Humanity and the Beast
DasBastard
Hey folks...
I posted something similar today on the WW forums, but I want to find
out the opinions of the NG...
Essentially, my point is that Paths of Enlightenment are a big
mistake, and that all vampires should be on the path of Humanity.
(I can see the flames coming already).
My argument is that Humanity (and the potential loss of it) is one of
the most important aspects of VtM, and that the Paths undermine the
idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
crimes it compels him/her to commit.
To be fair, I like that WW suggested restricting the use of Paths in
the Revised book. I just find that the idea of Sabbat elders
struggling to maintain their last shreds of control over their Beast,
like their Camarilla couterparts, much more interesting than having
them smugly commit atrocities while actually gaining MORE control over
the Beast.
Obviously, I posted this to find out what others think, so please fire
away...
DasBastard
Sakura
DasBastard <bas...@freakland.net> wrote:
>
>Hey folks...
>
>I posted something similar today on the WW forums, but I want to find
>out the opinions of the NG...
>
>Essentially, my point is that Paths of Enlightenment are a big
>mistake, and that all vampires should be on the path of Humanity.
>(I can see the flames coming already).
I've said that ever since I ran into the Paths of Enlightenment. Maybe
it's just bad experiences with players using them as excuses to maim,
kill, and etc. without feeling bad about it.
>My argument is that Humanity (and the potential loss of it) is one of
>the most important aspects of VtM, and that the Paths undermine the
>idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
>crimes it compels him/her to commit.
Nonono. The most important aspects of VtM are getting kewl powers and
beating the crap out of people. Weren't you listening? 8)
J
--
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - je...@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
DasBastard
wrote:
>My argument is that Humanity (and the potential loss of it) is one of
>the most important aspects of VtM, and that the Paths undermine the
>idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
>crimes it compels him/her to commit.
>
>To be fair, I like that WW suggested restricting the use of Paths in
>the Revised book. I just find that the idea of Sabbat elders
>struggling to maintain their last shreds of control over their Beast,
>like their Camarilla couterparts, much more interesting than having
>them smugly commit atrocities while actually gaining MORE control over
>the Beast.
As an example of what I mean, check out al-Ashrad, Elimilech,
Strathcona, and Dracula himself in Children of the Night. They are
among the most compelling characters in the whole book (and one is
Tzimisce to boot!). Take a look at the three Inconnu for examples of
elders who do a pretty good job of maintaining their Humanity.
DasBastard
Brandon Quina
> the most important aspects of VtM, and that the Paths undermine the
> idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
> crimes it compels him/her to commit.
Exactly. Someone with a Path has *lost* his humanity. He *is* a
monster. That fits into Vampire, simply as the counterpoint. It's
similar to the whole Camarilla/Sabbat thing.. The Camarilla are
monsters, but they maintain a veneer of humanity. The Sabbat, on the
other hand, are monsters who don't' fool around and pretty much admit
that they're monsters...
Paths are the same way. V:Rev handles this whole theme much better
than second edition did, and for that I am thankful; if you're on a
path, you're not 'cheating your way out of loosing your humanity'. You
/have lost/ your humanity, and are now a monster...
You're not a mindless beast, admittingly; but is that really necessary
to play the 'keep your humanity' type thread? Is someone who has given
up who he was and become a monster, through and through, still in
control of his life? Is he still who he was before he got embraced? Is
he still *himself*. I would say no, personally...
Brandon,
Kintaro Oe
>the most important aspects of VtM, and that the Paths undermine the
>idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
>crimes it compels him/her to commit.
Humanity -can- be central. The thing is, Humanity (and Paths) are not
about what is morally right or wrong, but about what will give you
enough control to stave off the Beast.
-that's- the part of Vampire. What are you willing to do to stop the
Beast?
kabael kab...@bu.edu ICQ #24193592
"And all the fears you hold so dear
will turn to whisper in your ear."
-Serial Experiments Lain
http://members.xoom.com/McGuffins/
Kintaro Oe
>Strathcona, and Dracula himself in Children of the Night. They are
>among the most compelling characters in the whole book (and one is
>Tzimisce to boot!). Take a look at the three Inconnu for examples of
>elders who do a pretty good job of maintaining their Humanity.
and look at Karsh, Sascha Vykos, and others. Humanity a compelling
character does not make :)
Evil Tyger
Brandon Quina wrote in message <373A24CF...@tmgbbs.com>...
>
> Paths are the same way. V:Rev handles this whole theme much better
>than second edition did, and for that I am thankful; if you're on a
>path, you're not 'cheating your way out of loosing your humanity'. You
>/have lost/ your humanity, and are now a monster...
>
Personally, I prefer the DA Roads to modern 'Paths'. Saying that someone
isn't as 'human' as someone else because they don't beleive the same way you
do smacks of ethnocentricity.
Do I see ~Sabbat~ followers of Paths being utterly inhuman? Yes. But I don't
see non-Sabbat that don't abandon their code of ethics at Embrace being so.
Nor do I see every other Vampire on "Humanity" as printed in the mdoern
lines.
Brandon Quina
> isn't as 'human' as someone else because they don't beleive the same way you
> do smacks of ethnocentricity.
In my mind, it smacks of ignoring one of the best themes about
vampires.
*smiles*
Ohh well, differences of opinion!
Brandon,
Mant
bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
>
>
> Hey folks...
>
> I posted something similar today on the WW forums, but I want to find
> out the opinions of the NG...
>
> Essentially, my point is that Paths of Enlightenment are a big
> mistake, and that all vampires should be on the path of Humanity.
> (I can see the flames coming already).
I think my idea of what the games is about is the only one that matters
and all vampires should conform to that. Yeah, thats flame bait.
> My argument is that Humanity (and the potential loss of it) is one of
> the most important aspects of VtM,
Only for some people. If its an importnat aspect for you fine. Its not
as important for other players.
> and that the Paths undermine the
> idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
> crimes it compels him/her to commit.
Indeed. Paths are offering a new a different approach and experience to
roleplaying vampires. The Vampire as monster rather than the Vampire as
whiney angster ;)
Seriously just look at most Vampire literature and movies. A pretty
fair number of them are monsters, they are inhuman(ish) and inhumane
and manage to do it without beining the ravaning Beasts low Humanity
vampires are described as.
> To be fair, I like that WW suggested restricting the use of Paths in
> the Revised book. I just find that the idea of Sabbat elders
> struggling to maintain their last shreds of control over their Beast,
Um you must have had a differnt book from me. My Sabbat book has the
Sabbat Elders on Paths, it the Neonates still on Humanity.
> like their Camarilla couterparts, much more interesting than having
> them smugly commit atrocities while actually gaining MORE control over
> the Beast.
Of course those on Paths never have moral quandries or issues and can
freely commit any attrocity.
> Obviously, I posted this to find out what others think, so please fire
> away...
I think Paths broaden the roleplaying opportunities of vampire while
doing nothing to stop those who prefere Humanity. Given the ST can veto
Paths it shouldn't ever even be an issue. If the player doesn't like
Paths, don't make a character on one. If the ST doesn't like Paths,
don't let the PCs be on one. If you feel Humanity is integral to the
game, always use that.
But don't describe broadening Vampire's roleplaying opportunities as a
mistake.
Mant
--
World of Darkness Storyteller Resources
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/7960/
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
DasBastard
>In article <3739e707....@news.direct.ca>,
> bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey folks...
>>
>> I posted something similar today on the WW forums, but I want to find
>> out the opinions of the NG...
>>
>> Essentially, my point is that Paths of Enlightenment are a big
>> mistake, and that all vampires should be on the path of Humanity.
>> (I can see the flames coming already).
>
>I think my idea of what the games is about is the only one that matters
>and all vampires should conform to that. Yeah, thats flame bait.
You're probably right.. it's a bit of an extreme statement, but I
really don't think they should be in the core book And let's be
honest.. what percentage of players do you think use Paths for
roleplaying reasons? They use them to be allowed to destroy and
murder with impunity.
>> and that the Paths undermine the
>> idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
>> crimes it compels him/her to commit.
>
>Indeed. Paths are offering a new a different approach and experience to
>roleplaying vampires. The Vampire as monster rather than the Vampire as
>whiney angster ;)
>Seriously just look at most Vampire literature and movies. A pretty
>fair number of them are monsters, they are inhuman(ish) and inhumane
>and manage to do it without beining the ravaning Beasts low Humanity
>vampires are described as.
A vampire with low Humanity doesnt necessarily have to become a raving
beast (at least until they get to Humanity 0). Their low Humanity
could just as easily be represented by emotional detachment, or a
prediliction for perversion (which pretty much describes elder
Tzimisce, doesn't it?)
>> like their Camarilla couterparts, much more interesting than having
>> them smugly commit atrocities while actually gaining MORE control over
>> the Beast.
>
>Of course those on Paths never have moral quandries or issues and can
>freely commit any attrocity.
rather than sweeping generalities, I should probably use some specific
examples
so, let's take a look at some of the Paths
Blood: hmm you DIDNT diablerize your best friend when he was put into
torpor? Path Check! (unless your path rating is 1)
Kill and diablerize..
Bones: Path check for preventing a death
Death and the Soul .. ditto.
Night: this one's a bit weird... you can't get away with murder, but
it seems the "utter perversion or heinous acts" thing is a-OK
I guess letting em die is too merciful.
Metamorphosis: it seems this path boils down to "use Vicissitude a
lot, hoard knowledge"
Paradox: another Path (like Blood) that is not based on anything other
than the clan's stereotypical goals Steal shit and whack elders...
lame.. no mention of the Beast whatsoever
Typhon... ditto (at least this path actually mentions the Beast)
Instead of steal shit and whack elders.. serve Set and corrupt people.
Evil Revelations.. THE worst. "Use the Beast to spread your evil."
Be a slave and be evil, eeeevil. At least it's not for PCs, but it
could sure make for some lame NPCs.
Feral Heart. I'm not sure what to make of this one. on the one hand,
it is based on indulging the Beast, but on the other it at least tries
to explain why doing so will keep it under control, and punishes
pretty harshly for killing for anything other than necessity.
Probably the best path
Honorable Accord: "be a good little Sabbat" blecch.
nothin here that couldnt be duplicated by Humanity + code of honour
merit
Lilith. Masochism as a path. Another path that makes no mention
whatsoever of the Beast. More derangement than path.
Power and the Inner Voice. Control the Beast (which is, again, not
even mentioned) by being a manipulative, powerhungry asshole.
This path is a total waste: no moral tension, not even a justification
for why acting this way will control your Beast
Most of these paths offer no explanation of why they help the vampire
resists the Beast's urges.. isn't that the whole point of a Path?
>> Obviously, I posted this to find out what others think, so please fire
>> away...
>
>I think Paths broaden the roleplaying opportunities of vampire while
>doing nothing to stop those who prefere Humanity. Given the ST can veto
>Paths it shouldn't ever even be an issue. If the player doesn't like
>Paths, don't make a character on one. If the ST doesn't like Paths,
>don't let the PCs be on one. If you feel Humanity is integral to the
>game, always use that.
Of course, the ST is free to discard whatever he/she feel like. But,
because, the Paths are "in the book", I now have to have this argument
with every player in any sabbat chronicle I run.
>But don't describe broadening Vampire's roleplaying opportunities as a
>mistake.
I didnt. I think the Paths hurt the game's roleplaying, not broaden
it.
DasBastard
Brandon Quina
> roleplaying vampires. The Vampire as monster rather than the Vampire as
> whiney angster ;)
Whiney Angster? That's flame bait, too, but I'm not going to bite...
Brandon,
Brandon Quina
I think his was MUCH more 'flame bait' than yours was, but both of you
made good points. Two distinct and different approaches to the game;
the pro-humanity, and pro-path style. I, personally, prefer a happy
medium.
> really don't think they should be in the core book And let's be
> honest.. what percentage of players do you think use Paths for
> roleplaying reasons? They use them to be allowed to destroy and
> murder with impunity.
I think they *should* be in the core book, just because -- like it or
not -- they are a part of the setting. You really can't change that,
especially now! There very much a part of the setting, and thus their
inclusion in the core sourcebook is very much a necessity.
> A vampire with low Humanity doesnt necessarily have to become a raving
> beast (at least until they get to Humanity 0). Their low Humanity
> could just as easily be represented by emotional detachment, or a
> prediliction for perversion (which pretty much describes elder
> Tzimisce, doesn't it?)
Or pretty much any "openly monstrous" type deal -- paths, though, allow
you to be a monster /and/ have a very firm reign on your beast.. You
just have to be a certain kind of monster....
On the other hand, as you start to fall down your humanity spectrum,
the crimes get easier and easier to commit and you fall deeper and
deeper; its a downward slope, and a slippery one at that.. VERY fun to
watch, though!!!
> Blood: hmm you DIDNT diablerize your best friend when he was put into
> torpor? Path Check! (unless your path rating is 1)
> Kill and diablerize..
An assamite is extremely unlikely to have friends outside of his clans,
and acting against other assamites is forbidden... If he /does/ have
friends outside the clan, that just makes for more roleplaying fodder --
"I should use this ones blood to become closer to Haqim, but I know
him.. I consider him friend.. He is not like the other childer of
Khayyin, but he is also not a follower of Haqim.. I do not know what to
do.."
> Bones: Path check for preventing a death
> Death and the Soul .. ditto.
Once again, lots of roleplaying fodder. Things like that, that are
hard to follow and often prove to be 'annoying' are -good- for paths...
It's not just a "do whatever I was goign to do anyway" path...
Though, I have to admit, it's "needlessly" preventing a death...
> Night: this one's a bit weird... you can't get away with murder, but
> it seems the "utter perversion or heinous acts" thing is a-OK
> I guess letting em die is too merciful.
You're supposed to be a literal monster, a servant of the devil; that
/doesn't/ mean you're supposed to be some slasher-killer moster...
> Metamorphosis: it seems this path boils down to "use Vicissitude a
> lot, hoard knowledge"
No, the path boils down to trying to become something greather than
vampire. As a vampire, you are already one step above human -- what is
the next step, and what do you have to do to make that step?? THAT is
what the path is, what it represents...
> Paradox: another Path (like Blood) that is not based on anything other
> than the clan's stereotypical goals Steal shit and whack elders...
