If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for..

Rip Rock wrote:
> If a ghoul is out on the street, minding its own business, and you
> decide to snipe it in the head, I think we all agree that you have to
> roll Humanity loss.
>
> If you're breaking into a Sabbat stronghold and you need to kill a
> guard in order to pursue the vitally important mission, I doubt most
> Storytellers would make you check for Humanity loss. (I could be
> wrong.)
>
> But what if your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul who is (e.g.)
> endangering the Danse Macabre? You have the option of disobeying,
> possibly being punished or killed. Do you have to risk your neck and
> bend over backwards to avoid killing combat-capable folks in the
> violence business?

No, that just gives you Paradox!^~
Seriously, one of the complaints I recall hearing about OWoD crossover
was that vampires got penalized for doing things that werewolves and
magi could do with impunity...Now magi seem to be in the same boat, but
werewolves can still get away with murder.
>
> What about if your Prince orders you to kill an innocent for no good
> reason, just because the Prince is a sadist? What if the Prince
> threatens you with death if you disobey?

Such behavior will encourage mass loss of Humanity amoung the Prince's
court and increasing derangements, which will lead to him being deposed
either by Beast-driven crazed vampires or, more likely, "conscientious"
elders who are interested in preserving the Masq--er, Danse Macabre
from his lunacy...

Dex
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Hand-of-Omega wrote:

> No, that just gives you Paradox!^~
> Seriously, one of the complaints I recall hearing about OWoD crossover
> was that vampires got penalized for doing things that werewolves and
> magi could do with impunity...Now magi seem to be in the same boat, but
> werewolves can still get away with murder.

Well, sorta. Werewolves are okay with justified killing, unlike vampires
and mages, but justified killing isn't the same as indiscriminate slaughter.

> Such behavior will encourage mass loss of Humanity amoung the Prince's
> court and increasing derangements, which will lead to him being deposed
> either by Beast-driven crazed vampires or, more likely, "conscientious"
> elders who are interested in preserving the Masq--er, Danse Macabre
> from his lunacy...

Dude, it's still called the Masquerade.

And, yeah, crazy sadist Princes don't stay Princes for long.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Stephenls wrote:
> Hand-of-Omega wrote:
>
> > No, that just gives you Paradox!^~
> > Seriously, one of the complaints I recall hearing about OWoD crossover
> > was that vampires got penalized for doing things that werewolves and
> > magi could do with impunity...Now magi seem to be in the same boat, but
> > werewolves can still get away with murder.
>
> Well, sorta. Werewolves are okay with justified killing, unlike vampires
> and mages, but justified killing isn't the same as indiscriminate slaughter.

In my original example, I would say that killing a Sabbat guard is not
indiscriminate slaughter ... it's neat, controlled slaughter that poses
no risk to noncombatants. Off the cuff, I would say it's closer to
manslaughter than murder ... but I wouldn't press the point.

So everyone's comments have made me look back at the core book, p.91,
with the ten-level chart. Manslaughter is 4, heinous acts of mass
murder are 1.

So if vampires go around spreading plague, I would call that callous
crime, more like serial killing than plain premeditated murder. I
would like to call it 3 or 2, but some Storytellers might call it 6 or
5. If the plague were particularly awful, like herpes of AIDS, I might
call it "heinous," a level-1 offense. (And they have a Bloodline that
specializes in spreading disease ... it's not like the question will
never arise...)

Wait a minute: what about messing with someone's mind using Dominate?
That strikes me as a level 4, possibly worse. Dominate is to ethical
persuasion what rape is to ethical seduction.

*Sigh* I just don't understand why they can't list the
Morality-offense levels of the Disciplines in the Discipline rules.
Even some guidelines would be helpful.

