the by, I came to wonder: what do the derangements do, then? If the player is nitpicky and doesn't want derangements, is there a reason for that? I would think that there's quite a bunch of possible mental illnesses that would work pretty well for a monster hunter:
- Sociopathy: obvious, really. When you can't know who is a monster, how much are you going to trust your fellow man?
- Paranoia: yeah, the same reasoning.
- Flashbacks: not any guild kind of flashes, just pure carnage. Wake up in the night, sweating at the memory of the vampire breeding chamber and it's inhumanity. The hunter is human after all, and surely he's afraid?
- Dependency: well, why not? When you gotta keep up with the bastards for three days and nights, a little stimulant isn't so bad an idea.

Anyway, the point is that the simplest way to go on is to demand that the player realize his vision within the rules you've agreed to use. So objectively speaking he'll soon be Morality 2 with a couple of derangements, but so what? If the derangements complement the character, what's wrong? At that point they're not derangements, they're a part of the character's nature. To be a monster hunter in the NWOD clearly requires being a somewhat paranoid sociopath.

Alternatively, I still see it as the simplest option to just give him immunity against derangement and allow him to skip straight to Morality 2. It's your game, use the rules in a way that makes it fun.

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.

I think mindwanders suggestion solves your problems. though.

mindwanders wrote: 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.

Eero Tuovinin wrote: 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.

Eero Tuovinin wrote: 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?

Eero Tuovinin wrote: 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

Eero Tuovinin wrote: 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.

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

sirogit wrote: 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.

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.

mindwanders wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Noon wrote:

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.

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.

RobNJ wrote: 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.

Noon wrote:

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.

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).

Noon wrote: 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.

Noon wrote: PS: Would your player be able to comment here?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

sirogit wrote:

John Kim wrote: 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.

Noon wrote: 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.

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?

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.

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?"

RobNJ wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Grover wrote: 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 think it was probably a mistake for them to put in "respect for the law" in there, as it makes it too . . . I don't know. Just not right in vibe for me. Respect for others, compassion, that works on its own.

It seems like that definition could be the root of the problem. What happens to your morality rating when you demonstrate respect for a human being by disrespecting the law (Don't turn in the man who saved you from drowning, even though he's an escaped convict)? What happens when you disrespect a human being by respecting the law ('you stole food for your kids, now I'm gonna turn you in')? Does the book mention any examples along the lines of 'I live in Nazi Germany, and the law says I have to turn in Jews.'?

No, not to my knowledge. The truth is there's not a lot of time spent defining Morality, probably because they want to avoid being seen as moralistic or moralizing. They give some basic sins at each level, and that's it. I feel from reading the developers on their forums and at rpg.net that they wanted individual STs to do a lot of the defining of Morality.

Now, Rob... given this definition, is killing monsters actually something that anybody should be worrying about? The monster-hunter is neither voiding his compassion with human beings or (arguably) violating the law.

I mean, I see what you're saying... I think you could do a really good game that way. But it does seem to be taking a bit of a left turn from the definition.

In my opinion, it says "human beings" because it's the mortals book. I generalize that to sentient creatures. Maybe that's not the intent, maybe I am making a leap, but I feel I'm justified in that leap, and even the player in question does not disagree that, generally speaking, sentience is sentience is sentience. It's his character that disagrees.

I think if you remove that sentience is sentience guideline, you wind up with a version of D&D in a modern setting.

In reading the Vampire rules' Humanity section, every comment there is about humans when it talks about the nature of the target of brutality or cruelty, except in one case, where it uses the phrase, "capable of virtually any act of depravity against another person."

So if you're going to go with a strict, legalistic interpretation it can be argued that vampires can do anything they want to to one another (or werewolves or, more arguably, mages), it's only hurting humans that matters.

Obviously the game doesn't "want" this. Regardless of what the Morality description says, I do not believe that World of Darkness "wants" you to disregard non-human intelligence in calculating Morality loss.

--

As an aside, more on topic, Vampire has this to say about undead who succeed at degeneration checks: "If the roll succeeds, the character manages to feel shame, regret or at least some human response." And, further, about failures, "If the roll fails, the charater feels nothing except satisfaction at getting what he wanted . . . and a little more of the Man slips away and the character has less with which to fight the Beast in the future."