Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is a thread in the GroupDesign series, focusing on nailing the 'Axes' (the scales in the balance in Schrodinger's war.)

A lot has been said on this topic in the 'Advanced Archivism' and 'Mix your Own metaplot' threads. To succesfully contribute to this thread it is not mandatory that you've read them, but it's advisable.

In this thread, we'll

1. Define WHY Axes are important
2. Choose the appropriate Axes
3. Define the mechanics governing those axes

If you're lost at any point, my sig will point to the index, feel free to PM me. Note that this is a 'Nailing' thread. Other than new ideas for Axes, this is not about brainstorming - this is about getting stuff written down for non-insiders to read.

Define why axes are important
They're not. Or rather, the terminology of "axes" might be problematic. After a bit of discussion with Doug Ruff, he's convinced me that while the basic concepts or themes are important, the articifial construction of some geometric model could be a stumbling block later on. Now, keep in mind I'm not speaking for Doug here, this is simply what I walked away from our conversation with. I'd like to hear from him on this topic to see if he's thinking along the same lines or not.

Choose the appropriate axes
Hmm...I have no strong opinion on this, which is quite out of character for me. Allowing humans free will vs. protecting them from themselves is a good one, but other than that, I'd still like to hear more opinions on this topic from folks with more to say than me.

Mechanics of the axes
I'm thinking that each axis (or theme) has two opposed traits. Normally, the Archivist can raise of lower these in conjunction, but some secret elements (specifically, the exact abilities and capabilities of the host) will lead to having these traits become unbalanced, which is a bad thing.

Tobias wrote: 1. Define WHY Axes are important

Tobias wrote: 2. Choose the appropriate Axes

Tobias wrote: 3. Define the mechanics governing those axes

Free Will vs. Orthodoxy?

Free Will vs. Homogeneity?

Free Will vs. Garauntees? (Garaunteed Safety, Garaunteed Reward In Afterlife, stuff like that - kinda loses its symmetry with the other Axes this way, thought, I think.)

How about: possibility vs. achievement? The question being, does one try to preserve what already exists, by bending every novelty into a support for it, and breaking those that won't bend? Or, does one encourage the novel, bending the established to accomodate it, and breaking it if it won't bend?

Free will lands on the side of possibility. Integrity of history lands on the side of achievement. History's integrity is threatened by free will, but it's also made of free will (every achievement was once only a possibility.) An Archivist might prevent a Host's dangerous decision to preserve the timeline ... but prevent too many decisions, and the timeline loses its virtue, is not worth preserving any longer.

Andrew Morris wrote: Define why axes are important
They're not. Or rather, the terminology of "axes" might be problematic. After a bit of discussion with Doug Ruff, he's convinced me that while the basic concepts or themes are important, the articifial construction of some geometric model could be a stumbling block later on. Now, keep in mind I'm not speaking for Doug here, this is simply what I walked away from our conversation with. I'd like to hear from him on this topic to see if he's thinking along the same lines or not.

Before Capes was even Capes, I had a fuzzy notion for creating Tensions dynamically through player choice. I didn't use it, but maybe you guys can. It went roughly like this.

Draw a star. Take five "Good Things". Place one of them on a point of the star. Now choose one of the two points opposite that one (i.e. connected by lines). Choose another Good Thing. Put it there. Those two are now in tension. Continue until you've filled the points of the star.

Exempli Gratia
[code] Humanity Humanity opposes Transcendance and Order
Chaos opposes Order and Justice
Chaos Justice Justice opposes Chaos and Transcendance
Transcendance opposes Justice and Humanity
Order opposes Humanity and Chaos
Transcend. Order[/code]
In play you then kept values for each point of the star. The Tension is the difference between any two opposing values.

Say you increase Humanity from 0 to 3. Now you have a three point tension between Humanity and Transcendance, and a three point tension between Humanity and Order. If you increase Order to 2 you reduce the tension between Humanity and Order to 1, but increase the tension between Order and Chaos to 2. And so it goes.

Hey, Tony. I quite like this idea. It creates both the tension between the aspects, and avoides the "sliding scale".

Here's an idea:

Earlier it was a suggestion that the Archivist choses the value of each of the aspects (boost Transcendance to 5 etc). You can only change the values once per "turn" or whatever way we have organising the play structure.

If one value is higher than another that it is in tension with, you choose whether to assign burn or fade to yourself or the host equal to the tension value.

Or maybe, there is a tension "thresh hold" that increases as the Archivist increases in power in character advancement. That would mean that once a tension is increased to above the tension thresh hold THEN you start taking burn or fade equal to the TOTAL tension. So that the better your archivist gets, the more flexibility the archivist has when changing the axes values but the moment something goes over the tension thresh hold you get hit with a VERY large amount of burn or fade. That would eliminate the issues with character advancement and D&D style "getting hit with 100 arrows and an axe to the head and still going strong".

Why axes are important

I think that they are as they are a way of focusing the concepts that the game revolves around. They are a way of presenting the issues an difficult decisions as well as the imbalance between two Good Things.

Choose the appropriate axes



As for the axes themselves, I don't view them as a geometric design, and if we don't present them as a geometric design then it shouldn't be a problem. What they are meant to be is a way of presenting these mechanics

Hey, Tony. I quite like this idea. It creates both the tension between the aspects, and avoides the "sliding scale". However, the star formation also creates tensions between things that I don't think that really should be in tension.

Here's an idea: ( Mechanics )

Earlier it was a suggestion that the Archivist choses the value of each of the aspects (boost Transcendance to 5 etc). You can only change the values once per "turn" or whatever way we have organising the play structure.

If one value is higher than another that it is in tension with, you choose whether to assign burn or fade to yourself or the host equal to the tension value.

Or maybe, there is a tension "thresh hold" that increases as the Archivist increases in power in character advancement. That would mean that once a tension is increased to above the tension thresh hold THEN you start taking burn or fade equal to the TOTAL tension. So that the better your archivist gets, the more flexibility the archivist has when changing the axes values but the moment something goes over the tension thresh hold you get hit with a VERY large amount of burn or fade. That would eliminate the issues with character advancement and D&D style "getting hit with 100 arrows and an axe to the head and still going strong".

Why axes are important

I think that they are as they are a way of focusing the concepts that the game revolves around. They are a way of presenting the issues an difficult decisions as well as the imbalance between two Good Things.

Choose the appropriate axes

I think that the axes as they are are well designed.

Humanity/Transcendance: this is a good one, it forces the player to make difficult game and metagame choices. The face off between transcendant knowledge and power vs. the textured passion and emotion of humanity. This is a difficult choice to make and the imbalance is dangerous.

Chaos/Order: I would more set this one as a "setting axes" not on the character sheet. One that is affected by the overall actions of the archivists (perhaps at the end of each session the GM would make an arbitrary decision about which way the overall actions of the archivists would bump the scale. I would set this also as a sliding scale, as you cannot have equal amounts of chaos and order. If either of these are imbalanced then perhaps there are both mechanical and setting changes, for example: In a predominantly chaos oriented setting not only is the world unpredictable and full of conflict but is extremely open when it comes to options, but people have more free will and are harder to control. However, in a predominantly order based setting, there are almost no other options available but hosts do as they are told.