I think the Requiem rules say that most vampires stabilize around 4
Humanity. I think as a player I'll end up around 2 with most vampire
characters.
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Stephenls wrote:
> Hand-of-Omega wrote:
>
> > No, that just gives you Paradox!^~
> > Seriously, one of the complaints I recall hearing about OWoD crossover
> > was that vampires got penalized for doing things that werewolves and
> > magi could do with impunity...Now magi seem to be in the same boat, but
> > werewolves can still get away with murder.
>
> Well, sorta. Werewolves are okay with justified killing, unlike vampires
> and mages, but justified killing isn't the same as indiscriminate slaughter.
>
Hm, guess we shouldn't jump the gun without actually *seeing* Harmony's
scale. Or have we?

> > Such behavior will encourage mass loss of Humanity amoung the Prince's
> > court and increasing derangements, which will lead to him being deposed
> > either by Beast-driven crazed vampires or, more likely, "conscientious"
> > elders who are interested in preserving the Masq--er, Danse Macabre
> > from his lunacy...
>
> Dude, it's still called the Masquerade.
>
> And, yeah, crazy sadist Princes don't stay Princes for long.
>
Heh. Reminds me of this LARP I briefly played with where the
"Caligula-style" Prince openly declared a Blood Hunt on the cities
Lupines...who all just chuckled quietly and sharpened their claws...^^

As one of the few Mages there, I just kept my head down and got ready
to stock up on fresh Tass...^_~

Dex
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Stephenls wrote:
> Hand-of-Omega wrote:
>
> > Hm, guess we shouldn't jump the gun without actually *seeing* Harmony's
> > scale. Or have we?
>
> Of course we have. Werewolf: The Forsaken has been out for months.
>
Oh, for--[slaps forehead]

Of course, I meant *Wisdom*...-_-

> Vampire Humanity has the same Hierarchy of Sins as mortal Morality.
>
> Werewolf Harmony's Hierarchy of Sins is as follows:
>
> 10: Not shapeshifting for more than three days.
> 9: Not obtaining your own food; carrying a silver weapon.
> 8: Disrespect to a spirit or elder Uratha.
> 7: Spending too much time alone; significantly violating a tribal vow.
> 6: Mating with another Uratha; slaying a human or wolf needlessly.
> 5: Slaying a werewolf in the heat of battle.
> 4: Revealing the existence of werewolves to a human; using a silver
> weapon against another werewolf.
> 3: Torturing enemies/prey; murdering a werewolf.
> 2: Hunting humans or wolves for food.
> 1: Betraying a pack; hunting werewolves for food.
>
So, the Tribes (is there a collective word for the "Uratha Nation"?)
and the Pure don't use klaives against each other?

> Mage Wisdom uses the same Hierarchy of Sins as human Morality, with the
> following sins /added/ at the appropriate levels:
>
I would think their's would be closest to human Morality...

> 10: Using magic to do something that you could do as well without it.
> 9: Magically coercing another so that he acts against his free will

This includes emotional impulses?

> 8: Magically coercing another so he violates his moral code.
> 7: Cursing someone
> 6: Forcibly binding an unwilling sentient or spirit.
> 5: Magically transforming a person into a lesser being against his will.
> 4: Using magic to harm someone. Stealing someone's mana. Creating a soul
> stone.

Why is making a soul stone wrong? Assuming it's your own soul?

> 3: Forcing someone into the Shadow, or causing someone to be possessed.
> 2: Intentionally preventing an Awakening. Using magic to commit murder.
> 1: Stealing a soul.

So, no version of Gilgul this time?
>
> In general, nobody can get away with indiscriminate killing, although
> werewolves can get away with indiscriminant maiming as long as it's not
> torture.
>
So it's ok to use magic to, say, spy on women undressing or to alter
another's mind and memories?o_o

How closely do you think you'll hew to the Morality mechanic, if you
get around to storytelling?

Say, do we know what the Mage merits will be?