> lame.. no mention of the Beast whatsoever
The old path was like that, the new one isn't quite as bad. It's about
reaching your dharma, finding your way in life, and working against your
enemies among the other antideluvians....
> Typhon... ditto (at least this path actually mentions the Beast)
> Instead of steal shit and whack elders.. serve Set and corrupt people.
*laughs*
This path is about serving set, but it /fits/ the setites. I also
wouldn't call it stereotypical...
I'm not going to go over the sabbat paths -- I just don't have the
time, since it's obvious that you're not even giving the paths a fair
shake...
> Of course, the ST is free to discard whatever he/she feel like. But,
> because, the Paths are "in the book", I now have to have this argument
> with every player in any sabbat chronicle I run.
No, you don't. The book says that sabbat neonates are going to start
on humanity, albiet low humanity. If they end up on paths later;
fine. That's very much something that happens IN THE GAME, though.
Thus, it's something that you (the storyteller) have full and complete
control over...
> I didnt. I think the Paths hurt the game's roleplaying, not broaden it.
I disagree.
Brandon,
Kintaro Oe
>honest.. what percentage of players do you think use Paths for
>roleplaying reasons? They use them to be allowed to destroy and
>murder with impunity.
things shouldn't be left out of a book solely to discourage twinks.
They'll buy the supplements anyway.
>A vampire with low Humanity doesnt necessarily have to become a raving
>beast (at least until they get to Humanity 0). Their low Humanity
>could just as easily be represented by emotional detachment, or a
>prediliction for perversion (which pretty much describes elder
>Tzimisce, doesn't it?)
the thing is, you can never roll more dice for a Virtue than you have
Path rating. Hence, the cold-killer with a Humanity of 1 is going to
Frenzy alot, lose his last dot faster, and run from fire screaming
like a girl.
Doesn't really strike me as "monsterous" :)
[snip descrptions of the Paths]
>Most of these paths offer no explanation of why they help the vampire
>resists the Beast's urges.. isn't that the whole point of a Path?
I think you are being overly simplistic with your views of the Paths.
Sure, they can all be summed up like that, but in doing so you toss
much of their meaning. Power and the Inner Voice could be called
"Gimme it NOW! Or I kick you in tha nuts," but in doing so you abandon
the entire idea of perfecting yourself so you -deserve- the power.
The Paths are, for the most part, as deep as you make them. The older
Paths (like from DSotBH) are nearly unsalavagable and require a
complete re-working, but they still have potential.
I think you are dismissing without completely thinking it through.
>Of course, the ST is free to discard whatever he/she feel like. But,
>because, the Paths are "in the book", I now have to have this argument
>with every player in any sabbat chronicle I run.
well is says right in the book that neonate Sabbat are not on Paths.
>>But don't describe broadening Vampire's roleplaying opportunities as a
>>mistake.
>I didnt. I think the Paths hurt the game's roleplaying, not broaden
>it.
how could they? They don't -stop- you from playing anything, they just
let you play -more-. That counts as broadening in my book :)
Kish
DasBastard wrote in message <373b0fed....@news.direct.ca>...
>You're probably right.. it's a bit of an extreme statement, but I
>really don't think they should be in the core book And let's be
>honest.. what percentage of players do you think use Paths for
>roleplaying reasons? They use them to be allowed to destroy and
>murder with impunity.
Then they have bad Storytellers who let them get away with that. <shrug> Any
rule can be misused; that hardly constitutes a reason why they should all be
gone.
>>Of course those on Paths never have moral quandries or issues and can
>>freely commit any attrocity.
>
>
>rather than sweeping generalities, I should probably use some specific
>examples
>
>so, let's take a look at some of the Paths
>
>Blood: hmm you DIDNT diablerize your best friend when he was put into
>torpor? Path Check! (unless your path rating is 1)
That's a moral quandary. None of your examples have any bearing on the idea
that the Paths have no moral issues; you're only saying that they have
values which are negative from a human perspective.
>Paradox: another Path (like Blood) that is not based on anything other
>than the clan's stereotypical goals Steal shit and whack elders...
>lame.. no mention of the Beast whatsoever
You know, you're right. It's almost like the Path might be about more than
just resisting the Beast.
>Most of these paths offer no explanation of why they help the vampire
>resists the Beast's urges.. isn't that the whole point of a Path?
No. I don't know where you get that, but that's the least important aspect
of a Path. Paths are belief systems.
>Of course, the ST is free to discard whatever he/she feel like. But,
>because, the Paths are "in the book", I now have to have this argument
>with every player in any sabbat chronicle I run.
Just say you don't like Paths and don't use them, don't try and argue that
the Paths are "bad." I wouldn't react terribly well to that either.
There's no room for arguing with, "I don't like, I don't use, look at the
Golden Rule," while there is an enormous amount of room for arguing with,
"They're bad and no one should use them."
Kish
DasBastard
>>Most of these paths offer no explanation of why they help the vampire
>>resists the Beast's urges.. isn't that the whole point of a Path?
>
>I think you are being overly simplistic with your views of the Paths.
>Sure, they can all be summed up like that, but in doing so you toss
>much of their meaning. Power and the Inner Voice could be called
>"Gimme it NOW! Or I kick you in tha nuts," but in doing so you abandon
>the entire idea of perfecting yourself so you -deserve- the power.
>The Paths are, for the most part, as deep as you make them. The older
>Paths (like from DSotBH) are nearly unsalavagable and require a
>complete re-working, but they still have potential.
>I think you are dismissing without completely thinking it through.
>
Of course the descriptions were simplistic.. they're 15 word
summaries. I'm not about to quote the Path sections of VtM and the
Sabbat Guide in their entirety.
I don't question that a vampire could spend centuries on the
philosophy of gaining, keeping, and giving power, and the definitions
of what makes one worthy of power. What I dispute is whether that
study will help a vampire resist the Beast.
The same goes for most of the other paths.. sure they may be very (and
likely are) sophisticated philosophies or belief systems, but there is
very little to support them as adequate in dealing with the vampire's
darker side.
The original idea behind Humanity in the game was that the Beast and
the vampire's remaining Humanity were in direct opposition.
Maintaining Humanity meant keeping the Beast in check, and giving in
to the Beast (through frenzy, diablerie, whatever) meant losing a grip
on your Humanity.
Few (if any) of the paths are convincing as viable replacements for
Humanity in that struggle. In fact, most of them (in VtM and GttS)
don't even try to describe why they would be.
I appreciate that there's a fundamental difference of opinion here,
but I am not "dismissing without completely thinking it through". I
have been ST (and player) for chronicles where the characters were
generally on Paths, and chronicles where we had Humanity. I have
found that the roleplaying, at least when it comes to personal moral
conflicts, is far superior when Humanity is used.
DasBastard
Brandon Quina
> the Paths are "bad." I wouldn't react terribly well to that either.
> There's no room for arguing with, "I don't like, I don't use, look at the
> Golden Rule," while there is an enormous amount of room for arguing with,
> "They're bad and no one should use them."
Good advice, Kish. *smiles* In fact, I would have to say that is the
best advice given to the guy thus far -- however, he did state in his
original message that he also wanted to have a little debate about it so
that he could see what everybody else thought.. *smiles* ..He's been
getting one, too!
Brandon,
DasBastard
wrote:
>You know, you're right. It's almost like the Path might be about more than
>just resisting the Beast.
>
>
>>Most of these paths offer no explanation of why they help the vampire
>>resists the Beast's urges.. isn't that the whole point of a Path?
>
>
>No. I don't know where you get that, but that's the least important aspect
>of a Path. Paths are belief systems.
>
Nothing prevents a vampire from having a distinct belief system (even
the ones detailed in the Paths of Enlightement) while still having
Humanity. I would just argue that the Lasombra elder and the Ventrue
elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine alike to
achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have similar
difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance (or
lack thereof) of Humanity.
Please, if someone has a convincing argument for why a particular path
would really help a vampire keep control of his Beast through the
ages, spit it out . I just haven't heard one yet.
DasBastard
DasBastard
wrote:
He IS totally right on this one, and I have come across (mea culpa) as
a little too authoratative on the subject. I don't think , though,
that the meat of my argument really has much to do with whether people
should be "allowed" to use the Paths. It's more that I think they
are unnecessary and potentially destructive to the game's more
internal roleplaying elements.
Thruth is,though, most twinks probably don't think about their
character's morality anyway, Humanity or Path.
As for debate, I am surprised. Unpopular ideas tend to get shouted
down in most newsgroups in a hail of flaming obscenities. Not here
(yet). So far so good.. ;)
DasBastard
David Johnston
>
> > My argument is that Humanity (and the potential loss of it) is one of
> > idea that the vampire is continually at odds with his Beast and the
> > crimes it compels him/her to commit.
>
> monster. That fits into Vampire, simply as the counterpoint. It's
> similar to the whole Camarilla/Sabbat thing.. The Camarilla are
> monsters, but they maintain a veneer of humanity. The Sabbat, on the
> other hand, are monsters who don't' fool around and pretty much admit
> that they're monsters...
That being the case, why bother with Paths? Is there something wrong
with being a Humanity 1 or 0 character?
>
> Paths are the same way. V:Rev handles this whole theme much better
> than second edition did, and for that I am thankful; if you're on a
> path, you're not 'cheating your way out of loosing your humanity'. You
> /have lost/ your humanity, and are now a monster...
>
Mant
bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
> >I think my idea of what the games is about is the only one that
matters
> >and all vampires should conform to that. Yeah, thats flame bait.
>
> You're probably right.. it's a bit of an extreme statement, but I
> really don't think they should be in the core book And let's be
> honest.. what percentage of players do you think use Paths for
> roleplaying reasons? They use them to be allowed to destroy and
> murder with impunity.
What percentage of vampre players use Vampire for roleplaying reasons
and don't just use it to murder and destroy with impunity. Lets not
cater to the lowest common denominator.
Not mention most Paths _don't_ allow you to murder with impunity.
> >Seriously just look at most Vampire literature and movies. A pretty
> >fair number of them are monsters, they are inhuman(ish) and inhumane
> >and manage to do it without beining the ravaning Beasts low Humanity
> >vampires are described as.
>
> A vampire with low Humanity doesnt necessarily have to become a raving
> beast (at least until they get to Humanity 0). Their low Humanity
> could just as easily be represented by emotional detachment, or a
> prediliction for perversion (which pretty much describes elder
> Tzimisce, doesn't it?)
Just read through those descriptions of low Humanity Vampires in VREv.
Those on low Humanity are barely cohrent. Not to mention losing control
all the time with their limited virute dice.
That emotional detachement you describe isn't possible in the spectrum
of behaviou Humaniy offers. You either change Humantiy, and many NPC
form WW have low Humanity but act nothing like the way its descripbe in
the book, or offer an alternative.
> >> like their Camarilla couterparts, much more interesting than having
> >> them smugly commit atrocities while actually gaining MORE control
over
> >> the Beast.
> >
> >Of course those on Paths never have moral quandries or issues and can
> >freely commit any attrocity.
>
> rather than sweeping generalities, I should probably use some specific
> examples
>
> so, let's take a look at some of the Paths
>
> Blood: hmm you DIDNT diablerize your best friend when he was put into
> torpor? Path Check! (unless your path rating is 1)
> Kill and diablerize..
And thats NOT a moral quandry? By companion, friend and Clanmate lies
wounded and I'm obliged to consume his soulby my religious convicitons.
How much more moral quandry do you want?
> Bones: Path check for preventing a death
> Death and the Soul .. ditto.
See above. Look, someone I care about is about to be killed, and here I
am forced to study it.
<snip of Paths?
Humanity: be nice and follow the moral codes of liberal westerners even
if you never held to them in life.
See, you can reduce anything.
> Most of these paths offer no explanation of why they help the vampire
> resists the Beast's urges.. isn't that the whole point of a Path?
They help a vampire because they are following some higher beleif or
cause. You aren't doing something on the whim of you're Beast, you are
doing it becuase you genuinely beleive its the morally right and corrct
thing to do. Even when its pernsonally painful for you.
I'll agree some of the printed Paths aren't great, but thats an issue
of implemantaion, not the principle of Paths.
> >I think Paths broaden the roleplaying opportunities of vampire while
> >doing nothing to stop those who prefere Humanity. Given the ST can
veto
> >Paths it shouldn't ever even be an issue. If the player doesn't like
> >Paths, don't make a character on one. If the ST doesn't like Paths,
> >don't let the PCs be on one. If you feel Humanity is integral to the
> >game, always use that.
>
> Of course, the ST is free to discard whatever he/she feel like. But,
> because, the Paths are "in the book", I now have to have this argument
> with every player in any sabbat chronicle I run.
Tell him "I am the ST, this is my game".
> >But don't describe broadening Vampire's roleplaying opportunities as
a
> >mistake.
>
> I didnt. I think the Paths hurt the game's roleplaying, not broaden
> it.
Sinc e they removing nothing, how can it do anything but broaden?
Mant
Brandon Quina <lo...@tmgbbs.com> wrote:
> > You're probably right.. it's a bit of an extreme statement, but I
>
of you
> made good points. Two distinct and different approaches to the game;
> the pro-humanity, and pro-path style. I, personally, prefer a happy
> medium.
I like both too, although I've played more Paths recently. The thing is
adding Paths removes nothing from the games but gives more choice. I'm
all for that. I'd rather WW printed lots of stuff and I dropped half of
it that I didn't like than I never got any of it at all.
Mant
I doubt it will be convincing, but here we go. I'm not tackeling a
specific Path here, rather what I think are the reasons why they work.
How does Humanity prevent descent into the Beast? Is there something
magical about the Path of 20th Century Liberal Western Ethics
(Humanity) that makes it somehow superior to every other human (let
alone Vampiric) moral code that means it works when no other does? That
every human (an ex-human) should be rated by its standard even from
times and cultures that never held to it?
No. Its about Ego. Falling into the Beast is losing the ego, losing the
sense of self and identity, what makes you _you_ and becoming a
creature of instinct. Anything that is going to prevent falling to the
Beast must preserve the ego. If a vampire simply does whatever their
Beast-instincts tell them they will quickly lose that sense of self as
what they want becomes subsumed by what the Beast wants.