With chaos and order presented that way, I suddenly see two new possibilities (not incompatible): Chaos and Order replace the need for a Free Will/Whatever and the elasticity of the timestream is determined by the Chaos/Order levels. The more chaotic the more elastic, the more order, the more "stiff" the timestream is. I think I'll go post in that thread now too. Anyways, back to the axes:

So, that leaves only one axes for the characters, and one axes for the setting in total. That should be quite manageable mechanics wise.

As for axes presented as a geometric construction, it only really depends on how we describe them and how they look on the character sheet. I think that if "axes" is no the best word, I'm sure we can find a new one. (feeling optimistic today ;))

Luck,
Kirk

"Chaos" has two problems as a term, though: Its connotation is negative (very rarely do you think of chaos as good), when I'd prefer to have players choose between opposed Good Things; and it applies primarily to the macro level, not really to the individual (very rarely do you think of an individual as "chaotic" outside of D&D), when I'd prefer to have the same values operating on both the macro and micro levels.

So I'd propose "Freedom vs. Order."

{crossposted with Nailing HTT}

So how would you propose having the Freedom/Order axis work on an individual character level?

Luck,
Kirk

Off the top of my head, "Order" on an individual level would mean orderly, predictable, safe, even conformist behaviour -- i.e. orderly behaviour by individuals adds up to an orderly society, just as the exercise of freedom by individuals leads to a free, even anarchic society.

My view on Freedom and Order is this:

Freedom/Order on a personal level, as well as a cosmic level, is a measurement of the amount of control the Archivists exert over the individual or HTT. The more order they impose, the more likely they are to get what they want to happen, but at the cost of reducing the Host or History to a meaningless thing, which can only survive by being controlled by the Archivists, which I assume is normally considered a Bad Thing by most Archivists.

mholmes52 wrote: Freedom/Order on a personal level, as well as a cosmic level, is a measurement of the amount of control the Archivists exert over the individual or HTT.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Now flip that around: Logically, the experience of having an Archivist control you erodes your free will and makes you more Orderly.

Just one thing, at the moment, the current direction of discussion about the Order/Change axis (which sounds pretty good, as both are fairly neutral concepts, neither good or bad, just are) really lean towards behaviour and roleplaying rather than any mechanics (at least on a micro level). This is cool, but I just want to get a clear idea of where exactly we are heading with this.

How about there is a order/change axis for the host, the archivist and the setting. Some sort of imbalance between them, for example the archivist being extremely biased towards change, and the host being biased towards order would result in the archivist being more likely to attempt to change the host, but have more difficulty in doing so. I dunno whether this would be shown through mechanics or would simply be roleplayed through actions. However, all the other axes have mechanics so i don't know which way we want to do with this. Thoughts?

Luck,
Kirk

How about "stability vs. change?" Or "safety vs. progress." Uhm...wait a minute. Are we just re-wording the Freedom vs. Safety "axis" here? I thought this was a different one, but it seems pretty much the same.

I think we're getting lost in words -- and as Acting Foot, I use my nigh-impotent authority to declare that this must stop!

The issue appears to be defining "Freedom vs. Whatever." I think we all have a fairly good handle on what Freedom and Free Will mean -- the ability of individuals and, collectively, human civilization to choose their own path without interference, even if they then choose wrong. And I think "Freedom" (as opposed to "Change," for example) is (a) something we're going to inevitably deal with in the game (b) on both the individual and macro levels (c) and which is clear moral good. (People can of course debate all of this).

The source of confusion is the "Whatever" -- and I don't think tossing out more alternative names for it will solve that problem. So let me suggest we spend some time trying to describe what the equal-and-opposite Good Thing is that stands in opposition to Freedom. Once we've got a better idea of what we're talking about, then we can find a name.

Some of the elements of "Whatever" that have come up so far and are worth trying to include: Safety; security; control; harmony; order; happiness; "the right thing." The common factor may be about "being right with the world" -- in harmony with one's fellow humans, the environment, even with What History Should Be -- and if necessary subordinating one's own desires to that rightness.

I humbly disagree.

I believe we started to come off the rails when we started lining up Freedom against Order. Instead of two Axes, we ended up with one "fuzzy" Axis.

A few posts ago I recommended Order/Chaos as one of the Axes, and amended this to Order/Change because the word Chaos implies "bad" to many people (me, I blame Moorcock, but that's another story...)

I've also recommended Free Will/Certain Future as a second Axis, and I don't think anyone has commented on this yet. And I think the reason for this is that Certain Future doesn't sound "good" enough in comparison with Free Will, to fuel the hard choice we are looking for.

However, I think this is where the Opposed Good Things starts to unravel a bit (sorry, Sydney.) Because we are looking for the single Good Thing that could sit on the other side of the Axis with Free Will, and it doesn't quite work that way.

The thing is, most of the protagonists in the game (and especially Archivists, as they have a privileged vision of the future) are looking to secure a better future, and make it stick (ie Certain) - but they don't agree on what future is best, or why.

So, one Archivist may be looking to secure a better Certain Future which is based on "happiness", whereas another may be promoting a Certain Future based on "safety". The Darkchivists may be promoting a Certain Future based on "everyone bows before us."

So it's Free Will versus Determinism, with the twist that in this game "Determinism" means "that which I/we determine".

So, forgetting the names for a moment ("Certain Future" is somewhat inelegant), am I on the right track?

Doug Ruff wrote: I humbly disagree....

I've lost the thead of this thread. Can someone post what all the working axes are? I know we had at least two different ones.

I don't think anyone's debated "Transcendence vs. Humanity" much, but we're all over the map on what to do with "Free Will vs. Whatever," such as:

Nathan P. wrote: Free Will vs. Orthodoxy?
Free Will vs. Homogeneity?
Free Will vs. Garauntees? (Garaunteed Safety, Garaunteed Reward In Afterlife....)

Michael Brazier wrote: How about: possibility vs. achievement? The question being, does one try to preserve what already exists, by bending every novelty into a support for it, and breaking those that won't bend? Or, does one encourage the novel, bending the established to accomodate it, and breaking it if it won't bend? Free will lands on the side of possibility. Integrity of history lands on the side of achievement. .....

Doug Ruff wrote: Chaos vs Order is another key tension..On the smaller scale, this same tension manifests as Free Will vs Certain Future.

Doug Ruff, slightly later, wrote: How about "Order" vs "Change"?

Andrew Morris wrote: How about "stability vs. change?" Or "safety vs. progress."

TonyLB wrote: Humanity opposes Transcendance and Order ...Chaos opposes Order and Justice ...Justice opposes Chaos and Transcendance ...Transcendance opposes Justice and Humanity...Order opposes Humanity and Chaos

Beaten to the punch... thanks for doing this Sydney.

There's one more I suggested earlier in this thread: Individual Good vs Greater Good (or Individual vs Society, if oyu like.)

Yeah, I left "Greater Good vs. Individual Good" off because Doug, immediately after proposing it, wondered aloud if it were such a broad and fundamental question that it didn't work as a specific axis (aka bipolar opposition).

And now to argue with myself, complete with long theological exposition!

(1) Dharma?