Dex
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Stephenls wrote:
> Hand-of-Omega wrote:
>
> > Hm, guess we shouldn't jump the gun without actually *seeing* Harmony's
> > scale. Or have we?
>
> Of course we have. Werewolf: The Forsaken has been out for months.
>
> Vampire Humanity has the same Hierarchy of Sins as mortal Morality.
>
> Werewolf Harmony's Hierarchy of Sins is as follows:
>
> 10: Not shapeshifting for more than three days.
> 9: Not obtaining your own food; carrying a silver weapon.
> 8: Disrespect to a spirit or elder Uratha.
> 7: Spending too much time alone; significantly violating a tribal vow.
> 6: Mating with another Uratha; slaying a human or wolf needlessly.
> 5: Slaying a werewolf in the heat of battle.
> 4: Revealing the existence of werewolves to a human; using a silver
> weapon against another werewolf.
> 3: Torturing enemies/prey; murdering a werewolf.
> 2: Hunting humans or wolves for food.
> 1: Betraying a pack; hunting werewolves for food.
>
> Some of those require explanation. "Slaying a human or wolf needlessly"
> is probably the fuzziest one on the list. What counts as "needless?"
> Generally speaking, if there's a solution that does not involve killing
> a human, and a solution that does involve killing a human, then the
> solution that involves killing a human is a Harmony 6 sin.

Okay, so let's be generous and assume ghouls count as humans. If you
drop down to 5 Harmony as a werewolf, you can kill ghouls (e.g. those
guarding Sabbat warehouses) as callously as you like.

Even at 7 Harmony, it seems like werewolves can kill vampires as much
as they like, under any circumstances they like. Werewolves only have
to protect humans, werewolves and wolves. However, vampire
restrictions seem to apply to the crime, not the target. Vampires who
murder any sentient -- even werewolves, pixies, etc. -- would seem to
be regarded as sinners.


>
> Mage Wisdom uses the same Hierarchy of Sins as human Morality, with the
> following sins /added/ at the appropriate levels:
>
> 10: Using magic to do something that you could do as well without it.
> 9: Magically coercing another so that he acts against his free will
> 8: Magically coercing another so he violates his moral code.
> 7: Cursing someone
> 6: Forcibly binding an unwilling sentient or spirit.

Hmm. In the sample adventure for Mage, the players have to deal with a
Sloth spirit as their first challenge. I don't recall seeing anything
about Humanity checks. The Sloth spirit doesn't particularly consent
to be bound, so the rules look inconsistent to me.



>
> In general, nobody can get away with indiscriminate killing, although
> werewolves can get away with indiscriminant maiming as long as it's not
> torture.

"Indiscriminate" is another fuzzy term. Werewolves are effectively
fighting a "just war" all the time, and so they can get away with
murder, literally and figuratively.
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Hand-of-Omega wrote:

> Hm, guess we shouldn't jump the gun without actually *seeing* Harmony's
> scale. Or have we?

Of course we have. Werewolf: The Forsaken has been out for months.

Vampire Humanity has the same Hierarchy of Sins as mortal Morality.

Werewolf Harmony's Hierarchy of Sins is as follows:

10: Not shapeshifting for more than three days.
9: Not obtaining your own food; carrying a silver weapon.
8: Disrespect to a spirit or elder Uratha.
7: Spending too much time alone; significantly violating a tribal vow.
6: Mating with another Uratha; slaying a human or wolf needlessly.
5: Slaying a werewolf in the heat of battle.
4: Revealing the existence of werewolves to a human; using a silver
weapon against another werewolf.
3: Torturing enemies/prey; murdering a werewolf.
2: Hunting humans or wolves for food.
1: Betraying a pack; hunting werewolves for food.

Some of those require explanation. "Slaying a human or wolf needlessly"
is probably the fuzziest one on the list. What counts as "needless?"
Generally speaking, if there's a solution that does not involve killing
a human, and a solution that does involve killing a human, then the
solution that involves killing a human is a Harmony 6 sin. It should
also be noted that "murdering a werewolf" includes striking a finishing
blow on a werewolf you've incapacitated (and who is no doubt
regenerating as you decide whether to strike the finishing blow or not),
and "slaying a werewolf in the heat of battle" is /rare/, since to
qualify for that you have to take them from up and moving about to "all
health filled with aggravated damage" in one blow.