So how does Humanity and Paths fit in? Well to preserve and sense of
self, the Vampire must have goals and drives that are distinct from the
Beast. The best way to do this is through morality, some code of ethics
that define "right" and "wrong", at least for the Vampire.
These "rights" must go beyond what the Beasts wants to do and sometimes
conlfict with this. These "wrongs" must sometimes cause the vampire to
come into conflict with the Beasts urges. This encourages ego-driven
behaviour and so renenforces the sense of self and prenevents its
desinitgartion in the face of the Beast.
The two major appraoches are to do this through either fighting the
Beast or guiding the Beast. However, in both situations the aim is to
make the Beast subserviant to the ego, and so to renforce for the
Vampire the ego's superiority, integrity and control.
So what does the Beast "want"? The first thing to remember is it isn't
evil. Its simply distilled instincts. It wants to feed, to protect
itself and to stay alive. It will hurt things that get in its way, but
its not inherently sadistic. Unless the vampire is Frenzied at someone
hurting them isn't what the Beast wants. In other words doing "bad
things" isn't in any way inherently strengthening the Beast, only
doing "bad things" becasue its what the Beast wants.
So what does a Vampire need to surive in the face of the Beast? As I've
said, moral code that will enable them to hold onto their sense of
self. Now what outsiders think of the Vampire's ideal of good and evil
don't matter, what is important that it both forces and encourages the
ego's superiority over the Beast through a conflict with it, rather
than succumbing to its drives.
Now the most easily avliable code that will fullfil this role for PCs
in the modern age is Humnaity, the code they mostly subscribed to
during life. It fits the bill and they know it already. But its not
inherently better than any other code.
Paths aren't, despite what some vampires claim, really that inhuman.
Most are quite inhumane, but their basic principles and ideals can
ususally be seen in human behaviour. The Vampiric Path just takes it to
extremes. Its not necessary that every sin on the Path cause conflict
with the Beast. But the sins, and more importantly the overall ethics,
must encourage the vampire towards actions driven from the desires of
the ego to preserve it, and provide enough restrictions that the Beast
cannont always be allowed free range. These two together, if followed,
should prove suffiecent to keep the ego strong.
Falling Humanity, and Path, doesn't always happen because of the Beast.
A Vampire could break on of the sins for purely ego driven reasons. In
this case though, the ego is still weakened as by being prepared to
break thier code for any reason, the code is less likely to hold up
when the Beast does put pressure on people.
Note, I'll freely admit some published Paths don't make the grade (2nd
ed Cathari springs to mind) as they don't provide suffiecient conflict
with the Beast. Thats a problem with the implementaion of specific
Paths, rather than the actual concept of Paths.
Indeed unless you can find some justification for making one modern
cultural code of ethics that is Humanity a universal one, Vampire
pretty much demands that some alternate moralities be provided.
David Johnston
>
> In article <373b4dd1....@news.direct.ca>,
> bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:49:30 -0700, "Kish" <kis...@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > Please, if someone has a convincing argument for why a particular path
> > would really help a vampire keep control of his Beast through the
> > ages, spit it out . I just haven't heard one yet.
>
> I doubt it will be convincing, but here we go. I'm not tackeling a
> specific Path here, rather what I think are the reasons why they work.
>
> How does Humanity prevent descent into the Beast? Is there something
> magical about the Path of 20th Century Liberal Western Ethics
> (Humanity) that makes it somehow superior to every other human (let
Humanity has nothing in particular to do with 20th century liberal
western ethics.
> alone Vampiric) moral code that means it works when no other does? That
> every human (an ex-human) should be rated by its standard even from
> times and cultures that never held to it?
Could you please identify the time and culture that held that "wrong-doing"
wasn't wrong? Most of the slots in Humanity are filled with culturally
relativistic concepts that would change based on what the the culture held
"wrong-doing" and "the most heinous acts" might be. The remainder consist
of ideas such as "killing" and "doing harm" which are directly related to
letting your beast out to do what it wants to do.
Me, personally, I prefer just to give Sabbat a new virtue, "Beast", that
isn't affected by humanity and doesn't keep you from going to a frenzy, just
lets you "steer" your frenzy and leave them with their Humanity 4 to 0.
Brandon Quina
> with being a Humanity 1 or 0 character?
You'll note that I said you are a MONSTER, not that you are a mindless
beast. *smiles* There is quite a difference between the two. A
monster might very well have a mindless raging beast within him. He
might struggle with it at time, but he might also "let it come out and
play" here and again.. He's still separate from it, he still holds
himself above it, he's not /giving in to it/.
I agree with the other person who said it was "ego," and not
necessarily western beliefs about morality that fight the beast...
Brandon,
Kish
>elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine alike to
>achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have similar
>difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance (or
>lack thereof) of Humanity.
Why? The only thing the Path of Humanity has that other Paths don't is
"niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any strict
enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict than
Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity restrain the
Beast so very well, in your argument?
Kish
DasBastard
wrote:
>
>Why? The only thing the Path of Humanity has that other Paths don't is
>"niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any strict
>enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict than
>Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity restrain the
>Beast so very well, in your argument?
>
Humanity is in direct opposition to the Beast.. it's about resisting
and controlling the urges brought on by the Beast. Actions which
allow you to maintain (or even improve) your Humanity are those that
suppress the Beast. Those actions which lead to potential loss of
Humanity are those which give the Beast more control over the vampire.
It's not necessarily about moral choices, or a system of beliefs.
It''s a matter of cause-and-effect, not opinion or philosophy.
What opposes the Beast opposes the Beast. The Beast doesn't care what
religious, cultural or philosophical attitudes the vampire has. It
wants to hunt, it wants to kill, it wants BLOOD (and none of that
animal blood crap).
There are specific actions which indulge the Beast, and specific
actions which deny it (for now). The idea that murder does not give
strength to your Beast just because your code of honour demands you
just GOTTA kill this guy is ridiculous. That kind of self-justified
callousness is exactly what is going to send you sprialling out of
control fastest.
I'm not convincing anybody who isn't already convinced (if there are
any of those). However, all of the replies so far have done nothing
but prove that introducing paths HAS really diluted the role of
struggle of the vampire vs its Beast. Obviously there are differing
opinions on how major a role the Beast plays in a vampire's existence.
I have always taken VtM as the tagline of "a game of personal horror",
not a game of "investigating the effect of torturing children on an
alien psyche".
Ah well...
DasBastard
Kish
>Humanity in and around the norm for mortals while still being a
>supreme asshole who cheats and destroys his enemies through
>mainpulation, politics, finances, or the legal system.
>
Ack! In your chronicle, maybe...not mine.
Kish
Kish
>maintain their humanity while engaging in these activities?
Yes. Definitely.
>Or is the ack for a political maneuvring type chronicle?
Nope. That doesn't bother me in the least...but if you behave like a nasty
bastard IMC, you lose Humanity, whether you behave like a manipulative nasty
bastard or an honest nasty bastard.
Kish
DasBastard
wrote:
>>
>>Blood: hmm you DIDNT diablerize your best friend when he was put into
>>torpor? Path Check! (unless your path rating is 1)
>
>
>That's a moral quandary. None of your examples have any bearing on the idea
>that the Paths have no moral issues; you're only saying that they have
>values which are negative from a human perspective.
>
It sure IS a moral quandary, there's no denying that, but it's one in
which both the Beast and your Path are on the same side. It's not a
bad path because it doesn't agree with modern Western morals and
ethics, but because it's not a viable method for controlling the
Beast.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.. high Humanity and nasty
vampires are not mutually exclusive concepts. You can maintain your
Humanity in and around the norm for mortals while still being a
supreme asshole who cheats and destroys his enemies through
mainpulation, politics, finances, or the legal system.
When you start getting your hands dirty, when you stop caring whether
you feed too deeply from vessels, that's when you start the decline...
DasBastard
DasBastard
wrote:
>>You can maintain your
>>Humanity in and around the norm for mortals while still being a
>>supreme asshole who cheats and destroys his enemies through
>>mainpulation, politics, finances, or the legal system.
>>
>
>
>Ack! In your chronicle, maybe...not mine.
>
I'm not sure what you mean.. do you mean you wouldn't let you players
maintain their humanity while engaging in these activities?
Or is the ack for a political maneuvring type chronicle?
DasBastard
David Johnston
>
> >You can maintain your
> >Humanity in and around the norm for mortals while still being a
> >supreme asshole who cheats and destroys his enemies through
> >mainpulation, politics, finances, or the legal system.
> >
>
> Ack! In your chronicle, maybe...not mine.
Lets look at the table
1: Is it a heinous and dement act? No, not by our current culture, or
the most like past ones.
2: Is it premeditated murder? No.
3: Is it sadism and perversion? No.
4: Is it murder in the heat of passion? No.
5: Is it wanton destruction? No.
6: Is it negligent killing? Possibly. People might commit
suicide over it. Usually not, though.
7: Is it theft and robbery? Probably, if you are actually
cheating people. But if you just ruin anyone who crosses
you by getting them fired, hostile takeovers, and just plain
driving them out of business through manuevers such as price
wars and patent infringement lawsuits, not necessarily.
8: Is it purposefully inflicting injury? Almost certainly.
Still, Humanity 7 isn't bad.
David Johnston
>
> >I would just argue that the Lasombra elder and the Ventrue
> >elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine alike to
> >achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have similar
> >difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance (or
> >lack thereof) of Humanity.
>
> "niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any strict
> enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict than
> Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity restrain the
> Beast so very well, in your argument?
Because it is opposed to just taking what you want, and hurting, killing
and destroying for fun and those are the things the Beast wants to do
when unrestrained.
Brandon Quina
Humanity seven is the baseline for most humans. Humanity 8 and higher
is /higher than human/. Even humans don't have humanity higher than
that....
Brandon,
Kintaro Oe
>> monster. That fits into Vampire, simply as the counterpoint. It's
>> similar to the whole Camarilla/Sabbat thing.. The Camarilla are
>> monsters, but they maintain a veneer of humanity. The Sabbat, on the
>> other hand, are monsters who don't' fool around and pretty much admit
>> that they're monsters...
>
>with being a Humanity 1 or 0 character?
the complete and utter inability to play any kind of monster with
Self-Control. I'm not even talking Humanity 0 (slavering animal) here.
Kintaro Oe
>isn't affected by humanity and doesn't keep you from going to a frenzy, just
>lets you "steer" your frenzy and leave them with their Humanity 4 to 0.
wouldn't that be "Instinct" (old rules)? I admit, I find the simple
swapping of Self-Control for Instinct tres-lame, but hey.
and remember, you cannot roll more for a Virtue than your Path rating,
and with a Humanity of 0, you are a mindless animal.
David Johnston
Ayup. Of course, that's only theory. Probably the worst thing about
the selfish bastard lifestyle is that it doesn't give you a way to get
back what you lose when you frenzy, so most of them would tend to dip
down to a stable Humanity 4 or so over time.
>
> Brandon,
David Johnston
>
> >Me, personally, I prefer just to give Sabbat a new virtue, "Beast", that
> >isn't affected by humanity and doesn't keep you from going to a frenzy, just
> >lets you "steer" your frenzy and leave them with their Humanity 4 to 0.
>
> wouldn't that be "Instinct" (old rules)? I admit, I find the simple
> swapping of Self-Control for Instinct tres-lame, but hey.
>
> and remember, you cannot roll more for a Virtue than your Path rating,
"Beast" or "Instinct" would be an exception to that rule. Instead you
wouldn't be able to use it if you had a Humanity higher than 5.
> and with a Humanity of 0, you are a mindless animal.
Doesn't seem to bother the Sabbat. After all, they have to go to 0 Humanity
before starting on a Path, don't they?
Mant
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> Mant wrote:
> >
> > In article <373b4dd1....@news.direct.ca>,
> > bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
path
> > > would really help a vampire keep control of his Beast through the
> > > ages, spit it out . I just haven't heard one yet.
> >
> > I doubt it will be convincing, but here we go. I'm not tackeling a
> > specific Path here, rather what I think are the reasons why they
work.
> >
> > How does Humanity prevent descent into the Beast? Is there something
> > magical about the Path of 20th Century Liberal Western Ethics
> > (Humanity) that makes it somehow superior to every other human (let
>
> Humanity has nothing in particular to do with 20th century liberal
> western ethics.
Humanity as a concept doesn't, Humanity the thing in V:tM does though,
although VRevs version was a lot better and more genertic. Under
Humanity killing someone is _always_ considered wrong, a rather modern
notion.
> > alone Vampiric) moral code that means it works when no other does?
That
> > every human (an ex-human) should be rated by its standard even from
> > times and cultures that never held to it?
>
> Could you please identify the time and culture that held that "wrong-
doing"
> wasn't wrong? Most of the slots in Humanity are filled with
culturally
> relativistic concepts that would change based on what the the culture
held
> "wrong-doing" and "the most heinous acts" might be. The remainder
consist
> of ideas such as "killing" and "doing harm" which are directly
related to
> letting your beast out to do what it wants to do.
When does the Beast want to hurt or kill people? Only for food or when
threatened. The rest of the time the Beast doesn't care. Plenty of
cutures have held it acceptable to kill or harm certain people under
certain circumstances. Most of the time Vampires (like humans) desire
to kill and harm have nothing to do with the Beast.
Vrev was good at giving a more generic Humanity, unfortunately most STs
still use thier cutural ethics when judging Humanity loss, and don't
even consider any moral relatvisim. Indeed, many of the anti-Path
advocates are strongly against paths becuase they fell they introduce
moral relavtism into the game.
Kintaro Oe
>
>"Beast" or "Instinct" would be an exception to that rule. Instead you
>wouldn't be able to use it if you had a Humanity higher than 5.
I see no real need for that kind of system. The Paths work better.
>> and with a Humanity of 0, you are a mindless animal.
>
>Doesn't seem to bother the Sabbat. After all, they have to go to 0 Humanity
>before starting on a Path, don't they?
Excuse me? Do you know what happens when a vampire reaches Humanity 0?
They are monsterous, uncontrollable -animals-. Any vestiges of
sentience are gone, replaced only by predatory cunning. Humanity 0 is
-not- the Sabbat, Humanity 0 is your dog after it's been in a cage for
a month with no food.