Maybe the opposite of Free Will is Dharma. This is a Hindu term with no exact translation into English. The one-word equivalent is "righteousness" (sort of) but a fuller meaning (again, sort of) is "the way you are supposed to behave based on your social role." E.g. a warrior had ksatriya dharma requiring him to be a brave and honorable combatant, a father's dharma requires him to provide for his children, and so on, and so on. In other words, it's not just morality, it's the moral obligations specifically incumbent on your existing relations to other people.

(N.B. Dharma has a few dozen other meanings in Hindu and Buddhist thought, but I'm focusing on this one, derived from studying (in translation!) the Mahabharata, the gigantic Sanskrit epic of which the Bagavad Gita is just one small part.)

One of the fascinating things about dharma is the ancient Indian sages themselves recognized it has its limits: In the Mahabharata, the heroes (the Pandava brothers) end up having to go into rebellion against the legitimate but corrupt rulers of the kingdom; and at the end, the good guys wind up in hell, because they have violated dharma, while the bad guys are in heaven, because they fulfilled their expected social roles.

And later on dharma, i.e. righteousness, which is all about your current obligations, is explicitly contrasted to moskha, i.e. liberation, enlightenment, transcendence.

Which means...


(2) Not two bipolar oppositions, but a four-way opposition?

I've been positing two axes, each a bipolar opposition of values, in which Humanity (which I've in the past equated with passion) opposes Transcendence (which I've equated with knowledge of the true nature of the universe, or logos), and Free Will opposes Whatever. Instead we may actually have a four-cornered opposition, rather like TonyLB's pentagram of morality a few posts back, in which each value is in a dynamic tension with the others. Each value is opposed to each of the others, but each is also allied to each of the others, at the same time. Instead of a Cartesian coordinate plane (which was always ugly), imagine a box with each of the values in one corner, and each one connected to the three others by a double-headed arrow.

To make this a little less abstract, let's talk (tentative terms) about Dharma, Transcendence, Will, and Passion:

Dharma opposes Will because one is about living up to expectations, and the other is about doing what you alone choose; but both Dharma and Will are about mastering your emotions (passions).

Dharma opposes Passion because Dharma is about subordinating your personal desires (Passion) to the needs of those around you; but both Dharma and Passion link you to others, either as objects of desire (love, hate, etc.) or subjects of duty.

Transcendence opposes Dharma because Transcendence lifts you above the concerns of the world, whereas Dharma makes you address those concerns; but both subordinate your personal Will and Passion to something greater than yourself, whether it be social obligation or cosmic truth.

Transcendence opposes Will because Transcendence is about embracing a cosmic truth greater than yourself and Will is about doing what you damn well please; but both Will and Transcendence cut you free (or cut you off) from mundane human obligations and connections.

Transcendence opposes Passion because Transcendence lifts you above your mortal desires whereas Passion drags you down into them; but both give you tremendous driving energy to break free of ordinary social limits.

Will opposes Passion because Will chooses what the ego wants, whereas Passion blindly follows what the Id wants; but both Will and Passion are about doing what you want regardless of constraint.

Obviously there are holes in this concept, but do people think it's worth exploring?

Sounds good to me ... except that I'd leave out "Will", leaving a triple opposition.

Yes, I know this will seem perverse, but bear with me. Passions, dharma, and transcendence are all motives for action; but will is the power to act, not (in itself) a reason to act. If we defined "will" as a class of reason for action, but excluded the animal (covered by passions), the social (by dharma) and the spiritual (by transcendence) aspects of humans from that class ... what is left behind? All that occurs to me is the wish to dominate, to exert power over whatever one encounters; and that isn't a Good Thing that becomes bad only in excess. The will to power is bad per se, producing evil consequences if it appears at all, to any degree.

I see the triple working like this:

Passion/Duty/Spirit balanced: A person (or society) in balance; personal desires fuel the performance of social roles, which in turn leads to knowledge of what lies beyond

At low levels: The person/society is contented, but not energetic or inspiring
At high levels: The person/society is a Wonder (building a society like this is probably the goal of a campaign)


Over-strong Passion: "If it feels good, do it!" Social roles are felt as confining to the natural impulses, and self-indulgence distracts the person/society from the voice of inspiration
Over-weak Passion: The person/society lacks vitality
Over-strong Duty: The person/society demands conformity and is bound to ancient laws and customs; unlicensed passions and strange insights are condemned as unravellings of the social fabric
Over-weak Duty: The person/society is in chaos
Over-strong Spirit: The person/society is rapt in a heavenly vision, and cares little for natural passions or social networks
Over-weak Spirit: The person/society is strongly pragmatic, even cynical, and dislikes abstract thought and imagination

Linking this with history-changing: make people and societies that balance passion, duty, and spirit difficult to influence -- their causes and effects have an inherent strength, depending on the level they're balanced at. People and societies that are out of balance, in any direction, are more easily swayed. And the technique for making a society better, if it's balanced, is to push it off balance, then try to control how it swings.

Hmmm. I'd been thinking of Will aka Free Will as "capacity to make choices for oneself" rather than as will to dominate. But you can argue that the capacity for moral choice is so fundamental that it does not belong as one value among many, but as the fulcrum upon which the others (duty, transcendence/knowledge, passion) are balanced.

Now, I'm not saying Michael's convinced me that a three-legged model is a sturdy tripod rather than a crippled quadruped; but I'm intrigued and definitely willing to consider it.

So what does everyone else think?

P.S.:

Michael Brazier wrote: ...the technique for making a society better, if it's balanced, is to push it off balance, then try to control how it swings....

I'm beginning to find it difficult to contribute to this thread. I'm going to try to explain why, but it's tricky, because I think I'm coming from a very different direction, and don't therefore understand what is going on. I may offend as a result, but this isn't intentional.

I understand the specific "systems" for arranging Values in opposition with each other. All of them are good. However, this leads me to believe that none of them are good. Because they are all good.

It's entirely possible to line up Values in direct opposition (Axes) as a "sliding scale", or as "opposed good things". It's also possible to line them up in triangles, squares, cross roads, stars, pyramids, you name it. All of these arrangements provide an interesting thematic arrangement for the game. But why is it necessary to settle on a particular arrangement as being the only way, as expressed within the mechanics, that these themes or values can interact?

This is the source of my original concerns about a "geometric" model, and what I'm seeing in this thread is increasing my concern.

Again, all of the suggestions are valuable; setting up any of these arrangements can help to create a great theme for the campaign.

So why is this Core? Why can't we just say:

"There are many Values that can come to the fore in this game. By taking some of these values and exploring how they can support and oppose each other, you can create your own unique themes for your campaign. Here's some examples to get you going."

I suspect that the answer to this involves the need to come up with a "core mechanic" for the game that expresses the "core values". To which I say, there are other core elements that need to be addressed first, which are "thematically neutral" (and therefore setting neutral). For example, "possession" and "how to change history". These are the true core of the game. These may engage some of our values already. But I don't see the need, at this point in the design process, to tie ourselves and our players down to an additional system of values, which we and they may not share.

In other words, if we are going to have a system for this, please can we make it player- or GM- definable? In the same way that FATE allows you to pick your attributes (Aspects) without forcing you to select from a list?

We can't say that because its too wish-washy. The game has to have some solid parts, and mostly that has to be the mechanical tension expressed by system. The geometric models are an attempt to construct underlying principles so that system can be laid on top of them, to express them.