Mage Wisdom uses the same Hierarchy of Sins as human Morality, with the
following sins /added/ at the appropriate levels:

10: Using magic to do something that you could do as well without it.
9: Magically coercing another so that he acts against his free will
8: Magically coercing another so he violates his moral code.
7: Cursing someone
6: Forcibly binding an unwilling sentient or spirit.
5: Magically transforming a person into a lesser being against his will.
4: Using magic to harm someone. Stealing someone's mana. Creating a soul
stone.
3: Forcing someone into the Shadow, or causing someone to be possessed.
2: Intentionally preventing an Awakening. Using magic to commit murder.
1: Stealing a soul.

In general, nobody can get away with indiscriminate killing, although
werewolves can get away with indiscriminant maiming as long as it's not
torture.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Hand-of-Omega wrote:

> Of course, I meant *Wisdom*...-_-

Heh.

> So, the Tribes (is there a collective word for the "Uratha Nation"?)
> and the Pure don't use klaives against each other?

The Pure apparently can't touch or be near silver at all; at the very
least, they're never seen touching or using it.

"Klaive" now just means "fetish melee weapon," and no, they don't make
them out of silver.

Both Gift powers that grant the ability to do aggravated damage are
noted as being Harmony 4 sins when used against werewolves. One of them,
which converts werewolf claws to silver, is noted as being a Harmony 9
sin to use at all (plus the Harmony 4 sin to use it against werewolves,
which is, in fact, its only practical use).

> I would think their's would be closest to human Morality...

It's essentially Morality with stuff you can do with magic taken into
account, apparently.

> This includes emotional impulses?

Right now, I'd say no. Magically generated emotional impulses are no
worse than mundane persuasion methods, although it could be a Harmony 8
sin if the impulse compels the victim to violate his moral code.

But I don't have the book, so I don't know. The section on Wisdom could
very well explain that particular sin in a completely different manner
than what I'm assuming.

> Why is making a soul stone wrong? Assuming it's your own soul?

Remember this doesn't actually measure "right" or "wrong." It measures
behavior conductive or unconductive to mental and emotional stability.
Making a soulstone is unWise, for whatever reason.

We know that if a person loses his soul, he begins to lose a dot of
Morality trait (or Humanity or Harmony or Wisdom or whatever) per day.
Once he's run out of Morality, he begins to lose Willpower dots. Once
he's lost all his Willpower, he's a spineless, babbling insane-o with no
identity to speak of (and mages believe that some, or perhaps many, of
the homeless insane are in fact victims of soul theft). It could be that
a degeneration check is used to measure the fraction of this effect that
occurs when a mage removes a portion of his own soul to forge a
soulstone -- maybe it's not "wrong," just "dangerous."

(Someone who has his soul returned to him begins to regenerate Willpower
and then Morality at the same rate he lost it, until he's reached the
point where he was when he lost his soul.)

> So, no version of Gilgul this time?

See above. Note that Death magic can remove a soul, and mages without
souls are unable to perform magic.

We don't know if souls can be destroyed or not. Not yet, anyway.

> So it's ok to use magic to, say, spy on women undressing or to alter
> another's mind and memories?o_o

Minor Selfish Acts, Morality 9 sin and therefore Wisdom 9 sin.

Altering memories almost certainly falls under "harming another with
magic" if it's harmful, or else "removing free will" if it's non-harmful
but involuntary, although the book may explain it differently.

> How closely do you think you'll hew to the Morality mechanic, if you
> get around to storytelling?

It'd depend on what sort of game I'm running, but when it comes to that
sort of thing I tend to be something of a hardliner.

> Say, do we know what the Mage merits will be?