David Johnston
>
> In article <373DAD...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Mant wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <373b4dd1....@news.direct.ca>,
> > > bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:49:30 -0700, "Kish" <kis...@mindspring.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please, if someone has a convincing argument for why a particular
> path
> > > > would really help a vampire keep control of his Beast through the
> > > > ages, spit it out . I just haven't heard one yet.
> > >
> > > I doubt it will be convincing, but here we go. I'm not tackeling a
> > > specific Path here, rather what I think are the reasons why they
> work.
> > >
> > > How does Humanity prevent descent into the Beast? Is there something
> > > magical about the Path of 20th Century Liberal Western Ethics
> > > (Humanity) that makes it somehow superior to every other human (let
> >
> > Humanity has nothing in particular to do with 20th century liberal
> > western ethics.
>
> Humanity as a concept doesn't, Humanity the thing in V:tM does though,
> although VRevs version was a lot better and more genertic. Under
> Humanity killing someone is _always_ considered wrong, a rather modern
> notion.
Nope. Rechecking my humanity chart, that is not true.
Humanity 6: Negligent killing (Killing people you didn't mean to kill)
Humanity 4: Murder in the heat of passion (Killing people you aren't
allowed to kill because you are angry or even berserk)
Human 2: Premeditated Murder (Killing people you aren't allowed
to kill without being angry)
Nothing in there suggests that killing in self defense is wrong.
(It does however count as purposefully inflicting injury).
Similarly there are no problems with killing to save others, including
serving as a soldier.
>
> > > alone Vampiric) moral code that means it works when no other does?
> That
> > > every human (an ex-human) should be rated by its standard even from
> > > times and cultures that never held to it?
> >
> > Could you please identify the time and culture that held that "wrong-
> doing"
> > wasn't wrong? Most of the slots in Humanity are filled with
> culturally
> > relativistic concepts that would change based on what the the culture
> held
> > "wrong-doing" and "the most heinous acts" might be. The remainder
> consist
> > of ideas such as "killing" and "doing harm" which are directly
> related to
> > letting your beast out to do what it wants to do.
>
> When does the Beast want to hurt or kill people? Only for food or when
> threatened.
I don't agree. Well, of course it's meaningless to say that the Beast
only wants to kill for food, since the Beast is always hungry. Someone
ruled by the Beast would probably constantly be burning blood except
when they are in torpor. And I think the Beast doesn't mind playing
with it's food.
The rest of the time the Beast doesn't care. Plenty of
> cutures have held it acceptable to kill or harm certain people under
> certain circumstances.
When they do, it isn't called murder.
Most of the time Vampires (like humans) desire
> to kill and harm have nothing to do with the Beast.
>
> Vrev was good at giving a more generic Humanity, unfortunately most STs
> still use thier cutural ethics when judging Humanity loss, and don't
> even consider any moral relatvisim. Indeed, many of the anti-Path
> advocates are strongly against paths becuase they fell they introduce
> moral relavtism into the game.
That's true as well. You see the ST can always decide that since
western vampires are inherently connected to the Judeao-Christian
mythos, J-C ethics can and should be used to evaluate vampiric behavior.
While those have shifted a little over time, it's easy enough to decide
that the Vampire is being evaluated by God, and God agrees with the ST's
ideas about what is right and wrong.
Chris Bell
Kish <kis...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7hia2f$smr$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net...
> >I would just argue that the Lasombra elder and the Ventrue
> >elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine alike to
> >achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have similar
> >difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance (or
> >lack thereof) of Humanity.
>
>
> Why? The only thing the Path of Humanity has that other Paths don't is
> "niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any strict
> enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict than
> Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity restrain the
> Beast so very well, in your argument?
>
>
This is actually more the fault of WWGS, than anything else.
You see, WWGS wants to make use of the dramatic impact of the universal
struggle of 'good' vs 'evil'. While cultural definitions of what good and
evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal in
most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'. This is all well and good,
and is part of most mythologies.
However, enter post-modern moral relativism. You see, WWGS wants to make use
if the struggle of Good vs Evil. However, when it comes down to brass
tacks, they don't want anyone, nay, ANYONE, to have the moral high ground.
They hide behind the clarion call of 'shades of grey'. This would give a
particular group the justification they need to be allowed to win the
Jyhad/Ascension War/Apocalypse/Whatever. Personally, I think this sucks.
I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt. The entire
concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the entire
morality issue of Vampire. By their very nature as defined in the first
edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire existence is
bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco. IMO, The
Sabbat were allowed to be pursued as an option for PC's purely for
commercial reasons.
As now the Sabbat have been part of the Canon eliminating them from the game
system would be impractical. Also, some good work has been done with them. A
better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of the
Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires. Use of Humanity
seems to
"But wait," you say. "Won't all the Sabbat go crazy and Wassail?" Having
the Sabbat as low Humanity Vampires who revel in their monsterdom will more
or less achieve the same effect as what currently exists in the canon now.
Further, it's implied that most Sabbat lead very short unlives, except
perhaps for the Elders. So what is a Vampire looses himself to the
Beast...at least they are True Vampires! Any sacrifice will be made to
defeat the Antediluvians! Clinging to human values may extend your unlife
somewhat, but such cowardice is weakness in disguise! Or, this is what
Sabbat propganda would have the issue be.
An interesting RP exploration that the Sabbat Guide (which was otherwise
excellent) would be the issue of Sabbat self-loathing, and the Sabbat's
opposute dichotomy approach to the Camarilla Riddle...even though they may
deny it, seeing themselves as intelligent creatures who are above Humanity
(as a race), many Sabbat may secretly loathe themselves since their human
minds allow them to percieve the need for freedom, and their human aspects
are just as important in their war against the Antediluvians as their
Vampiric ones. Further, emotions that are valued in the Sabbat, such as
loyalty and courage, are annihiliated as the Vampire slips closer and closer
to the Beast. As the Vampire becomes closer to the Beast (a Sabbat ideal),
he or she becomes less useful and effective to the Sabbat.
Please also note... I'm not opposed to the Sabbat being in the canon (I
think that Sabbat as PC's were a mistake, but not a drastic one, and set
some bad precedents for the other game systems (like BSD and Fomor PC's, for
instance), but I am against the elimination of the struggle against the
Beast being a central factor in a Vampire's unlife, regardless of sect.
More thoughts later,
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
Kintaro Oe
>if the struggle of Good vs Evil. However, when it comes down to brass
>tacks, they don't want anyone, nay, ANYONE, to have the moral high ground.
>They hide behind the clarion call of 'shades of grey'. This would give a
>particular group the justification they need to be allowed to win the
>Jyhad/Ascension War/Apocalypse/Whatever. Personally, I think this sucks.
Fine with me, I just like some -reality- in my games, myself. Hence,
the greyness is -good-.
>I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
>crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt. The entire
>concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the entire
>morality issue of Vampire.
you're opinion. I think you're giving the Paths a short shake and not
looking at them deeply.
>By their very nature as defined in the first
>edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire existence is
>bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco.
you blame WW for this when it is clearly the fault of the players.
I've seen Paths done well and in reading them, they are logical and
reasonable.
It's not WW's "fault" at all.
> IMO, The
>Sabbat were allowed to be pursued as an option for PC's purely for
>commercial reasons.
I don't. They could have easily been kept as villians and Evil in the
PG Guide to the Sabbat. We have guides to BSDs, fomori, spectres,
Autumn People. Many of them are Evil, yet we get to play them. Saying
that the Sabbat was made not Evil for commercial reasons does not
wash.
>As now the Sabbat have been part of the Canon eliminating them from the game
>system would be impractical. Also, some good work has been done with them. A
>better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
>eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of the
>Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires. Use of Humanity
>seems to
to what?
Roads and Paths work -fine-. They aren't broken like you claim.
>"But wait," you say. "Won't all the Sabbat go crazy and Wassail?" Having
>the Sabbat as low Humanity Vampires who revel in their monsterdom will more
>or less achieve the same effect as what currently exists in the canon now.
Not really at all. With only Humanity, the Sabbat -will- fall into
depravity and Wassail. Not to mention that Humanity limits dice for
Virtue rolls, as well as dice pools during the day and torpor times,
to mention a few things.
Not the same as Paths at -all-.
>Further, it's implied that most Sabbat lead very short unlives, except
>perhaps for the Elders. So what is a Vampire looses himself to the
>Beast...at least they are True Vampires!
No, they are uncontrollable animals that need to be put down for
everyone's safety.
>Any sacrifice will be made to
>defeat the Antediluvians! Clinging to human values may extend your unlife
>somewhat, but such cowardice is weakness in disguise! Or, this is what
>Sabbat propganda would have the issue be.
which is a valid point, and the Paths allow success and justification
of that point.
>An interesting RP exploration that the Sabbat Guide (which was otherwise
>excellent) would be the issue of Sabbat self-loathing, and the Sabbat's
>opposute dichotomy approach to the Camarilla Riddle...even though they may
>deny it, seeing themselves as intelligent creatures who are above Humanity
>(as a race), many Sabbat may secretly loathe themselves since their human
>minds allow them to percieve the need for freedom, and their human aspects
>are just as important in their war against the Antediluvians as their
>Vampiric ones. Further, emotions that are valued in the Sabbat, such as
>loyalty and courage, are annihiliated as the Vampire slips closer and closer
>to the Beast. As the Vampire becomes closer to the Beast (a Sabbat ideal),
>he or she becomes less useful and effective to the Sabbat.
That's an interesting idea. One that is not destroyed by the mere
existance of Paths.
>Please also note... I'm not opposed to the Sabbat being in the canon (I
>think that Sabbat as PC's were a mistake, but not a drastic one, and set
>some bad precedents for the other game systems (like BSD and Fomor PC's, for
>instance), but I am against the elimination of the struggle against the
>Beast being a central factor in a Vampire's unlife, regardless of sect.
there is no elimination of the Beast in the Sabbat. Paths are still
rigorous, they are just -different-. Being on a Path is not a "Get out
of Wassail Free" card.
Ratspaw
>>However, enter post-modern moral relativism. You see, WWGS wants to make use
>>if the struggle of Good vs Evil. However, when it comes down to brass
>>tacks, they don't want anyone, nay, ANYONE, to have the moral high ground.
>>They hide behind the clarion call of 'shades of grey'. This would give a
>>particular group the justification they need to be allowed to win the
>>Jyhad/Ascension War/Apocalypse/Whatever. Personally, I think this sucks.
>
>Fine with me, I just like some -reality- in my games, myself. Hence,
>the greyness is -good-.
Grey is fine. but, hey, I like a hero now and again.
Of course, that's why I own non-WoD RPGs. :)
To be fair, I think a lot of the grimness in the WoD is user-relative.
I like to have some good guys who really mean well in mine. Some
people I've seen have games where /everyone's/ soul is polluted and
Mother Theresa had sinister ulterior motives.
Shades of grey in the shades of grey, I guess.
>>I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
>>crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt. The entire
>>concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the entire
>>morality issue of Vampire.
>you're opinion. I think you're giving the Paths a short shake and not
>looking at them deeply.
I don't know how much depth there is to look at. Maybe if they had
some philosophy professors sit down and write a serious book on each
path I could buy that there's a lot of depth to them, but as it is,
their brief descriptions leave them pretty one-dimensional as ways of
life go, man. Aw, you know how I feel about Paths. Of course you
know how I feel about the Sabbat in general, too.
>>By their very nature as defined in the first
>>edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire existence is
>>bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco.
>you blame WW for this when it is clearly the fault of the players.
>I've seen Paths done well and in reading them, they are logical and
>reasonable.
Lots of things look logical and reasonable on paper. The Communist
Manifesto was a great idea on paper. Esperanto was a great idea on
paper. The Great Society was a great idea on paper. The crux for a
philosophical notion is success in /practice/, and if in practice they
don't get followed to desired expectations, they don't work.
Now, I'm not arguing that they should be taken out. I'm just saying
that if they're going to be left in they should be fleshed out more,
and reserved for experienced players or maybe well-read ethicists. :)
>It's not WW's "fault" at all.
No, it isn't. It should just be taken farther than it has been. The
developers had a good idea in revamping the Path system, but it should
really be taken farther whenever they get the time before I take it
seriously, and I don't care enough about it to do it on my own.
Ratspaw
The fleeing rat's tail
Wheels in the corner shadow
Frenzied blood red eyes
Kish
>I don't know how much depth there is to look at. Maybe if they had
>some philosophy professors sit down and write a serious book on each
>path I could buy that there's a lot of depth to them, but as it is,
>their brief descriptions leave them pretty one-dimensional as ways of
>life go, man.
The same could be said about Humanity. The only reason it's not considered
as much a "Path of What I Wanted To Do Anyway" as any of the Paths is that
we all take for granted that there are "violations of Humanity" which aren't
explicitly spelled out on the Hierarchy of Sins, and being human, we can
figure out what they are. Why bash the Paths for something also true
in-game of Humanity?
Kish
Rebecca Sutton
wrote:
>> >I would just argue that the Lasombra elder and the Ventrue
>> >elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine alike to
>> >achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have similar
>> >difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance (or
>> >lack thereof) of Humanity.
>This is actually more the fault of WWGS, than anything else.
>
>You see, WWGS wants to make use of the dramatic impact of the universal
>struggle of 'good' vs 'evil'. While cultural definitions of what good and
>evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal in
>most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'. This is all well and good,
>and is part of most mythologies.
Here you actually hit the cultural reason for paths... or more
especially for the dark ages roads. I just wish the road of heaven
was still around in modern times in v:tm canon. I have an easier time
roleplaying it than i do humanity. This is actually a personal thing.
I don't like humanity as it stands and would have to do some severe
rewriting to get it to work right in my opinion. For example if I had
a high humanity character and someone controlled her via mind magick
or dominate or other means and forced her to kill someone. I would
have to make a degredation roll. Sorry.... but no. If you have no
free will at the time you can't sin. Okay so it's a belief thing. If
you could not have avoided what happened and would have if you could
you are not to blame and should not be held so. Okay, yes I do like
the path of Harmony to an extent though it is too lax for me. When it
comes to morality my other major thing is 'you may not do evil that
good may come of it'. Heaven has this problem to though not as much
as Harmony. btw is it just me or does the path of night seem to be a
development of the worst aspects of Heaven?
