The Forge Archives

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?

Quote from: TonyLBIt 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.

Well, I guess I have several concerns and I've been less than efficient in enumerating them.  Let me give it a go now.

[*] 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))?
[/list:u][*] 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?
[/list:u]That's all I can think of right now.  While I respect his desire to have his character be what he wants him to be psychologically, I do not want the "world" to "say" that killing intelligent creatures is okay just because they're different from you.

One of the ways I've begun to appreciate and enjoy the Morality systems in the new World of Darkness--one of the ways that, suddenly, I find them "working" for me--is that they may simulate (small-s) something intrinsic about the human as a social primate.  We are wired with a tension between violence, fear of the Other, and a communal spirit.  It is undeniable that violence causes harm to people--the witnesses and the perpertrators as well as the victims.  People who seem to be able to just shrug that off the psychological consequences of violence are either full-of-shit braggarts or are broken, damaged, altered or malformed in some way.

But I digress.  I do not know whether the player wants the game to say killing-of-the-Other is honky-dory either, so I may be going too deep into this.  It may just be that I need a way to deal with this very specific rules-question in the moment.  But I worry that it will have larger ramifications.

Quote from: TonyLBSo, 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?

Yes, of course it is.  That would actually be pretty entertaining for everyone, I think.

I'm starting to think I should just suck it up and deal with this being a "no problem" sort of thing.  I just worry about how to make successful checks feel different than unsuccessful ones.

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:

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?

There's your problem right there. 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, I'd say. The problem disappears when you change the rules to conform with what you both want from the game, assuming that your wishes are not in collision.

Your specific questions:

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

As the rules say, it's guilt. You can't describe it by the rules, because success means that he understands what he does as wrong. But if you give credence to the player claiming that the character does no such thing, then the result has to give. Solution: allow players in your game to fail morality checks voluntarily. That way the player claiming that there's nothing wrong in killing "monsters" can be equated with automatic failure of the morality check. Problem solved.

Quote
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))?

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.

You can't, there's simply no possible way of letting a player play the heroic avenger of justice while simultaneously exploring the descent into madness. Isn't this self-evident? Or you can, but that requires different rules for different players. So just give the player in question a Merit that makes him immune to derangements, and then you can try to get your own favourite theme into play through some other player.

And take note: if you think that telling a player what his character feels is bad, remember that it's the rules doing the telling, not you. If you're not comfortable with the rules as a group, change the rules.

Quote
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?

Now you're just prattling nonsense. It's clearly not a moral question you're concerned with, it's a moral dictum. The rules (or possibly you yourself, I don't know) have decided that killing monsters is a bad thing, and you insist on keeping this theme in the game. If it were a question, you'd have already set it aside with this player; HE ALREADY ANSWERED IT! Why take it up again, when he'll just answer it the same way again, to preserve his character's integrity and his own convinctions? What's to be gained by insisting?

Regardless, nothing stops you from taking the issue up with other players. As I suggested, give that one player an immunity from derangements and let him explore the things he finds interesting. Put other players against this particular moral conundrum.

Still, if you want to moralize against this player (and who knows, that might be entirely functional play: two headstrong individuals might find a vivid enjoyment in going head to head over a moral argument cloaked into a rpg), there are plenty of ways that do not require you to tell the player what his character feels. Some options:
- NPCs and other characters: let other people tell the player's character how horrible he is. Keep up a sense of transgression when the character goes about his bloody work. In your own description and roleplay take up again and again how the character is the actual monster.
- Situations and raising the stakes: make a game of it. The player answered the question about monster worth in pretty extreme circumstances, but you can certainly make them even more extreme; start plotting adventures (or planning Bangs, preferably) that rest on this question: the next time, he has to kill dozens of innocent and helpless vampires, until he wades in blood. Then the next time it appears that the vampires have embraced his own brother. The next the human jurisdiction starts hunting him, as he goes about killing "people". After that the God almighty comes against him in judgement. Finally, when your group has explored this to the bottom, let him himself become embraced; the ultimate question, is he ready to do anything to destroy the monsters? Will he become Blade, or will he kill himself?

Note that the above, while your only option if you want to keep up the theme against the player, is a dangerous path. In a great majority of cases you'll cause offense as the player feels that your choices deprotagonize him, when his choice is not good enough for you. But I know personally a couple of players who'd take to this quite nicely if explained beforehand. So consider it yourself.

In summation, I find that you're trying for an impossible thing, trying to preserve the a priori moral judgement given by the rules and at the same time giving the characters a freedom to choose their morals.

By the by, if I were the player, I'd take the situation and would play it like a harp. Derangements for following my convictions? Bring it on! Let my psyche disintegrate, I'll fight on as long as there's a breath in my body! Fuck you God, that's my choice! I don't know why, but players are for some reason schooled to be weak poltroons.

Quote from: sirogitA) 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.

I'm sorry, I don't grok what a dialectic choice is.  The dictionary isn't being very helpful, either.

QuoteB) 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,

Actually, only your Virtue can help you.  And your Virtue kicks in from one to three dice to see if you lose the Morality point.  So descriptively, if you "sin" but you're doing it in aid of the better angels of your nature, that moral resolve may help you weather the guiltstorm better.

Quote from: sirogithow 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.

I don't understand what you mean here.
Clarifications:

Quote from: sirogitNow, in order to recouncil your wanting the in-game dialectic choice,

I want the idea of violence hurts the perpetrator and the victim to be present in the game.

Quote from: sirogitand wanting to give the player the ability to express no remorse for vampires,

The concern isn't with expressing no remorse, but feeling no remorse.  Also, not just vampires.  Monsters.

These are genuinely meant as clarifications, and not efforts to be snarky.

Quote from: sirogit1) 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."

I think that won't work for him, because he doesn't feel Harris would feel like he was going to hell for this.

Quote from: sirogit2) Allow him to purposefully miss a Morality check. Therby it is a challenge to regret an act, but easy to shrug it off.

I don't think he's going to do that because every time you fail a Morality check, you have a chance (an increasingly likely chance as Morality goes lower actually) of gaining a derangement.

QuoteAs 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.

Two, unfortunately.  Committing premeditated murder is a Morality 3 sin, so you'd have to be Morality 2 before you can shrug it off without a problem.  I've told him this already.

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.