Sorcerer, which is the explicit model for this game, does not specify what constitutes humanity (or demons) but does establish the need/want tension mechanically. I think, anyway.

Hmm...I'm somewhere between Doug and contracycle. I haven't been that involved in this thread for the same reason as Doug -- I think any sort of geometric model is the wrong way to go. On the other hand, I agree with contracycle -- we need to define certain things, rather than leaving it up to the players. So, I would like the core themes identified, but not locked into a particular geometric model...right now, at least. I'd like to totally drop the terminology of "axes" and start talking about themes, unless everyone else is opposed to that.

Oh, and contracycle, where did you get the idea that Sorcerer was the explicit model for the game? I mean, it's entirely possible that someone said that somewhere in one of these threads; I just don't remember it. The only thing that comes to mind were a few occasions where we compared things to Sorcerer -- and if I recall correctly, most ended with "and that's how Sorcerer does it, which isn't what we want for this game" or some such.

Andrew Morris wrote: I'd like to totally drop the terminology of "axes" and start talking about themes

Now, this I can get on board with - Andrew and Sydney, thank you for putting this in better words than I could muster. Contracycle, thank you for pointing out that there must be at least something for the mechanics to stick to.

Sydney, in response to your specifics, yes, Transcendence vs Humanity apears to be at the heart of all this. and Free Will is an important issue.

However, all three of these appear to be inseparable from the possession mechanics, so I need to ask; is it possible to achieve the aim of this thread ("nailing" the crucial Axes/Themes/Whatever) without invoking the possession mechanics?

If it isn't, then I think we need to either move this discussion to Advanced Archivism, or start a new thread which takes the ideas from this thread and Advanced Archivism, and use it to "nail" possession instead - ensuring that these three themes are properly expressed within the mechanic.

Sydney, as acting Foot, are you willing to consider this or call a vote?

Doug Ruff wrote: Sydney, as acting Foot, are you willing to consider this or call a vote?

90% content (which is very good for me!)

The 10% is based on:

- The possibility that Free Will is actually linked to the Humanity/Transcendence, instead of being an isolated "thing unto itself"

(I could post on this now, but I think it will just turn this thread into the "possession" thread again. Sydney, your call as Foot if you want to hear it; I can also PM it to you for a decision on whether it's the right time to discuss this.)

- not sure that Humanity and Transcendence are the best names for the final draft. But for now, they are good enough as we know more or less what these mean.

- Want to allow the possibility that, in the process of working the rest of the game out, other "key" themes may click into place.

In other words, yes, we should continue along these lines - but this is only Nailed as a framework, and not as the 100% finished product. I think that's good enough for now.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: figure out how the PCs' actions moved the world towards Humanity or Transcendence and how they affected Free Will, then decide how that thematic change would work itself out in history. Yes, I'm talking Narrativist Time Travel here).

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Are we content with this set of themes and relationships among themes, or do we want to keep working on alternatives?

Qualified agreement on Humanity/Transcendence as a key theme -- we need to remember that Transcendence names the Good Thing that Archivists, as such, pursue, while Humanity is all the Good Things that aren't Transcendence (because you find them within history.) I think the passion/dharma distinction within Humanity would be useful, but it's not in the Core.

Total agreement on Free Will -- that it's a key theme, and that it's not balanced against anything else. My only quibble is Mr. Freedberg's image of a fulcrum; I'd say Free Will is the whole balancing scale, in which Humanity and Transcendence are weighed.

Andrew Morris: maintaining a balance between Humanity and Transcendence certainly seems to be important, since it practically defines the position of an Archivist ... one can't be an Archivist without being interested in Transcendence, and an Archivist wouldn't try to change history without an interest in Humanity.

~_-
Cross-post with HTT/GT Thread:

The topic of aliens came up and Doug made a comment about 'Archivists [who] may no longer be recognisably human, despite their origin on Earth.'

Just a thought: Too much Trancendance and they become so alienly removed they can no longer possess a Host or care to (think trying to use Digital signals with an Analog-only reciever) or too much humanity/compassion they lose sight of their trancended state of mind.

Posting this both places because this *might* be a step onto explaining the Nemesis. We've already agreed for the most part Nemesis are Archivists as well, but how about Archivists taken to an extreme?
The Nemesis could possibly be a 'horde' of these Archivists who have forsaken so much humanity they no longer have their own identity, possessing only the Collective Mind.

In which case, mechanically, we'd still have Humanity and Trancendance as two parts of a scale, with the Archivist finding middle ground, the more sophisticated the Archivist, they more they can draw on both spectrums without slipping into either.

Andrew Morris wrote: And what happened to maintaining a balance?

Re: Free Will

Here's something I PM'd to Sydney as I thought that this might be drawing to a close and I didn't want to drop a bomb on that.

However, there's still some good work going on here, so:

In PM to Sydney, I wrote: It just strikes me that the whole Transcendence/Humanity thing is so very close to being Will vs Passion.

It's possible to consider a "transcendent" being to be one who has mastered their passions; similarly, Free Will could be considered to be refusing to be ruled by passion (although you can still choose to indulge...)

It may also help to explain why the Archivist is usually assumed to be in charge, unless they allow the Host to exercise Free Will (or the Host overwhelms them with their emotions.)

Because the Archivist is also assumed to be more Transcendent than the Host (this is virtually a definition of Archivist). As the Archivist is also assumed to have a stronger Will, maybe this isn't a coincidence?

So, we have Transcendence and Will on one side of the fence, and Humanity and Passion on the other. I'm proposing that we start from this very general picture, and see how this plays out in terms of possession. Then consider whether these are sufficient (in conjunction with Elasticity) to work out the History angle. If not, we may need some extra themes.

daMoose_Neo wrote: Posting this both places because this *might* be a step onto explaining the Nemesis. We've already agreed for the most part Nemesis are Archivists as well, but how about Archivists taken to an extreme?
The Nemesis could possibly be a 'horde' of these Archivists who have forsaken so much humanity they no longer have their own identity, possessing only the Collective Mind.

Doug Ruff wrote: It just strikes me that the whole Transcendence/Humanity thing is so very close to being Will vs Passion. It's possible to consider a "transcendent" being to be one who has mastered their passions; similarly, Free Will could be considered to be refusing to be ruled by passion (although you can still choose to indulge...)

Sydney Freedberg wrote: I remain wary, however, because this works better for will as in "force of will"/"willpower" rather than will as in "free will"/"freedom to choose." Although the two concepts are related, they are not identical: Satan in traditional Christian cosmology, or Sauron in Lord of the Rings, as examples, have tremendous willpower, e.g. to dominate others, but arguably very little free will remaining, e.g. to choose to stop being evil shites and redeem themselves.

Doug Ruff wrote:

Sydney Freedberg wrote: Satan in traditional Christian cosmology, or Sauron in Lord of the Rings, as examples, have tremendous willpower, e.g. to dominate others, but arguably very little free will remaining, e.g. to choose to stop being evil shites and redeem themselves.

High Will, but higher Passion. Both of these BigBads are consumed with Anger and/or Pride.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: But how do you deal with the opposite case -- the angelic being or messianistic visionary (e.g. Joan of Arc) who sees What Must Be Done and is driven to do it?