Roads reflect different views of good and evil. Some concentrate on
goodness as they perceive (eg humanity, chivalry, heaven) others on
evil (eg devil) some are more neutral (eg beast) while some are just
weird (eg paradox)
>I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
>crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt. The entire
>concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the entire
>morality issue of Vampire. By their very nature as defined in the first
>edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire existence is
>bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco. IMO, The
>Sabbat were allowed to be pursued as an option for PC's purely for
>commercial reasons.
Why not most human organisations do. This does not always reflect on
the organisation as much as it does the members of it
>As now the Sabbat have been part of the Canon eliminating them from the game
>system would be impractical. Also, some good work has been done with them. A
>better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
>eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of the
>Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires. Use of Humanity
>seems to
That's a nonsense. That would be like making a player with a C18th
Polynesian character roll degredation for stealing something or having
sex with someone else's wife. Since in general they had no concept of
marriage or property the concepts did not apply. Why should the
morality? It wasn't a deficit of humanity or conscience it was a
cultural thing. And the roads inparticular and some of the paths
reflect a cultural decision on the part of the vampire, a clinging to
themselves over the beast. The beast isn't immoral it's amoral. It
has no concept of good and evil only need and satiation. It is a
beast in the literal sense. If a vampire has a sense of good and evil
and stick to it firmly even if by rejection of good and acceptance of
evil then they haven't lost it and the more firmly they stick to their
morality the further away from the beast they are.
>"But wait," you say. "Won't all the Sabbat go crazy and Wassail?" Having
>the Sabbat as low Humanity Vampires who revel in their monsterdom will more
>or less achieve the same effect as what currently exists in the canon now.
>Further, it's implied that most Sabbat lead very short unlives, except
>perhaps for the Elders. So what is a Vampire looses himself to the
>Beast...at least they are True Vampires! Any sacrifice will be made to
>defeat the Antediluvians! Clinging to human values may extend your unlife
>somewhat, but such cowardice is weakness in disguise! Or, this is what
>Sabbat propganda would have the issue be.
Not really wassailed vampires would be treacherous and dangerous and
likely betray the sabbat. Plus the Beast comes down to must eat. must
sleep. must avoid fire and sun. Fight the antes? Now there's a
concept way too complex. Why go over there to eat the cammies when my
packmate is closer?
>An interesting RP exploration that the Sabbat Guide (which was otherwise
>excellent) would be the issue of Sabbat self-loathing, and the Sabbat's
>opposute dichotomy approach to the Camarilla Riddle...even though they may
>deny it, seeing themselves as intelligent creatures who are above Humanity
>(as a race), many Sabbat may secretly loathe themselves since their human
>minds allow them to percieve the need for freedom, and their human aspects
>are just as important in their war against the Antediluvians as their
>Vampiric ones. Further, emotions that are valued in the Sabbat, such as
>loyalty and courage, are annihiliated as the Vampire slips closer and closer
>to the Beast. As the Vampire becomes closer to the Beast (a Sabbat ideal),
>he or she becomes less useful and effective to the Sabbat.
No, the sabbat are not stupid. They know that the Beast is the enemy
as much as anything. They value loyalty and denegrate humanity. The
only reason they do this is because humanity of virtually impossible
to work with. You can't kill in self defense for heaven's sake! They
would avoid behaviour that weakened their strength like the plague and
thus would be completely ineffective. Fighting would strengthen the
beast. It can't be done... unless the sabbat are all fools in your
world.
>Please also note... I'm not opposed to the Sabbat being in the canon (I
>think that Sabbat as PC's were a mistake, but not a drastic one, and set
>some bad precedents for the other game systems (like BSD and Fomor PC's, for
>instance), but I am against the elimination of the struggle against the
>Beast being a central factor in a Vampire's unlife, regardless of sect.
Paths don't they just expose the beast for what it is amoral not
immoral and the more frightening for it. It is the sense of a
morality that preserves self against the beast not good actions. This
is why characters lose a dot from virtues at the same time as humanity
or path. To show how they are losing a grip on their ego.
Becka
Rebecca Sutton
be...@malcop.u-net.com
http://www.malcop.u-net.com
Kintaro Oe
>>the greyness is -good-.
>
>Grey is fine. but, hey, I like a hero now and again.
I like heroes fine, but I like my heroes to be -people-, and people
have faults. Even a heroes has to have a stain on his soul, it comes
with life.
>Of course, that's why I own non-WoD RPGs. :)
what? HERETIC!
>To be fair, I think a lot of the grimness in the WoD is user-relative.
>I like to have some good guys who really mean well in mine. Some
>people I've seen have games where /everyone's/ soul is polluted and
>Mother Theresa had sinister ulterior motives.
There's a difference between saying that the WoD is grey and that
-everything- in the WoD is evil and self-serving. I go with the first,
myself ;)
There are genuinely nice, caring, loving people in the WoD, but they
are still people so they are not -pure- niceness.
>Shades of grey in the shades of grey, I guess.
indeed
>I don't know how much depth there is to look at. Maybe if they had
>some philosophy professors sit down and write a serious book on each
>path I could buy that there's a lot of depth to them, but as it is,
>their brief descriptions leave them pretty one-dimensional as ways of
>life go, man. Aw, you know how I feel about Paths. Of course you
>know how I feel about the Sabbat in general, too.
The one dimension they have has to be explored. Disciplines are often
flat and one dimensional unless you actually flesh them out. The Paths
show you the base, as a role-player you have to do the rest yourself.
>Lots of things look logical and reasonable on paper. The Communist
>Manifesto was a great idea on paper. Esperanto was a great idea on
>paper. The Great Society was a great idea on paper. The crux for a
>philosophical notion is success in /practice/, and if in practice they
>don't get followed to desired expectations, they don't work.
Practice at the hand of a random player is not enough to qualify it.
And all of those things existed in real life, no? Which means they
were -viable- if not successful.
>Now, I'm not arguing that they should be taken out. I'm just saying
>that if they're going to be left in they should be fleshed out more,
>and reserved for experienced players or maybe well-read ethicists. :)
Which is what they -are- :) VRev says that they are for advanced
players.
>No, it isn't. It should just be taken farther than it has been. The
>developers had a good idea in revamping the Path system, but it should
>really be taken farther whenever they get the time before I take it
>seriously, and I don't care enough about it to do it on my own.
I'm sure they -will- take it farther, but they can only print so much.
Complaining that the Paths are one dimensional because of the space
they got is like complaining that bloodlines and clans are one
dimensional, or that personality archtypes are. You are -supposed- to
expand on them.
Kintaro Oe
>a high humanity character and someone controlled her via mind magick
>or dominate or other means and forced her to kill someone. I would
>have to make a degredation roll. Sorry.... but no. If you have no
>free will at the time you can't sin.
That doesn't mean that you can't feel guilt for it. Sin has -nothing-
to do with Humanity rating. Sin is a religious construct.
>Okay so it's a belief thing. If
>you could not have avoided what happened and would have if you could
>you are not to blame and should not be held so.
people blame themselves for many things which they had no hand in.
>btw is it just me or does the path of night seem to be a
>development of the worst aspects of Heaven?
indeed, which is why it's such a good Path, IMHO.
>Not really wassailed vampires would be treacherous and dangerous and
>likely betray the sabbat.
not really. Treachery and betrayal implies thought, it;s more that
they would be likely to eat the Sabbat alive :)
>Plus the Beast comes down to must eat. must
>sleep. must avoid fire and sun. Fight the antes? Now there's a
>concept way too complex. Why go over there to eat the cammies when my
>packmate is closer?
exactly.
Ratspaw
>>No, it isn't. It should just be taken farther than it has been. The
>>developers had a good idea in revamping the Path system, but it should
>>really be taken farther whenever they get the time before I take it
>>seriously, and I don't care enough about it to do it on my own.
>I'm sure they -will- take it farther, but they can only print so much.
>Complaining that the Paths are one dimensional because of the space
>they got is like complaining that bloodlines and clans are one
>dimensional, or that personality archtypes are. You are -supposed- to
>expand on them.
I could be wrong, but a lot of the Clans, Bloodlines are personality
archetypes /are/ one-dimensional, and not just because of the space
provided. :) (Hey! No offense to soft-skinned developers!
Hard-skinned developers may form their own opinions.) However, it
takes less space overall to flesh out a group than a school of
thought, thinks I.
Ratspaw
wrote:
>The same could be said about Humanity. The only reason it's not considered
>as much a "Path of What I Wanted To Do Anyway" as any of the Paths is that
>we all take for granted that there are "violations of Humanity" which aren't
>explicitly spelled out on the Hierarchy of Sins, and being human, we can
>figure out what they are. Why bash the Paths for something also true
>in-game of Humanity?
Now that you mention it, Humanity is a little narrow for my tastes,
too. I just find the Paths to be considerably more so. "Try to be
human, whatever that is" is a bit broader, than say "Everything death!
That's me!"
David Johnston
So exactly what would you have done that you would have to roll for?
> No, the sabbat are not stupid. They know that the Beast is the enemy
> as much as anything. They value loyalty and denegrate humanity. The
> only reason they do this is because humanity of virtually impossible
> to work with. You can't kill in self defense for heaven's sake!
Why not?
Rebecca Sutton
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>> >This is actually more the fault of WWGS, than anything else.
>> >
>> >You see, WWGS wants to make use of the dramatic impact of the universal
>> >struggle of 'good' vs 'evil'. While cultural definitions of what good and
>> >evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal in
>> >most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'. This is all well and good,
>> >and is part of most mythologies.
>>
>> Here you actually hit the cultural reason for paths... or more
>> especially for the dark ages roads. I just wish the road of heaven
>> was still around in modern times in v:tm canon. I have an easier time
>> roleplaying it than i do humanity. This is actually a personal thing.
>> I don't like humanity as it stands and would have to do some severe
>> rewriting to get it to work right in my opinion. For example if I had
>> a high humanity character and someone controlled her via mind magick
>> or dominate or other means and forced her to kill someone. I would
>> have to make a degredation roll. Sorry.... but no. If you have no
>> free will at the time you can't sin. Okay so it's a belief thing. If
>> you could not have avoided what happened and would have if you could
>> you are not to blame and should not be held so.
>
>So exactly what would you have done that you would have to roll for?
in the above example.... killed someone. Especially at high humanity
levels there are no mitigating circumstances allowed. If you mean what
do I think you should roll for in humanity anything you are to blame
for, whether by negligence, decision or design. ie if you are
responsible by negligence for someone's death (because you didn't
maintain the equipment or whatever) you should have to roll at
probably six or seven. If you kill someone at the spur of the moment
about level 4 or 5 and if you premeditate a murder about level 3
>
>> No, the sabbat are not stupid. They know that the Beast is the enemy
>> as much as anything. They value loyalty and denegrate humanity. The
>> only reason they do this is because humanity of virtually impossible
>> to work with. You can't kill in self defense for heaven's sake!
>
>Why not?
In humanity you have to roll for degredation at moderate levels if you
kill someone even if it was reasonable force in self defense. It's
prawnball!
Rebecca Sutton
>>For example if I had
>>a high humanity character and someone controlled her via mind magick
>>or dominate or other means and forced her to kill someone. I would
>>have to make a degredation roll. Sorry.... but no. If you have no
>>free will at the time you can't sin.
>
>That doesn't mean that you can't feel guilt for it. Sin has -nothing-
>to do with Humanity rating. Sin is a religious construct.
Then why is it called the heirarchy of sins? :-)
no seriously... a woman who's been raped generally feels guilty,
should a character who's been raped (though I should hope no GM would
go so far this is a question in hypothesis) have to roll to see if her
humanity is effected?
Sin in the game context is an infringment of your conscience (or
conviction). If you fail to feel guilt (or recognise your failure)
your defense against the beast, the morality and beliefs on which you
hold to your self crumble a little more. In game terms you lose a
virtue point and a humanity (or path) point to reflect this.
>>Okay so it's a belief thing. If
>>you could not have avoided what happened and would have if you could
>>you are not to blame and should not be held so.
>
>people blame themselves for many things which they had no hand in.
yes but they generally accept on some level that it was not their
fault. Mortal soceity tries to cure people of misapplied guilt... at
least it's best aspects do. It's worst aspects play on that guilt to
make a profit and people also can be crazy and mixed up. A person who
doesn't feel guilty about cold blooded killing may feel guilty about
stealing... and when they cease to feel guilty about stealing they've
lost something of themselves. Humanity alone cannot reflect that
easily, it would take some extra working out between Storyteller and
player to allow the rolls called for to actually reflect the fact that
the character has a skewed as opposed to absent morality and when
morality becomes skewed enough it ceases to be humanity and becomes a
path.
>>btw is it just me or does the path of night seem to be a
>>development of the worst aspects of Heaven?
>
>indeed, which is why it's such a good Path, IMHO.
I wonder what a path that contained the worst aspects of humanity
would look like. Nasty I think.
>>Not really wassailed vampires would be treacherous and dangerous and
>>likely betray the sabbat.
>
>not really. Treachery and betrayal implies thought, it;s more that
>they would be likely to eat the Sabbat alive :)
Betray in the sense of not support, me thinks the Sabbat would think
them traitors.
>>Plus the Beast comes down to must eat. must
>>sleep. must avoid fire and sun. Fight the antes? Now there's a
>>concept way too complex. Why go over there to eat the cammies when my
>>packmate is closer?
>
>exactly.
>
which is why I accept the concept of paths but prefer the rules from
DA for changing from one to another. My prerogative :-)
Justin R. Achilli
<sart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is actually more the fault of WWGS, than anything else.
>
> You see, WWGS wants to make use of the dramatic impact of the universal
> struggle of 'good' vs 'evil'.
Um, no.
This is why I scaled back so heavily on infernalism in the Sabbat book. This
is why we took such deliberate pains to illustrate the Camarilla as "not the
good guys." This is why we harp on the fact that Humanity does not equate to
how nice your vampire is -- it's a measure of how prominent the Beast and
its urges are as compared to the Man.
Arbitrary "good" and "evil" are not explorations of morality, and I keep
them way the hell away from Vampire. "Good" and "evil" are convenient
concepts for high-fantasy games in which one must save the virtuous princess
from the evil dragon. From Vampire's point of view, if you killed the dragon
just because he was a dragon, you'd be a racist. (And you'd probably have to
check for degeneration after killing because the Beast _likes_ you to kill.)