IIRC, there's Familiar (three dots or four dots -- the former gives you
a pet spirit that's immaterial, while the latter gives you the same, but
physically manifested), Occultation (like Arcane, except instead of
being a vaguely described phenomenon, it involves cutting yourself off
from the world in order to sympathetically make your magic more
difficult to detect), Sanctum (your place), Library (don't know the
mechanics behind it, but it's got Sanctum as a prerequisite), Hallow
(the new Nodes, and again has Sanctum as a prerequisite), and maybe one
or two more.

See this thread on the WW forums for much more spoilage, from a dude who
actually has the book in question:

http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=22267&start=0
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Stephenls wrote:
> Hand-of-Omega wrote:
>> > Say, do we know what the Mage merits will be?
>
> IIRC, there's Familiar (three dots or four dots -- the former gives you
> a pet spirit that's immaterial, while the latter gives you the same, but
> physically manifested), Occultation (like Arcane, except instead of
> being a vaguely described phenomenon, it involves cutting yourself off
> from the world in order to sympathetically make your magic more
> difficult to detect), Sanctum (your place), Library (don't know the
> mechanics behind it, but it's got Sanctum as a prerequisite), Hallow
> (the new Nodes, and again has Sanctum as a prerequisite), and maybe one
> or two more.
>
So, if you have a Hallow, it has to be a Sanctum as well? Hm...

I saw the complete list of new merits, more than for any other game.
Now I'm really feeling the loss of Bonus Points. Are they gonna up the
amount of Merit Points for this game?

> See this thread on the WW forums for much more spoilage, from a dude who
> actually has the book in question:
>
> http://forums.white-wolf.com/viewtopic.php?t=22267&start=0
> --
>
Cool, thanks! I'll have some questions of my own when I finally finish
reading that whole thing!^__~

Dex
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Evelake wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes

This "header" appeared in your message body instead of in its headers.
Be sure to configure your newsreader to add it as a true header -- if
you're just typing it into the start of your article, it probably won't
work.

> The biggest problem I've ever had with the whole Humanity system (and
> that includes all other paths from the older products, Harmony, Wisdom
> and Morality in the newer editions) is that it's trying to impose a
> set of 'hard-and-fast' rules on something that is completely
> subjective.

First, a little clarification: I suspect that you mean "situational"
rather than "subjective" here. While some philosophies do insist that
morality varies according to the actor (subjectivity), that view isn't
very popular, and in fact is regarded by most modern philosophies as
morally bankrupt. What's more common is the claim that morality is
objective but situational; for example, killing is not universally wrong
because some killings are justified. Based on your example, it sounds
like you're talking about moral principles that allow for special
circumstances, rather than subjective morality.

With that out of the way, I believe that the whole point of the NWOD
moral system is that it's neither subjective nor very situational. While
players and characters may have different ideas of what's moral, the
world itself has "One True Morality" that does /not/ allow for special
circumstances. In other words, while your character may believe that
killing the mage is justified and therefore moral, according to the
"natural law" of the NWOD, it's not.

Also note that the NWOD moral system reflects more than just morality;
it's also supposed to model the psychological effects of questionable
acts. People often feel self-destructive remorse after killing a man,
even if the act was justifiable. In other words, while you may have firm
convictions that you did the right thing, there's a good chance that
your psyche will rebel anyway. According to the NWOD rules, this is
especially important for vampires, who must avoid even the appearance of
immorality or risk becoming less human and more beastlike.

This is a common feature of games with moral systems: While your
personal beliefs may not match the game's moral principles, the game
rules are absolutely true /within the game world./ Likewise, your PC may
have different moral principles from those of the game world -- indeed,
a PC may be "evil" in a game /because/ he believes that innocent lives
are worthless. The idea here is to model a particular fantasy world,
which may have universal moral principles different from our own world.