I think Dougs got something. Passions do drive just about everything some one does. The question is how much control do they have- is it directed Passion (Someone with High Will would be able to direct those passions) or is it aimless (at a loss for a mechanical example).

Passions also have a direct effect on how, I'm going to say how 'we' as humans, view an act.
IE Someone who gives to charity because it benefits them and only because it benefits them is looked at differently than someone who gives even though they're having financial difficulties of their own, even if their contribution is less. (not always, but~)
Or, kind of same case, we unilaterally determine that killing another human being is wrong. However, there are several situations where killing someone in self defense is certainly viable and to a degree acceptable- protecting ones home or family from immediate, physical threats, or soldiers protecting their country. Person A who has delusions of granduer and believes they are God and kills on a whim is viewed differently than a fighter pilot who may have taken out a dozen enemy fighters while in service of their country.

Hello? Anyone here?

The only comment I have on Doug Ruff's ideas (other than "Whee!") is that 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. (In fact, were the name "Logos" not taken for the Archivists' superhuman powers, I'd claim it for these superhuman drives.) This gives a way during possessions for Archivists to influence their Host without suppressing their will; the Archivists introduce one of their Transcendent drives into the Host's psyche, balancing it against the Host's Passions. The Host experiences this as a burst of inspiration, which they can choose to explore or ignore (an act of will simulated by the dice.)

For that matter, Archivists could as easily introduce one of their Passions (as recalled from their human lives) into a Host's psyche, which the Host would experience as an overflowing of the Passion in question, and which they would either master or yield to (again the dice come into play.)

Michael Brazier wrote: Hello? Anyone here?

Doug Ruff wrote: 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.

Doug Ruff wrote: 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?

Doug Ruff wrote: 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)?

Doug Ruff wrote: 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,

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:

Michael Brazier wrote: 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 wrote: 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!

Doug Ruff wrote: 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,

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:

Michael Brazier wrote: 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?

(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?

Michael Brazier wrote: 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.

Doug Ruff wrote: 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.

Doug Ruff wrote: 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

Doug Ruff wrote: 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.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: wisdom of the gurus

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 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?

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".

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

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

(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.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 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.

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

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

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?

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...

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.

If I might say, way I'm seeing it and I think my quasi give-take system tries to illustrate, is that more Trancendant knowledge means LESS "Free" Will. In my mind, the more you know, the more established and regimented the world around you becomes and the fewer options you have. If someone walked up to me on a street corner and said I was the last hope of humanity, I have several options:
1) Laugh and walk away
2) Laugh and have him commited
3) Look at him skeptically, humor him for a moment politely and walk away thinking "What a Nut"
4) Take him out for a cup of coffee, talk about it, have a good laugh

You get the point.
Now, if he says "You're the last hope of humanity and I can prove it", this additional knowledge, this proof opens some new paths for myself, but closes others. If it is irrefutable proof, I might skeptically listen with more charity, I might do my damnedest to disprove it officially and scientifically, etc etc. but eventually he might hit a point where it is beyond a doubt irrefutable...and now I have all of this knowledge of things I should know nothing about (be it philosophy, innerworkings of the world, Kewl Powerz, or what not).

As I said, I see "Free" Will as the Hosts chance to ignore/short circuit, drown out the Archivist or what not. The stronger the Archivist can make his case, the fewer actual options I have and the more guided/railroaded I (as a Host) become. (**Commence Raid of SciFi**)

Now, maybe the Archivist chose me as a Host because I have "Cyberdine Chief Officer" (5). Under this, I'm important, recognized, have high security clearance and knowledge of all of the systems and passcodes and more. The Archivist needs me to destroy the cybernetic pieces of tech we discovered at a junk yard. He has three options

1) Urge me to do it so it seems like I have the idea myself
2) Make me understand why it needs to be destroyed, which imparts knowledge of the future and intristic evil of the technology the pieces represent
3) Plow me under and do it himself.

Assuming "Burning" a Host has negetive consequences such as physical proof (bodies falling apart), loss of host's abilites and qualifications, etc. Plowing me under with Burn is out of the question- others will see whats become of my body and stop me.
Assuming I wouldn't normally destroy the one thing that could make my company millions, option 1 is right out as well as my Free Will will be sufficiantly high enough I can go "What the hell was I thinking? I'll be rich!"
Thus, an Archivist (likely our target PCs) would instead impart knowledge- "Look, I know this project sounds hopeful, but heres what happens if you do develop this technology *runs Armageddon Scenario*" and I gain a point of "Knowledge of Future Impact of Technology" (1) or whatever and lose a point of Free Will, because my character would likely say "Well, if this is going to cause Armageddon...something has to be done. I don't want to destroy it though...what else can be done?" (Another point- Archivist's Hosts should be people who, once brought to terms with the goal, should be willing to act to some degree). The Archivist could do more to drive a point home that they HAVE to be destroyed, no question.
Now, here's something else:
This character, on his way into the Cyberdine facility to discard the one control chip he believes to be the most dangerous, runs into a Dark Archivist who starts wailing away with all sorts of Kewl Powerz. The Host implores the Archivist for help, WILLINGLY. Thus, their Free Will would remain the same, but they take a Burn point for the Archivist "Defense Against Trancendant Powerz" (1) to one of their Human Traits, their choice (So he might take a point off of "Loving Father" (3), trying to keep his Cyberdine points to use to accomplish the goal).
If the Archivist reacts without Hosts request, however, he could Fade himself 1 point in his "Connection to Cosmic Truth" to allow the "Defense" powerz. We could argue then that Free Will is also dropped by a point because the Host then sees "Wait, there really is something bigger going on around me...", the Archivist sacrificing a part of himself to save the host and proceed with the mission. Or, the Archivist could Burn the Host (which is defiently a bad thing...maybe a "Dark Archivist" scale, whereby Burning a Host earns the Arch Dark Points?) to instill a cosmic ability or drive down Free Will.

Yeah, Nate, this is pretty much along the lines I'm thinking. But I don't really follow your comments about those mechanics if the host asks for help from the Archivist. I'll re-read it tomorrow when I'm not so tired and maybe I'll understand it then.

I see it that if a Host believes and accepts the Archivst on its terms and then asks for additional assistance, their Will isn't really affected because they're already to a point they're cooperating.
If the Archivist jumps in, sacrificing part of itself, it serves to further demonstrate the truth behind its presence, thereby lowering the Will of the Host. If the Archivist simply jumps in and USES the Host, the Host is being Burned, as the cost of the Archivist abilities has to be paid by something.
Or, maybe it should go as the Archivist does with Fade...the Host accepts Burn for access to Trancendant knowledge/abilities...lowering Free Will as well, as they are turning control of themselves over to the Archivist

SO, according to this, flow of points goes:

Archivist Fade -> Lowering Free Will -> Increasing Trancendant ability in Host (of whatever kind: Information, powerz, etc)

Archivist initiated Burn -> Lowering Host's Humanity traits -> Increasing Trancendant ability in Host

Host initiated Burn -> Lowering of Free Will -> Increasing Trancendant ability in Host

Look right?