> While cultural definitions of what good and
> evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal in
> most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'.
Not in Vampire. We don't pretend to represent all cultures' moral codes.
However, I defy you to show me a single modern culture in which killing is
virtuous. The closest you'll be able to come is the Aztecs (who I'd count as
modern for the sake of argument), whose killings were not performed
rampantly and with abandon, but rather as vital facets of a faith intended
to appease vengeful gods.
> This is all well and good,
> and is part of most mythologies.
>
> However, enter post-modern moral relativism. You see, WWGS wants to make use
> if the struggle of Good vs Evil.
I reiterate: Um, no.
The entire concept of varying scales of morality is designed to allow
players to make _individual_ choices for their characters. If we stuck with
"ol' fashioned good-n-evil," you would have no choices to make. You would be
a vampire, and hence an evil creature, incapable of undertaking any acts of
arbitrarily defined altruism.
And I think we all know that's not how the game is (usually) played.
> However, when it comes down to brass
> tacks, they don't want anyone, nay, ANYONE, to have the moral high ground.
> They hide behind the clarion call of 'shades of grey'. This would give a
> particular group the justification they need to be allowed to win the
> Jyhad/Ascension War/Apocalypse/Whatever.
This is precisely point-of-view. Me, I think killing virgins to appease the
angry gods is unacceptable. Ancient Aztecs thought it was right on the
money. Who's right? Me? Why? Would I be wrong were I transplanted into an
ancient Aztec society? It's cultural bias and the result of individual
choices made by a larger group of people. Despite the fact that Aztecs
participated in acts that I find morally wrong doesn't mean they're evil.
> Personally, I think this sucks.
>
> I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
> crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt.
That's one of the things I like. In fact, it sounds to me like you _do_ want
a clear-cut "good" or "evil." There's nothing wrong with that, of course,
but it's not what Vampire seeks to give.
> The entire
> concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the entire
> morality issue of Vampire. By their very nature as defined in the first
> edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire existence is
> bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco. IMO, The
> Sabbat were allowed to be pursued as an option for PC's purely for
> commercial reasons.
Then why won't I do an Inconnu book? You know how much that thing would
sell? We walk a fine line over between "let's sell books! and "that's not
true to the art!" and we shake our fists at each other daily over it. I
don't think the two are mutually exclusive, however. It's possible (and it's
been done!) to make a book that's true to the high-art psychomeme behind
Vampire and still sell a buncha books.
> As now the Sabbat have been part of the Canon eliminating them from the game
> system would be impractical. Also, some good work has been done with them.
Thanks.
> A
> better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
> eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of the
> Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires.
This is part of why I wanted to make them more rare. As of GttS, most Sabbat
are still followers of Humanity. I think it makes sense, because I thought
the "magic shovel of enlightenment"* was implausible. Other people dislike
it because they think it makes the Sabbat too close to humans and other
vampires (which was my intent... heehee!).
Of course, that's your choice to make in your game. I like PoE's, you don't.
Some people like more vampires to have them than I do... it's our own little
shade of gray ;)
* Whack! "Ow, my head! Why are you burying me? I now espouse spiritual
dualism, and I believe one's moral duty is to diablerize those with more
potent blood than me!" Where can I buy such a shovel?
> "But wait," you say. "Won't all the Sabbat go crazy and Wassail?" Having
> the Sabbat as low Humanity Vampires who revel in their monsterdom will more
> or less achieve the same effect as what currently exists in the canon now.
> Further, it's implied that most Sabbat lead very short unlives,
Agreed.
> except
> perhaps for the Elders.
Agreed. One of my secret goals was to have as few Sabbat "ancillae" as
possible. The old ones get old by not being the shrieking jackasses who cast
themselves into the jaws of the Beast, which many of the young ones are all
too happy to do.
> So what is a Vampire looses himself to the
> Beast...at least they are True Vampires!
But, once claimed by the Beast, they become literal animals, incapable of
reasoned thought and serving no purpose other than feeding.
> Any sacrifice will be made to
> defeat the Antediluvians! Clinging to human values may extend your unlife
> somewhat, but such cowardice is weakness in disguise! Or, this is what
> Sabbat propganda would have the issue be.
This is again where I like to sow the seeds of hypocrisy. "Propaganda" is a
perfect word for it. You don't get to be an elder by kicking Antediluvians
in the groin. You get to be an elder by pointing the thirsty childer at
vampires other than yourself. Of course, it's not so simple -- many Sabbat
elders _do_ believe in the cause, or even in the sect's "old ways" that
became perverted so many years after the Anarch Revolt. They're not all
conniving fuckheads. Just most of them, because that's the best way to keep
your unlife. And after sending countless neonates, etc., to their deaths,
they've _got_ to be able to cope with things in a way that Humanity cannot
sensibly withstand. Vampires are not human -- the older they get, the more
alien they become. That's another one of my secret directives -- in Children
of the Night, many of the Camarilla characters are far weaker than their
Sabbat counterparts. Those Camarilla vampires have had to spend much of
their unlives fighting back the Beast, while the Sabbat have pursued other
goals. Ultimately, the Camarilla character will be more able to convince
anotehr person that he's mortal than the Humanity-3 or Path of Caine-7
Sabbat war fiend. And that's their intent.
> Please also note... I'm not opposed to the Sabbat being in the canon (I
> think that Sabbat as PC's were a mistake, but not a drastic one, and set
> some bad precedents for the other game systems (like BSD and Fomor PC's, for
> instance), but I am against the elimination of the struggle against the
> Beast being a central factor in a Vampire's unlife, regardless of sect.
The struggle against the Beast is still there, it's just dealt with
differently. It's also possible for the Sabbat (or any vampire, of course)
to say "fuck it" and jump helter-skelter into the Beast's control. But, then
again, that's not what we're doing with Vampire.
Regards,
Justin
--
[Justin R. Achilli]
[Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]
[White Wolf Game Studio]
[jach...@white-wolf.com - www.white-wolf.com]
"I've lived my life on alcohol.
I've lived my life on pills."
-- New Order, "Thieves Like Us"
David Johnston
>
> On Mon, 17 May 1999 08:05:10 GMT, David Johnston
> <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >You see, WWGS wants to make use of the dramatic impact of the universal
> >> >struggle of 'good' vs 'evil'. While cultural definitions of what good and
> >> >evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal in
> >> >most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'. This is all well and good,
> >> >and is part of most mythologies.
> >>
> >> Here you actually hit the cultural reason for paths... or more
> >> especially for the dark ages roads. I just wish the road of heaven
> >> was still around in modern times in v:tm canon. I have an easier time
> >> roleplaying it than i do humanity. This is actually a personal thing.
> >> I don't like humanity as it stands and would have to do some severe
> >> rewriting to get it to work right in my opinion. For example if I had
> >> a high humanity character and someone controlled her via mind magick
> >> or dominate or other means and forced her to kill someone. I would
> >> have to make a degredation roll. Sorry.... but no. If you have no
> >> free will at the time you can't sin. Okay so it's a belief thing. If
> >> you could not have avoided what happened and would have if you could
> >> you are not to blame and should not be held so.
> >
>
> in the above example.... killed someone. Especially at high humanity
> levels there are no mitigating circumstances allowed. If you mean what
> do I think you should roll for in humanity anything you are to blame
> for, whether by negligence, decision or design. ie if you are
> responsible by negligence for someone's death (because you didn't
> maintain the equipment or whatever) you should have to roll at
> probably six or seven. If you kill someone at the spur of the moment
> about level 4 or 5 and if you premeditate a murder about level 3
And where in the hierarchy of sins does it say otherwise?
Strictly speaking, I suppose that letting yourself get dominated does
count as negligence. Nobody said you had to make eye-to-eye contact,
so if you knew that a person was a vampire, you let him make eye
contact, and he ordered to you to kill someone, that would qualify as a
sin. You would feel guilty about being so careless.
Other than that, there is nothing in the HoS that makes killing people
under mind control (as long as your mind is fully controlled) a sin.
It's different if you still possess some self-control, but if you do
possess some self-control, then you bear blame.
> >
> >> No, the sabbat are not stupid. They know that the Beast is the enemy
> >> as much as anything. They value loyalty and denegrate humanity. The
> >> only reason they do this is because humanity of virtually impossible
> >> to work with. You can't kill in self defense for heaven's sake!
> >
> >Why not?
>
> In humanity you have to roll for degredation at moderate levels if you
> kill someone even if it was reasonable force in self defense. It's
> prawnball!
No you don't. Killing in self defense is not murder. It isn't
negligence. It IS inflicting injury, but be reasonable. Most people do
feel upset when they kill, even if it is in self defense. The ones who
don't are a bit more case-hardened, and more capable of killing again
for other reasons if the reasons are convincing enough.
Actually go back and read the HoS. Unless it's changed with Vrev, you
have a lot more freedom to kill than you think as long as you are
willing to settle for Humanity 7, which is enough, incidentally, to
qualify as not Wyrm-tainted to werewolf senses.
DasBastard
wrote:
>Then why is it called the heirarchy of sins? :-)
>no seriously... a woman who's been raped generally feels guilty,
>should a character who's been raped (though I should hope no GM would
>go so far this is a question in hypothesis) have to roll to see if her
>humanity is effected?
>Sin in the game context is an infringment of your conscience (or
>conviction). If you fail to feel guilt (or recognise your failure)
>your defense against the beast, the morality and beliefs on which you
>hold to your self crumble a little more. In game terms you lose a
>virtue point and a humanity (or path) point to reflect this.
Actually , I think a storyteller could be justified in requiring a
Humanity roll, if the rape victim had a very high Humanity rating...
Rape is a savage act, and I think could be dehumanizing for even the
victim.
I think, to use Humanity correctly, you need to take a step back from
the Hierarchy of Sins.. it's just a useful simplification to help
represent a complex idea in a game mechanic. The real idea behind the
Humanity trait is the degree to which the vampire has abandoned their
sense of Humanity, the crimes that they have come to consider
acceptable. After you've killed several innocents for fun, drinking
some drug dealers dry isn't going to seem bad at all. And the worst
part for a vampire is that he has the Beast knawing at him, goading
him into more and more serious transgressions.
<snip some good stuff>
>which is why I accept the concept of paths but prefer the rules from
>DA for changing from one to another. My prerogative :-)
Some of the paths are better than others. My personal opinion is that
most are not going to be of much use in preventing degeneration all.
In fact, most seem to be "The Path of Stereotypical Clan <insert
non-Camarilla clan name here> Behaviour".
The ones I consider most workable are Honourable Accord and Feral
Heart, which provide logical alternatives (strict codes of honour and
controlled indulgence, respectively) to human morality as methods for
resisting the Beast. The worst are Path of Blood and Path of Paradox.
What I think is missing is a more refined Path of the Scorched Heart..
something that goes beyond Honourable Accord into the realm of
resisting the Beast through complete emotional detachment, with acts
like impassioned killing and succumbing to frenzy at the extreme end
of the hierarchy of sins.. i think that would satisfy the desires of a
lot of players to roleplay a fairly alien path, while satisfying
people like me who would like to see some logical thought put into the
development of the paths of enlightenment.
DasBastard
DasBastard
wrote:
>What I think is missing is a more refined Path of the Scorched Heart..
>something that goes beyond Honourable Accord into the realm of
>resisting the Beast through complete emotional detachment, with acts
>like impassioned killing and succumbing to frenzy at the extreme end
>of the hierarchy of sins.. i think that would satisfy the desires of a
>lot of players to roleplay a fairly alien path, while satisfying
>people like me who would like to see some logical thought put into the
>development of the paths of enlightenment.
Of course, all of this depends on your own notion of the Beast (which
I like to change a bit from chronicle to chronicle).
When I write, I come off pretty preachy. Ah well... it is the lot of
the Bastard to be unappreciated ;)
DasBastard
"Quality is like pornography... it's hard to define, but you know it
when you see it"
Rebecca Sutton
wrote:
>On Mon, 17 May 1999 20:12:09 GMT, Da...@wgp.org (Rebecca Sutton)
>wrote:
>
>>Then why is it called the heirarchy of sins? :-)
>>no seriously... a woman who's been raped generally feels guilty,
>>should a character who's been raped (though I should hope no GM would
>>go so far this is a question in hypothesis) have to roll to see if her
>>humanity is effected?
>
>>Sin in the game context is an infringment of your conscience (or
>>conviction). If you fail to feel guilt (or recognise your failure)
>>your defense against the beast, the morality and beliefs on which you
>>hold to your self crumble a little more. In game terms you lose a
>>virtue point and a humanity (or path) point to reflect this.
>
>Actually , I think a storyteller could be justified in requiring a
>Humanity roll, if the rape victim had a very high Humanity rating...
>Rape is a savage act, and I think could be dehumanizing for even the
>victim.
Yes but what would you roll? Conscience... why? Being raped might
make the victim feel guilty but that's not because it should, it's not
even so much the trauma... it's soceity which attaches a stigma to it.
Not so much now as it did but later.
>I think, to use Humanity correctly, you need to take a step back from
>the Hierarchy of Sins.. it's just a useful simplification to help
>represent a complex idea in a game mechanic. The real idea behind the
>Humanity trait is the degree to which the vampire has abandoned their
>sense of Humanity, the crimes that they have come to consider
>acceptable. After you've killed several innocents for fun, drinking
>some drug dealers dry isn't going to seem bad at all. And the worst
>part for a vampire is that he has the Beast knawing at him, goading
>him into more and more serious transgressions.
Very interesting but in all things personal opinion cloud the issue.
(not yours as much as mine) To make the system 100% plausible it
would need to be a lot more fluid since high conscience/conviction
persons will not only know when they commit sins but also when they
don't. A strong self, and to me humanity and paths represent the
strength of the self, would be better equipped to resist the
blandishments of inappropriate guilt and weak self wouldn't care
anyway... it may well be that some rolls should only be appicable at
some levels... for example maybe for some 'sins' a roll would only be
needed between levels 5 and 7. However that would be a far more
complex and confusing thing.
><snip some good stuff>
thanks (for saying it's good that is :-))
>>which is why I accept the concept of paths but prefer the rules from
>>DA for changing from one to another. My prerogative :-)
>
>Some of the paths are better than others. My personal opinion is that
>most are not going to be of much use in preventing degeneration all.