There are pitfalls in that approach. The most common problem is that the
game's moral philosophy is close enough to real-world beliefs that
players want to apply their own beliefs to the game. Your article is a
good example of this; you believe that a particular moral principle is
true, and so you wonder why the game doesn't seem to allow for it. The
answer here is that the game's moral system is a bit different from your
own, so what's justified to you may not be to the game system. Another
common problem is when a player tries to judge his own moral system
against the game's -- according to the game rules, one of the player's
beliefs would be "evil"; the game seems to judge the player himself
unfavorably! The thing to remember here is that the game isn't trying to
judge player beliefs, but only to model a particular (fantasy) moral
system.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> schrieb:
> Evelake wrote:
>> x-no-archive: yes
>
> This "header" appeared in your message body instead of in its headers.
> Be sure to configure your newsreader to add it as a true header -- if
> you're just typing it into the start of your article, it probably won't
> work.

It works. You can put it in the header or in the first line of a
message.
http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=7918&topic=250

--
Thomas Weinbrenner
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for.. 

"Evelake" <avdp04.TakeThisOut@dsl.pipex.net> wrote in message
news:dYmdnQ__rKwmaZDeRVnyvg@pipex.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[big snip]
There is of course one major flaw in a situational vs. objective morality
system such as you suggested: The Humanity 10 Child Serial Killer.

If the ST can indeed fully set aside his own morality (not likely, but
still) and judge a character's actions completely based on what their
actions are motivated by within their personal moral context, then
inevitably there will be someone out there performing classically
immoral/evil acts who, due to the strength and purity of their belief in
what they are doing being "right", will have a incongruously high Morality
score.

Posit: I believe the soul to be eternal & will carry on to a final judgment
upon death. I believe that we are born into the world free of any and all
sin, in a state of pure innocence. I believe that as we live in this world
of sin, our pure souls are corrupted by it, and the longer we exist here,
the more likely that corruption will send us to hell upon death. Thus, I
believe that despite the brief moments of fear and pain I cause killing
their moral coil, the young children I kill are truly being saved from an
eternity of greater pain and torment, for I free their souls far before the
corrupting influence of the world can taint them, keeping them pure to
travel on to heaven.

Thus we have the Humanity 10 child serial killer. He feels guilty about the
pain he causes, but within the context of his belief that he is truly
performing good works, he is easily able to "justify" the actual killing in
such a way that it is not only not evil, but in actuality, an act which
anyone would perform if they only understood the "truth" of the world around
them.

Now mind you, this is not necessarily a bad thing, if the morality system in
the game has nothing to do with traditional ethics & morality, but rather is
simply a measure of a character's personal moral character *within their own
system of beliefs*-a moral "willpower" if you will. It's strange and would
require every character to write out a moral code for themselves, but it
would work. The only thing is that it requires a bit free thinking in order
to accept that the "evil overlord" can have as much "moral character" as the
"holy paladin" trying to stop him, simply of an entirely different nature.

Most game systems with a morality system in them tend to use "traditional"
morality as a baseline and an absolute judgment of it in order to keep
things... neat, for lack of a better word. Do "bad" and you become "bad", do
"good" and you become "good", as dictated by the universal constants the
game system determines is "good" and "bad".

The other reason most game systems use traditional objective morality is to
prevent players going on Sociopathic slaughter-fests with their characters
with impunity. Your example of the high Humanity vampire trying to stop the
mage is an excellent example; he has to *struggle* with his decisions, and
taking the easy way out (just kill the guy) might cause him harm (Humanity
loss), whereas trying the harder rout (holding back his full abilities, thus
reducing the chance of defeating the mage/trying to talk him out of it and
risking him still pulling the switch anyway) will keep him morally pure, but
has other ways to hurt him in the end. Obviously a group of low Humanity
vampires would just go; "hose down the sacrifices with our machine guns,
there, machine sabotaged. Now, let's deal with this mage." See how much
"easier" that was?
 >> Stay informed about: If your Prince orders you to kill a ghoul, do you roll for..