Nate, Andrew: would you also say that the higher ordinary human Passions rise, the lower Freewill has to be? As I see it, the mechanics of Transcendent traits in a Host shouldn't be any different from the mechanics of Passions. The traits come from different sources but their effects in a human psyche are similar enough to be covered by the same rules.

I've been using the metaphor of a balance scale: traits (mortal and Transcendent) are weights placed on one side or the other, and where they go is fixed; Will is another weight, but unlike the rest it might go on either side. In this metaphor adding Transcendent knowledge can make Will irrelevant, if it goes on the heavier side, or decisive, if it goes on the lighter ...

In your Cyberdyne example: the Host you postulate (an officer of Cyberdyne) ought to be very difficult to control, inspire, or persuade into destroying the chips, because his Passions will be engaged against the idea. Desire for survival, desire for wealth, curiosity: all these incline him to studying the chips and extracting their secrets. The weight against destroying them in that Host's mind should be practically impossible to balance out. A sensible Archivist would go and influence someone (the junkyard's owner, say) to whom the chips are nothing more than a random piece of junk, and who won't be Passionate if they're dropped into the trash compactor.

I have constructed a mechanic for posession that works on the following assumptions:

1. Free will is not tied to Transcendent nor Human nature/passions
2. Burn is the 'erasing' of Human traits/passions - because these are hindering the archivist at some point. This does hurt the host
3. Fade is the sacrifice the archivist makes when he requires both passions from the host AND access to Transcendent powers/traits. (If the archivist does not require something from the host (now or in the future), the archivist may as well Burn the Host instead).
4. Drawbacks to Burning are that it's considered 'evil' to a degree to some archivist factions, and it may have unexpected results on the timeline.

Burning a Host & asessing Fade damage to archivist only have their ramifications on Host, Archivist AND History when departing the host (which greatly increases speed of play during posession itself).

I can post the mechanics in more details if our new Foot wants, here or somewhere else. There's even room for Satori for the Host.

Yea, I would.
Because just as knowledge or proof can (personally) limit my choices, so can my own beliefs/knowledge/passions. Religious doctrines are a good example- nothing actually prevents someone from working after dark, however certain religious doctrines forbid it. Someone closely following those tennants simply wouldn't work after dark, its not an option.

As to the Cyberdine example...for some reason, thinking about "Proof" made the scene from Terminator 2 where Sarah has the T1000 take the skin off its hand to prove to the Cyberdine chief guy that YES, these ARE real in the future and they are BAD! BAAAAD! jumped to mind. For our game, yes, the Archivist would more likely jump back to a junkyard worker and trash the chips and no one would be the wiser.

*ponderage*
I keep seeing Free Will sitting in between Host and Archivist. A Host can gamble some, Fading themselves to try to influance or affect the Host some way. TELLING a Junk Yard Worker to "destroy those things over there" is easy as telling the Cyberdine CEO "Destroy the Chips". Whether they do it or not is another story. Ponderage is this: Host gets chance to resist Archivist based on if a request for Action contridicts a Passion, in which case the Host gets a bonus based on their Passion and their remaining Free Will. Such are characters like Frodo, who, at the end, even knowing all that he did, was consumed by the Passions of the One Ring, which overrode everything else.
IE
With the Yard Worker whos Passion might be "A Good Days Work", the command/request is just another part of the day, Free Will for the command is totally avoided because it doesn't conflict the passion. He destroys the chip.
With the Cyberdine Officer, he has a Passion "Develop the Technology" that conflicts with the command. Depending on how the Archivist has approached the Host, several things can happen.
Arch: "destroy the chips" *Request*
Host: "But I don't want to! I can get rich!" *Passion prevents it*
Arch: "Here's what happens if you don't" *Archivist Fade 1 pt , lowers FW 1 pt. gains "Influance" (1), Host gains "Knowledge of Future" (1)*
Host: *check is made, Passion overrides Free Will* "Okay, so we need to stop the future, but there has to be another way, it can't be these Chips that cause Armageddon."

Mechanic Summary for Requests conflicting with Passions:

Passions (X) Values-
Host: "Develop Technology (6)"
Archivist: "Connection to Cosmic Oneness (10)"

Free Will (X) Value- (Host: Free Will (X), Archivist: Influance (X))

Roll Passion (+Bonus FW) vs. Trancendant Request (+Bonus Influance)

Passion > Request = Host doing their own thing
Passion < Request = Host aquiessing position/agreeing to assist

Requests that Coincide with Passions:
The Host will go along with it, concious of the Archivist or not because its something they already Want.

Also - Impromptu Abilities- classify them under a Passion or such- so that "Connection to Cosmic Oneness" could be narrated/used to include "Knowledge of the Future" at some value. Fade/Burn coming off of the Passion total would also affect these lesser defined abilities.

Just tossing stuff out/a brain dump. Feel free to massacre it ^_^

quick dump, gotta run, post more tomorrow:

How about this (as an alternative, but also trying to capture the previous sentiments).

1. There is no 'Free Will' score. Why not? Well, there's the aspect of protagonism for the Host/Archivism symbiont (remember that in the early days we thought of Host/Archivist as fairly closely linked - no roll needed to posess, for instance, no dual-player characters, no GM controlling the host against the player archivist, etc.) There's also the fact that Transcendence might be linearly related to Free Will, but who knows if it's a normal or inverse relationship? In fact, I think it's more likely that it's disconnected, both Transcendence and Human nature imposing freedoms and restrictions on free will.

2. There are, however, 'Human-ness' (using the kludgy term to avoid 'humanity' and suchlike) and 'Archivist-ness'. Human traits for humans are called Passions (leading to associated skills), human traits for Archivists are called Values (also leading to associated skills), Transcendent knowlegde traits also lead to kewl powerz.

3. The archivists once started as human. (Remember they need to be somewhat comprehensible to us players). They gained something, they lost something.

What is a human? Someone who's 100% human. Let's say, a Human-ness score of 10.

What's an archivist? A being who's less human. Say 50 %. So, 5 passions, 5 trans. Knowledge (with associated 5 power).

What does Human-ness mean? Well, it's what's important to you. So, say passions are, loving father (3), alcoholic (2), cyberdine engineer (4), sportsman (1) = 10, fully human. (Although I'm not sure negative traits should be in here, but that's for another time).

So you become an Archivist. Say, your Human side that stays is Loving father (3), cyberdine engineer (1), sportman (1), and you gain the archivist Knowledgez of Insight into Nature (2), All things are Connected (3) = 10.

To every Knowledgz, a Powerz is linked. For this example, Angels on a Pin (2), There is No Door (3).

It’s helpful, at this point, to imagine a character sheet for the archivist with a big circle on the left, and to the right a column with Human values and Transcendent Knowledgez (and derivative Powerz). Hosts would be their own, smaller sheet (1 column as well) that would fit flushly on the left of the character sheet. Hosts also have a trait called ‘Burn’.

Once a host is posesses, there will be an overload - 20 points of 'being' could maximally be trying to fit in a 10-point shell. Something's gotta go. Now, the Archivist can choose not to manifest fully, but he needs to be 'in' for at least 1 point. (TANSTAAFR).

Being ‘in’ translates as Burn. So, with 1 point of burn, you’re able to manifest at least 1 point of your archivist nature in the host. There’s a catch, though: Transcendent knowledge/power is not divisible: you have to manifest the whole ‘chunk’ of it, or nothing of it.