>In fact, most seem to be "The Path of Stereotypical Clan <insert
>non-Camarilla clan name here> Behaviour".
>
>The ones I consider most workable are Honourable Accord and Feral
>Heart, which provide logical alternatives (strict codes of honour and
>controlled indulgence, respectively) to human morality as methods for
>resisting the Beast. The worst are Path of Blood and Path of Paradox.
I like old style Harmony and my favoured path remains a personal mix
of the DA Road of Heaven and the Path of Harmony with a contemplative
(in the religious sense) twist.
>What I think is missing is a more refined Path of the Scorched Heart..
>something that goes beyond Honourable Accord into the realm of
>resisting the Beast through complete emotional detachment, with acts
>like impassioned killing and succumbing to frenzy at the extreme end
>of the hierarchy of sins.. i think that would satisfy the desires of a
>lot of players to roleplay a fairly alien path, while satisfying
>people like me who would like to see some logical thought put into the
>development of the paths of enlightenment.
yeah, i'd like to see the path of culpability and double effect
(though not by that name) sometime. A more logical path but a bitch
to follow if you are a vampire (double effect if you don't know is the
moral principle that says you must not do evil that good may come of
it but evil may come of a good action. Hence using reasonable force
to protect youself is acceptable even if it leads to a death but
killing someone who is not a direct threat to preserve your own
existance is) Trouble is it could only really exist in the Inconno or
the Cammies.
>
>
>DasBastard
Johnny Mayall
> In humanity you have to roll for degredation at moderate levels if you
> kill someone even if it was reasonable force in self defense. It's
> prawnball!
It's not prawnball at all. It's real life. Remember -- you're
/rolling/ for degredation for killing. You're not automatically falling
down the ladder. You have just killed a human being, and your
conscience is having a crisis of faith. If you succeed in the roll, you
feel true remorse for what you've done. If you fail, you've just
hardened your heart a little more and become a little less humane. Your
conscience decided that it /is/ okay to kill in this sort of situation
without feeling bad. And believe me, the Beast likes that.
Regardless of if the killing was done in self-defense, you've just ended
a human life. You've just killed someone's child, someone's parent,
someone's spouse, someone's best friend. You can attempt to dehumanize
the person you've killed, of course. And if you win in that endeavor,
you lose to the Beast. So yeah, the way I see it, rolling for
degeneration after killing someone, even in self-defense, makes absolute
sense (given the basics of the Judeo-Christian ethics, which I imagine
most players of V:tM have been raised on, even if they were not
presented as Judeo-Christian ethics when taught).
--
Johnny Mayall But the lies we live will always be
joh...@prometheus.frii.com confessed in the stories we tell.
prometheus.frii.com/~johnny/ -Orson Scott Card
Brandon Quina
> Humanity roll, if the rape victim had a very high Humanity rating...
> Rape is a savage act, and I think could be dehumanizing for even the
> victim.
Not to mention that the rape victim would only use the humanity if she
/didn't/ feel guilty. If she came to accept the rape as 'natural' and
'normal' for her life -- THAT is what makes her loose touch with her
human side, with her humanity. If she makes the roll, then she is
okay...
I would even give the victim a bonus on the roll; a few extra dice,
maybe, or a lower difficulty...
> I think, to use Humanity correctly, you need to take a step back from
> the Hierarchy of Sins.. it's just a useful simplification to help
> represent a complex idea in a game mechanic.
I agree. *smiles* I think, however, that the same thing has to be
done with the Paths of Enlightenment ... n' is sooo often ignored!
Brandon,
Kish
Pax wrote in message <7hqhqp$a...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>I've got to agree here. Scorched Heart is a Path I think has great
potential.
>It's not bad as is, but with some revision, it could be one of the more
>effective Paths out there. Plus, I think while being fairly alien, it
>still is *playable*, something I think is key (Evil Revelations, frx, seems
>pretty unwieldy to try and play in a mixed Path game with other people).
Playable with Self-Control and Courage 5, maybe. Anytime you frenzy or
Rotschreck, you violate the Path 1. Every time you don't roll well enough
to suppress all outward signs of the frenzy or Rotschreck, you violate the
Path 1. Arguably, every time you /check/ for frenzy or Rotschreck, you
violate the Path 3.
Kish
Kish
Pax wrote in message <7hqk1d$a...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>One thing- Isn't someone with True Faith pretty much clear-cut good?
Three words: Ambrosio Luis Moncada. Or, if you prefer mortal: Original Iron
Maiden.
Kish
Mant
"Kish" <kis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >I would just argue that the Lasombra elder and the Ventrue
> >elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine alike
to
> >achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have
similar
> >difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance
(or
> >lack thereof) of Humanity.
>
is
> "niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any strict
> enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict than
> Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity restrain
the
> Beast so very well, in your argument?
>
> Kish
All the Beasts wants is to
a) Not die
b) Feed
Thats it really, the Beast isn't evil (unlike say the Shadow or P'o)
its simply a superpowered amoral survival urge. Nice and nasty have
nothing to do with.
Mant
bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 1999 16:04:44 -0700, "Kish" <kis...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Why? The only thing the Path of Humanity has that other Paths don't
is
> >"niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any
strict
> >enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict
than
> >Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity restrain
the
> >Beast so very well, in your argument?
> >
>
> and controlling the urges brought on by the Beast. Actions which
> allow you to maintain (or even improve) your Humanity are those that
> suppress the Beast.
Only parts. For example, killing in cold blood doesn't feed the Beast
at all, it never wants to kill in such situations, only as a survival
urge.
> Those actions which lead to potential loss of
> Humanity are those which give the Beast more control over the vampire.
> It's not necessarily about moral choices, or a system of beliefs.
> It''s a matter of cause-and-effect, not opinion or philosophy.
> What opposes the Beast opposes the Beast. The Beast doesn't care what
> religious, cultural or philosophical attitudes the vampire has. It
> wants to hunt, it wants to kill, it wants BLOOD (and none of that
> animal blood crap).
You've just made a really good argument for well constructed Paths
there ;)
> There are specific actions which indulge the Beast, and specific
> actions which deny it (for now). The idea that murder does not give
> strength to your Beast just because your code of honour demands you
> just GOTTA kill this guy is ridiculous.
Why? The Beast doesn't _want_ to murder anyone unless they are a
threat. Most of the time it doesn't _care_.
> That kind of self-justified
> callousness is exactly what is going to send you sprialling out of
> control fastest.
Only if that action is undermining you're ethical stucture that you are
using to hold the Beast back (such as Humanity, and may Paths that
forbid killing). In such cases the Beast didn't make you kill, but if
you break you're ethics becuase its convient for you they aren't going
to stand up in the face of frenzy.
> I'm not convincing anybody who isn't already convinced (if there are
> any of those). However, all of the replies so far have done nothing
> but prove that introducing paths HAS really diluted the role of
> struggle of the vampire vs its Beast.
No, players who aren't interestead in the struggle do that. Players who
are do it with Path or Humanity. I've seen players on Paths struggle
with their ethics and the Beast, and its made for damn good roleplaying.
> Obviously there are differing
> opinions on how major a role the Beast plays in a vampire's existence.
Very true.
> I have always taken VtM as the tagline of "a game of personal horror",
I've always seen VtM as capable of so much more.
> not a game of "investigating the effect of torturing children on an
> alien psyche".
Personal horror for the _player_. What, you don't find the idea of
children being tortured horrifying? You don't find the idea of you're
character tortuing children because they find its the morally correct
thing to do horrifying?
Mant
<snip>
> > Humanity as a concept doesn't, Humanity the thing in V:tM does
though,
> > although VRevs version was a lot better and more genertic. Under
> > Humanity killing someone is _always_ considered wrong, a rather
modern
> > notion.
>
> Nope. Rechecking my humanity chart, that is not true.
>
> Humanity 6: Negligent killing (Killing people you didn't mean to
kill)
> Humanity 4: Murder in the heat of passion (Killing people you aren't
> allowed to kill because you are angry or even berserk)
> Human 2: Premeditated Murder (Killing people you aren't allowed
> to kill without being angry)
Depends how you define 'murder' here.
> Nothing in there suggests that killing in self defense is wrong.
> (It does however count as purposefully inflicting injury).
> Similarly there are no problems with killing to save others, including
> serving as a soldier.
Teach me for not checking my Humanity chart and going from memory of
2nd ed. Every group I've played with has forced humanity checks for
self-defence killings and protecting others and I've heard loads of
complaints about how soldiers would all be on low Humanity for killing
people.
I'll concede my gripes are mostly about 2nd ed Humanity and how people
interpret Rev Humanity.
> > When does the Beast want to hurt or kill people? Only for food or
when
> > threatened.
>
> I don't agree. Well, of course it's meaningless to say that the
Beast
> only wants to kill for food, since the Beast is always hungry.
Um no. The Beast is hungry when the Vampire is low on blood. When the
vampire isn't the Beast isn't.
> Someone
> ruled by the Beast would probably constantly be burning blood except
> when they are in torpor. And I think the Beast doesn't mind playing
> with it's food.
Well, obviously he have differnet idea about the Beast. I see it as
purely a suped-up survival drive. Run away from things that hurt you,
or hurt them back. Feed when hungry. Being cruel, sadistic or nasty are
ironically human traits, not from instinct.
Of course if you do decide the Beast has these traits then you have a
good basis for arguing for Humaity rather than Paths.
> The rest of the time the Beast doesn't care. Plenty of
> > cutures have held it acceptable to kill or harm certain people under
> > certain circumstances.
>
> When they do, it isn't called murder.
Definitions of murder again. Is an aztec Priest removing someone's
heart to preserve the Sun God and prevent the end of the age commiting
murder? Not by his standrads. If you decide that he won't lose Humanity
for it as he beleives its right then cultural reletavistic Humanity.
If you have that then _decent_ Paths are simply a vampiric extension of
that. You are just being more specific about what the very generic sins
are. Of course crappy Paths that don't provide control over or conflict
with the Beast are still crappy.
> Most of the time Vampires (like humans) desire
> > to kill and harm have nothing to do with the Beast.
> >
> > Vrev was good at giving a more generic Humanity, unfortunately most
STs
> > still use thier cutural ethics when judging Humanity loss, and don't
> > even consider any moral relatvisim. Indeed, many of the anti-Path
> > advocates are strongly against paths becuase they fell they
introduce
> > moral relavtism into the game.
>
> That's true as well. You see the ST can always decide that since
> western vampires are inherently connected to the Judeao-Christian
> mythos, J-C ethics can and should be used to evaluate vampiric
behavior.
>
> While those have shifted a little over time, it's easy enough to
decide
> that the Vampire is being evaluated by God, and God agrees with the
ST's
> ideas about what is right and wrong.
Well, I wouldn't mind if the ST had a rational like that for it. I
probably wouldn't play in such a game but that's a different issue.
Mant
> >
> > >I would just argue that the Lasombra elder and the Ventrue
> > >elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine
alike to
> > >achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have
similar
> > >difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance
(or
> > >lack thereof) of Humanity.
> >
don't is
> > "niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any
strict
> > enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict
than
> > Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity
restrain the
> > Beast so very well, in your argument?
>
killing
> and destroying for fun and those are the things the Beast wants to do
> when unrestrained.
Obviously you have a very different idea of the Beast. From that
persepective then 'niceness' becomes a necessary tool to hold it off.
From the perspective of overwhelming instinctive drives, 'niceness'
isn't necessary at all.
So I guess it boils down to you're view of the Beast.
Mant
> > >elder who step over (and kill with impunity) kindred and kine
alike to
> > >achieve their goals and indulge their desires will likely have
similar
> > >difficulties with their respective Beasts, tied to the maintenance
(or
> > >lack thereof) of Humanity.
> >
> >
> > Why? The only thing the Path of Humanity has that other Paths
don't is
> > "niceness," and niceness has nothing to do with the Beast. Any
strict
> > enough Path will restrain the Beast, and if a Path is less strict
than
> > Humanity, it's not being run properly. Why should Humanity
restrain the
> > Beast so very well, in your argument?
> >
> >
> This is actually more the fault of WWGS, than anything else.
>
> You see, WWGS wants to make use of the dramatic impact of the
universal
> struggle of 'good' vs 'evil'. While cultural definitions of what
good and
> evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal
in
> most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'. This is all well
and good,
> and is part of most mythologies.
I always saw the Beast struggle as more higher self vs amoral (not
immoral) base instincts. But then I'm happy with the way Humanity has
changed to be more relative in its sins.
> However, enter post-modern moral relativism. You see, WWGS wants to
make use
> if the struggle of Good vs Evil. However, when it comes down to brass
> tacks, they don't want anyone, nay, ANYONE, to have the moral high
ground.
> They hide behind the clarion call of 'shades of grey'. This would
give a
> particular group the justification they need to be allowed to win the
> Jyhad/Ascension War/Apocalypse/Whatever. Personally, I think this
sucks.
Which bit sucks?
> I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty
secret, some
> crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt.
I don't think every group has them, but its true nobody is the good
guys. Kinda like real life.
> The entire
> concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the
entire
> morality issue of Vampire.
I've played Humanity vampires and Paths vampire, and I can say I've had
as many moral issues with Path vampires as Humanity ones. So I can say
from direct experience it doesn't bypass the issue at all, although it
does change the nature of the moral issues.
> By their very nature as defined in the first
> edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire
existence is
> bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco.
Paths = Splatterpunk is a complete fallicy.
Try this, Twinks like splatterpunk and twinks like Paths. Consequently
yhey get branded as "twinky" becasue yes they are easier to abuse the
Humnaity. Thats why third ed slapped "for experienced roleplayers only"
all over them. Don't judge Paths by the worst players.
> As now the Sabbat have been part of the Canon eliminating them from
the game
> system would be impractical. Also, some good work has been done with
them. A
> better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
> eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of
the
> Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires.
Fair enough. Just use the vampires beleif to determine what you
consider a "violation".
>
> "But wait," you say. "Won't all the Sabbat go crazy and Wassail?"
Having
> the Sabbat as low Humanity Vampires who revel in their monsterdom
will more
> or less achieve the same effect as what currently exists in the canon
now.
Obviously you have a different view of the Sabbat.