For each point of Burn, you need to scratch off 1 point of Passion from the Host. You’re all-powerful in this as the Archivist – there’s no resistance possible. However, the Host also loses the associated skills from the passion – so as an Archivist, it’s best to ‘erase’ existing, non-useful passions at first.

While posessing, there’s true symbiosis going on. If the Archivist nature ‘relaxes’, the Host will go about his business given the current goals/passions the host has. If the Archivists (who can control everything, thoughts, movement, etc., which feels natural to the Host while this is going on (explaining stuff away as he goes along)) wants to do something that conflicts with the Hosts’s passion, the Host pits his Passion strength in opposition to the Archivist’s manifested control (very similar to the old presence mechanic), So, a Cyberdine Engineer, unburnt, may have a passion of 4. To overcome this, the Archivist may raise the burn to 4 to at least match the passion, and the symbiont is assumed to continue on his actions, marginally decided in favor of it. (Of course, the Archivist may also burn off the Cyberdine Engineer Passion, thus directly lowering opposition to the current intended action(s), and therefore requiring less Burn overall, but that might drop Cyberdine Engineer skills (which are associated) as well, and that might be undesired).

At some point, the Archivist may not want to Burn any more from the Host, but still want to increase manifestation (for instance, Powerz). In that case, the Archivist accepts ‘Fade’ (which means some of his Human Values will be removed and replaced by Human Passions).

Need to implement:

1. All Fade/Burn effects are calculated when the Archivist leaves the host (speeds play)
2. All effects on the timestream are also calculated then (burning your host can impact the timestream – he’s different, after all)
3. Passions (& their removal) might positively impact the desired timestream changes or negatively (or both, uncertain)
4. You cannot burn out/suppres/satori any human traits you still have as well
5. you can also transfer human traits
6. there are advantages and disadvantages to having compatible human traits
7. 2. transcendant knowledge is only transferrable whole-block
8. additional point of burn if you wholly remove a category
9. fade is the amount the archivist is supressed by. fade can increase if
10. all hosts are JUST AS HUMAN at 10 - unless tampered with
11. leaving a host with less than 10 is hurtful
12. difference between used archivist aspects without revelation/satori (which burns), or with satori
13. reveal your archivist nature, OR reveal something transcendent

(if this all seems similar to presence, or unclear, try accounting with coins in the circle, and keep needing to balance host manifestation vs. archivist wishes)

I'm going to post my "Grand Unified Theory" in a bit, but I didn't want to neglect the recent activity on the thread. So here's my rundown of the points that really stood out for me:

daMoose_Neo wrote: 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.

daMoose_Neo wrote: The Arch can Fade itself to transfer some Trancendant Quality to the host

daMoose_Neo wrote: I'm seeing the free will, at the moment, as the Host's ability to accept or reject the Archivist.

Sydney Freedberg wrote: 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.

daMoose_Neo wrote: I see it that if a Host believes and accepts the Archivst on its terms and then asks for additional assistance, their Will isn't really affected because they're already to a point they're cooperating.

Michael Brazier wrote: Andrew: would you also say that the higher ordinary human Passions rise, the lower Freewill has to be?

Tobias wrote: Burning a Host & asessing Fade damage to archivist only have their ramifications on Host, Archivist AND History when departing the host (which greatly increases speed of play during posession itself).

Tobias wrote: There is no 'Free Will' score.

I'm really liking the idea of having a "Free Will" score that fluctuates with regard to Passions, how much the Host believes the Archivist and wants to assist.
It also provides a balancing scale. Discussion's moved away from the dual axes we were originally looking at, but Free Will/Trancendant Influance works as a sliding scale here. Does the Host have the want and will to resist the Archivist?

One other thing Tobias- it struck me just as I sat down with my cocoa that humans don't use 100% of their mental capacity...so, theoretically, we could have an extra-temporal entitiy hitching a ride and not notice a thing if they didn't make any overt actions. Thus, that kind of balancing may need not apply.

Re: Application-
I agree that doing it real time/in play would be cooler. Might make for a little more crunching during play, but then you can make on the fly alterations to the balance the scales. Make for more climactic situations too...its down to the wire, all the pair has to do is X, and suddenly the Dark Arch shows up! The Archivist knows they MUST succeed...and can, too! BUT...will they do it at the cost of the Host, who is almost dead, barely alive by his own will, or will the Archivist sacrifice himself, allowing the Host to live and see the better world?
Applying things retroactively can't get that kind of fun~

Okay, here's my Grand Unified Theory. Hopefully, this ties everything together in a way that combines what's been suggested so far with a slightly new way of bringing it all in.

There are 10 key traits (or subset of traits), five of which are Archivist-specific and five of which are host-specific. Each of the five has a corresponding trait in the other set of five. The interrelations between these traits are not all linear, and sometimes cross over. However, I think they map pretty closely to what I see as being the "logical" interrelations between host and Archivist.

Archivist Traits
Transcendence -- This is the measurement of the quintessence of what makes the Archivist what he is. In some sense it is a measurement of raw (potential) power. This should be defined as some arbitrary range of numbers greater than Humanity (defined below). Let's say it's a range from 1 to 21.

Otherworldly Knowledges -- This is a subset of traits that measure the Archivist's knowledge of "things man was not meant to know." Ex. -- All Things Are Connected (2), Lost Lore of Atlantis (6), True Timeline History (5), etc.

Logoi -- This is a subset of traits that measure the Archivist's ability to manipulate, alter, and control the physical world. In other words, Kewl Powerz. Ex. -- Laser-Beam Eyes (3), Inhuman Strength (4), Molecular Disintegration (2), etc.

Skills -- This is a subset of traits that measure the non-Transcendent abilities of the Archivist, be they remnants from their human existence, or things they've learned after becoming an Archivist. Ex. -- Gunsmithing (2), Piloting (1), Great Library Research (4), Archivist Politics (3), etc.

Fade -- A measure of the "psychic trauma" suffered by the Archivist. Fade will decrease over time, but very slowly. Enough Fade will cause damaging effects, such as loss of traits. (Yes, I know Fade and Burn have been used for both host and Archivist, but I'm taking a stance here that Fade is exclusive to Archivists, just as Burn is exclusive to hosts.)

Host Traits
Humanity -- This the measurement of the quintessence of what makes a host human. It is a measurement of the host's vitality and lifeforce. This should be defined as an arbitrary number range less than the range of Transcendence. Let's define it as a range from 1-13.

Free Will -- This is a measurement of the host's ability to resist compulsion in any form, specifically including Archivist control. Free Will can never be higher than Humanity. If Humanity ever drops lower than Free Will, Free Will is reduced to equal the new Humanity score.

Passions -- This is a subset of everything that really matters to the host; the things that drive them. Passions are a source of greatness, be it good or evil. Ex. -- Love of Order (3), Creative Impulse (2), Hates Men (1), Loves Puzzles (5), etc.

Skills -- This is a subset of traits that measure the non-Transcendent abilities of the host. Ex. -- Gunsmithing (2), Piloting (1), Research (4), Politics (3), etc.

Burn -- A measure of the physical deterioration suffered by the host due to the presence of the Archivist. Burn never goes away. Enough Burn will cause damaging effects, such as loss of traits, blindness, rotting flesh, loss of limbs, etc.

How The Traits Interrelate
Transcendence and Humanity -- Quite simply, whichever is higher is who controls the host/Archivist fusion. An Archivist can increase their Transcendence at will (up to their maximum) and decrease it as easily. This represents the Archivist putting more or less of their own power into the host body. There should be some mechanical means that this can cause Humanity to decrease (not always, but the risk should be there). Whether we do this through a Fortune mechanic ("oops, rolled low, Humanity drops by one") or a resource-allocation mechanic ("okay, I increase Transcendence by nine, which reduces the host's Humanity by three") is something we can decide later.

Otherworldly Knowledges and Free Will -- The more the Great Cosmic Truth is revealed to the host, the less able they are to choose their own path through life. Thus, as Otherworldly Knowledges are bestowed on the host, Free Will is decreased.

Passions and Logoi -- The more an Archivist uses their Logoi, the more the host's Passions or Humanity (player's choice) are decreased.

Skills -- If Archivist skills are used through a host, the host takes Burn. If host skills are used, there is no effect on the Archivist.

Fade -- This increases from a variety of actions, which aren't fully defined yet, but will certainly include when host Passions increase and when Humanity increases, whether from the Archivist's own actions or any other reason.

Burn -- This increases from a variety of actions, which aren't fully defined yet, but will include at least: when Passions are reduced, when Humanity is reduced, when the Archivist uses his own Skills through the host, when the host's Skills are increased by the Archivist, and when Logoi are used through the host.


Examples of Play

1. An Archivist wants his host to dive out an 82nd floor window. Naturally, the host's Passion of Survival (5) and Achieve Success (3) get in the way. Along with the host's Free Will of 7, this is 15 points against the action happening. The Archivist has a maximum Transcendence of 10 (he's new) so he can't just overpower the host. Instead, he opts to Burn the host: removing the Survival (5) Passion, he replaces it with the Logos Flight (5). The host now has a Logos that the Archivist can use at will, and has taken 5 points of Burn. In addition, the host only has 10 points to resist the Archivist now, and since the Archivist also has 10, the host is forced to do what the Archivist wants.

2. Using his host's Firearms (4) Skill, an Archivist takes out several street thugs. All but one are killed, and he is running away, dodging wildly. The Archivist uses the host's Firearms (4) Skill, along with his own Statistical Analysis (4) Skill (to determine where the thug will dodge next, of course) and takes him out with the combined 9 points. The host takes 4 points of Burn.

3. A Dark Archivist takes over a willful host, and decides to fry him right off the bat, so there won't be any trouble later on. Manifesting 15 points of Transcendence into the host forces the host's Humanity (12) to Humanity (0). This also brings Free Will (11) down to Free Will (0). The host has lost 12 points of Humanity and 11 points of Free Will, for a total Burn of 23. Ouch!

Wow. I think my brain may be suffering Burn right now.

I see some potent arguments that Transcendent knowledge can potentially act against Free Will: you know What Must Be Done -- e.g. Nate's Terminator example. But I can also see situations where Transcendent knowledge opens up options you didn't know about and gives you, potentially, more freedom -- in theory The Matrix is all about this. (And as the traitor character in that movie shows, even once you have Transcendent knowledge of What Must Be Done, you can use your Free Will to refuse to do it....).

So I'd agree with Michael and Tobias, that Free Will is not linked to Transcendence one way or another. I'd further tend to agree with Michael (and disagree with Tobias) that Free Will should probably have a statistical value in-game that can be thrown into the scale on either side.

On the other hand, I find Tobias's outline of a mechanic intriguing; I also am interested in Andrew's. And I think we definitely need to ground this discussion in definite mechanics very soon or we'll wander off all over the landscape and get hopelessly lost. On the other other hand, these mechanics proposals deserve their own thread, because this one is already approaching unmanageability. I want to wrap it up and move on.

Okay. So using my Mighty Foot Powers, here's the plan:

A) No more posts to this thread for the moment. (If you're burning to respond to something somebody just said, including this post, please PM me).

B) Everyone please PM me, as soon as possible, with your answers to the following two questions:
1) Is Free Will mechanically tied to Transcendence (either it always goes up when Transcendence goes up, or it always goes down when Transcendences go up), or is Free Will an independent variable not tied to Transcendence? (Which doesn't mean it's necessarily a numerical stat; as Tobias states, it can just be an aspect of pratagonism; we're not answering that question today).
2) Is Transcendence purely about "supernatural"/"superpowered" abilities, or does it also include scientific, artistic, mystical, etc. insight into the True Nature of the Universe?

C) Once I've given everyone a few days to vote, I'll calculate the results and post (to this thread) what we've collectively decided. Then I'll close this thread.

D) Meanwhile, Tobias and Andrew and anyone else with a mechanic in mind, please work on it and get it into presentable form. Once we've closed this thread, I'll open a new "draft mechanics" thread and ask everyone to post their drafts to it -- bearing in mind that draft mechanics should abide by the results of the vote (C, above) on what the natures of Transcendence and Free Will are.

I don't mean to throw cold water on a fiery and creative discussion, I simply think it's time to establish a common baseline to stand on, take a deep breath, and then dive into the deep waters of mechanics.

To everybody: Thanks for your patience.
To self: Pose future poll questions in simple yes/no terms so people don't have to engage in lengthy PM exchanges to clarify their answers...
To everybody, redux: If I still misunderstood, and thus misrepresent your position below, please PM me!

Now, to take the two "poll" questions in reverse order:

2) Is Transcendence purely about "supernatural"/"superpowered" abilities, or does it also include scientific, artistic, mystical, etc. insight into the True Nature of the Universe?

Everyone came down on the "insight" side of this question. So we have a consensus there for the broader definition.

1) Is Free Will mechanically tied to Transcendence (either it always goes up when Transcendence goes up, or it always goes down when Transcendences go up), or is Free Will an independent variable not tied to Transcendence?

Tobias, Doug, Michael, and myself all came down for Free Will being mechanically independent of Transcendence.
Nate said Free Will is tied to Transcendence -- specifically, inversely: the more Transcendence the Host gains, the lower the Free Will.
Andrew said Free Will is tied to Transcendence, inversely, but indirectly: The more Transcendence the Archivist puts into the Host, the lower the Host's Humanity, which can lower the Host's Free Will (to simplify Andrew's argument greatly).
So this is a 4:2 or 4:1:1 vote depending on how you look at it. That's clearly a win (a 2/3 supermajority, even) for "no direct mechanical tie between the two traits" but equally clearly it's not consensus. I'd interpret that as meaning we should not be considering mechanics where increasing Transcendence lowers Free Will directly every time, but we should allow leeway to consider mechanics where one of the possible effects of increasing Transcendence could be a decrease in Free Will.

I'll give everyone till the end of today to PM me with any concerns they have on my interpretation of people's votes and the overall results, and then late tonight or early tomorrow start a new thread where we can post and dissect draft mechanics.

Postscript: Both Nate and Andrew PM'd me to say they're comfortable with having no automatic link between Transcendence and Free Will, so we're all on the same page.