> An interesting RP exploration that the Sabbat Guide (which was
otherwise
> excellent) would be the issue of Sabbat self-loathing,
I don't think any vampire who has much self-loathing will last long at
all particulary in the Sabbat. One of my problems with the early
approaches to Humanity and to some extent Vampire in general was
vampires with all that angst and self-loath really aren't going to last
long. Not to mention it gets very boring after a while.
> Please also note... I'm not opposed to the Sabbat being in the canon
(I
> think that Sabbat as PC's were a mistake, but not a drastic one, and
set
> some bad precedents for the other game systems (like BSD and Fomor
PC's, for
> instance), but I am against the elimination of the struggle against
the
> Beast being a central factor in a Vampire's unlife, regardless of
sect.
Well I can say from experience of our Sabbat game playing Paths
properly doesn't in anyway interfere with that.
franco frare
>
> This is why I scaled back so heavily on infernalism in the Sabbat book. This
> is why we took such deliberate pains to illustrate the Camarilla as "not the
> good guys." This is why we harp on the fact that Humanity does not equate to
> how nice your vampire is -- it's a measure of how prominent the Beast and
> its urges are as compared to the Man.
The problem with Humanity as written is that it gives the message that
Man=being nice.
Your whole posting sounds so good, but there still some doubts rummaging
in my head:
Why Path of Honorable Accord is a Sabbat path and not a an alternative
way to Humanity, one that expouses a different core *human* virtue for
its ethic instead of empathy ?
The same question for Road of Heaven and Road of Chivalry.
Why Humanity as-written only upholds the moral code of 20th Century
Western Judaeo-Christian Man that's pretty high on empathy and
compassion ?
>
> Arbitrary "good" and "evil" are not explorations of morality, and I keep
> them way the hell away from Vampire. "Good" and "evil" are convenient
> concepts for high-fantasy games in which one must save the virtuous princess
> from the evil dragon. From Vampire's point of view, if you killed the dragon
> just because he was a dragon, you'd be a racist. (And you'd probably have to
> check for degeneration after killing because the Beast _likes_ you to kill.)
Hey, don't defamate High Fantasy or you'll have me flaming :). There are
several good high fantasy Authors that make a good work of depicting
characters with believable, complex moral codes. I'll cite Katharine
Kerr, LE Modesitt, Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, David Eddings.
Moreover, in high fantasy you don't have Paradox showing up and ruining
the story unless you mess up things royally ;)
>
> > While cultural definitions of what good and
> > evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal in
> > most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'.
>
> Not in Vampire. We don't pretend to represent all cultures' moral codes.
> However, I defy you to show me a single modern culture in which killing is
> virtuous. The closest you'll be able to come is the Aztecs (who I'd count as
> modern for the sake of argument), whose killings were not performed
> rampantly and with abandon, but rather as vital facets of a faith intended
> to appease vengeful gods.
>
> This is precisely point-of-view. Me, I think killing virgins to appease the
> angry gods is unacceptable. Ancient Aztecs thought it was right on the
> money. Who's right? Me? Why? Would I be wrong were I transplanted into an
> ancient Aztec society? It's cultural bias and the result of individual
> choices made by a larger group of people. Despite the fact that Aztecs
> participated in acts that I find morally wrong doesn't mean they're evil.
Let's check it. Suppose I make a 20th Century Mesoamerican characters
that believes with all its heart and mind that Aztecs were right and
follows a personal code of ethics rooted on Aztec religion. He gets
embraced. Does he start its vampiric unlife on the Path of Huitzpotchli
or on Humanity, or to say it otherwise, has its Humanity a Hierarchy of
sins modeled on Aztec ethic or on Western Judaeo-Christian one, like
default ?
>
> > Personally, I think this sucks.
> >
> > I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
> > crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt.
>
> That's one of the things I like. In fact, it sounds to me like you _do_ want
> a clear-cut "good" or "evil." There's nothing wrong with that, of course,
> but it's not what Vampire seeks to give.
>
> > A
> > better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
> > eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of the
> > Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires.
>
> This is part of why I wanted to make them more rare. As of GttS, most Sabbat
> are still followers of Humanity. I think it makes sense, because I thought
> the "magic shovel of enlightenment"* was implausible. Other people dislike
> it because they think it makes the Sabbat too close to humans and other
> vampires (which was my intent... heehee!).
Fine; what I find so implausible is the way Embrace is supposed to act
as a contrary-effect "magic shovel". All kinds of people who in life
cared little for empathy, compassion and Judaeo-Christian values and
lived by other ethics and rules (even personal ones; a lot of people
reject the values they were groomed with in childhood) suddenly with the
Embrace are turned into nice guys who swear by the mantra of "Don't
kill; don't steal; be nice to your fellow man". If they do not they are
supposed to turn into sadistic copies of Lecter or Dahmer.
Franco
DasBastard
<f.f...@psico.med.unipi.it> wrote:
>
>The problem with Humanity as written is that it gives the message that
>Man=being nice.
>
>Your whole posting sounds so good, but there still some doubts rummaging
>in my head:
>
>Why Path of Honorable Accord is a Sabbat path and not a an alternative
>way to Humanity, one that expouses a different core *human* virtue for
>its ethic instead of empathy ?
>
>The same question for Road of Heaven and Road of Chivalry.
>
>Why Humanity as-written only upholds the moral code of 20th Century
>Western Judaeo-Christian Man that's pretty high on empathy and
>compassion ?
>
I don't recall anything in the Path of Humanity that demands you be
compassionate or empathic. In fact, the idea is that at low Humanity,
you become less and less *capable* of empathy and compassion.
To boot, you lose Humanity (or don't) based not on what you *feel*,
but on how you act.
<big SNIP>
>Fine; what I find so implausible is the way Embrace is supposed to act
>as a contrary-effect "magic shovel". All kinds of people who in life
>cared little for empathy, compassion and Judaeo-Christian values and
>lived by other ethics and rules (even personal ones; a lot of people
>reject the values they were groomed with in childhood) suddenly with the
>Embrace are turned into nice guys who swear by the mantra of "Don't
>kill; don't steal; be nice to your fellow man". If they do not they are
>supposed to turn into sadistic copies of Lecter or Dahmer.
The Embrace doesn't turn you into Ned Flanders. Vampires have urges
to do very nasty, very cruel things. However, after the Embrace,
someone who was a murderous bastard in life *will* face dire internal
consequences for continuing his lifestyle. It doesn't mean he
necessarily won't continue his old lifestyle.
The fact of the matter is, if the Beast represents the antithesis of
modern Judeo-Christian values, committing Judeo-Christian crimes is
going to give it power over the vampire. It isn't going to matter if
you were an Aztec priest, a Catholic priest, or a raging Satanist in
life. If you indulge the urges of the Beast, you degenerate.
DasBastard
Johnny Mayall
> The problem with Humanity as written is that it gives the message that
> Man=being nice.
Not really. Not all of mankind has a high Humanity. A better example
would be high humanity=being nice.
> Why Humanity as-written only upholds the moral code of 20th Century
> Western Judaeo-Christian Man that's pretty high on empathy and
> compassion ?
Look at who wrote the game originally, and you'll find people who were
brought up under the 20th century Judaeo-Christian moral code, for the
most part. I really think it's that simple.
Also, in regards to in-game terms, it raises an interesting question.
We're all being told that current vampiric overpopulation is due to
overbreeding. What if, in fact, it largely has to do with moral codes
and Humanity? What if the vampires that are created in this century
have a moral code that is superior in restraining the beast than elder
vampires? Moden Humanity as a code could then be a form of vampiric
evolution of sorts.
David Johnston
>
> Mant wrote:
> >
> > In article <373F01...@telusplanet.net>,
> > David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Humanity 6: Negligent killing (Killing people you didn't mean to
> > kill)
> > > Humanity 4: Murder in the heat of passion (Killing people you aren't
> > > allowed to kill because you are angry or even berserk)
> > > Human 2: Premeditated Murder (Killing people you aren't allowed
> > > to kill without being angry)
> >
> > Depends how you define 'murder' here.
> >
> > > Nothing in there suggests that killing in self defense is wrong.
> > > (It does however count as purposefully inflicting injury).
> > > Similarly there are no problems with killing to save others, including
> > > serving as a soldier.
>
> in the chart, so the prevalent interpretation, idiotic as it may be, is
> to to group them with murders and so regard them as Humanity 4 or 2
> sins.
Yeah, I know. I keep trying to tell people but they are usually so
sure that they never stop to consider the distinction between murder
and killing, and never actually go back and re-read the chart.
By reading the comment to the chart, you get the impression this
> was the meaning developers wanted, unfortunately.
No, not really. What the comment says (in my 2nd ed copy) is
"The Storyteller's own morality is often reflected in the way
she calls for Humanity rolls -- this is not only permissible
but encouraged." The problem with the STs who demand rolls for
all killing as if it was murder, is that they haven't really stopped
to examine their own morality and consider how wrong various things
are by their own standards.
Notwithstandind as
> much absurd and morally repugnant it may be to equate killing in
> self-defense and murder.
>
> >
> > Teach me for not checking my Humanity chart and going from memory of
> > 2nd ed. Every group I've played with has forced humanity checks for
> > self-defence killings and protecting others and I've heard loads of
> > complaints about how soldiers would all be on low Humanity for killing
> > people.
>
> Unfortunately this is the way Humanity rules are interpreted, most of
> the time, even Vrev ones. To make Humanity rules playable, an explict
> statement in Vrev that killing in self defense, to protect others or in
> war are not to be regarded as murder for Humanity loss would have been
> sorely needed (along with a graduation of the severity of theft:
> shoplifting and stealing from a poor man his last crumb of bread are *not* the
> same, morally speaking). Unfortunately, these revision never came, so
> after three editions you get the distinct suspicion that a morality
> respectful of common sense or cultural relativism was never meant for
> vampire.
Except that the comments also included the statement "a rough guide to help
you decide". There is intended to be flexibility in Humanity
interpretation. ST's who operate "by the letter of the law" aren't
doing it right, even more so when their rigidity includes language
misinterpretations such as confusing "murder" and "kill".
>
> >
> > I'll concede my gripes are mostly about 2nd ed Humanity and how people
> > interpret Rev Humanity.
>
> Then why WW does nothing to correct this interpretation ?
>
> >
> > Definitions of murder again. Is an aztec Priest removing someone's
> > heart to preserve the Sun God and prevent the end of the age commiting
> > murder? Not by his standrads. If you decide that he won't lose Humanity
> > for it as he beleives its right then cultural reletavistic Humanity.
> >
> > If you have that then _decent_ Paths are simply a vampiric extension of
> > that. You are just being more specific about what the very generic sins
> > are. Of course crappy Paths that don't provide control over or conflict
> > with the Beast are still crappy.
> >
>
> > > > Vrev was good at giving a more generic Humanity, unfortunately most
> > STs
> > > > still use thier cutural ethics when judging Humanity loss, and don't
> > > > even consider any moral relatvisim. Indeed, many of the anti-Path
> > > > advocates are strongly against paths becuase they fell they
> > introduce
> > > > moral relavtism into the game.
> > >
> > > That's true as well. You see the ST can always decide that since
> > > western vampires are inherently connected to the Judeao-Christian
> > > mythos, J-C ethics can and should be used to evaluate vampiric
> > behavior.
>
> This makes no sense. Kuei-jin are free to follow a Judaeo-Christian
> morality if they choose, and their spiritual development suffers no harm
> because of this, nor there are in-rule peanlities for this. Why Cainites
> should be different ?
Any S-T who makes such a decision, probably won't use Kuei-Jin or
just will decide that they are fundamentally different in their nature.
That line of reasoning applies only to the Children of Caine and can not
be applied by extension to anything with a different origin story.
>
> > >
> > > While those have shifted a little over time, it's easy enough to
> > decide
> > > that the Vampire is being evaluated by God, and God agrees with the
> > ST's
> > > ideas about what is right and wrong.
>
> If you adopt this view, and simultaneously enforce a Judaeo-Christian
> ethic as the "correct" one, it's tantamount to say that the
> Judaeo-Christian is the Only True God in WoD. WW and individual ST's are
> free to open this can of worms, but surely I'd not follow them on this
> path.
<Shrug> I didn't say anything about the WoD. That rationale works better
with a no-frills Vampire game. However, that the J-C God exists, and is the
one that cursed the Cainites, does not necessarily say that It is the
Only True God. Even It is, there's still a distinction between "kill" and
"murder" if the ST says there is, because the ST "is" God.
>
> >
> > Well, I wouldn't mind if the ST had a rational like that for it. I
> > probably wouldn't play in such a game but that's a different issue.
>
> Nor would I.
The truth? You'd probably never know the difference between an ST
who had that rationale and one who simply evaluated "sins" based on
modern consensus morality, unless he was stupid enough to tell you.
David Johnston
I have real trouble with that kind of "personal code of ethics", just
because you can come up with a personal code of ethics to match anything
you want to do. No man is an island. Your character would pretty much
have to be raised in a some kind of isolated bubble universe, surrounded
by nothing but Aztecs, except for the occasional sacrificial victim.
Otherwise he'd soak up some exposure to consensus morality.
Even then, there's another consideration. To some extent, existence
itself has an inherent ethic to it. When you do unto others, things that
you would not wish done to yourself, you are not being true to yourself.
It doesn't matter what your culture is.
However, if someone believed the Aztec religion, honestly believed that
his sacrifices were for the good of all, because they delayed the destruction
of the universe, then personally, I would redefine their "sin" as a Humanity
4, not Humanity 2 sin in the modern era. In the Aztec era, that sin might
go as high as Humanity 6. And if you sacrificed volunteers (as was the case
with many other pre-Columbian cultures in South and Central America), I'd
define it as a Humanity 8 sin.
>
> >
> > > Personally, I think this sucks.
> > >
> > > I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
> > > crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt.
> >
> > That's one of the things I like. In fact, it sounds to me like you _do_ want
> > a clear-cut "good" or "evil." There's nothing wrong with that, of course,
> > but it's not what Vampire seeks to give.
> >
>
> > > A
> > > better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
> > > eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of the
> > > Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires.
> >
> > This is part of why I wanted to make them more rare. As of GttS, most Sabbat
> > are still followers of Humanity. I think it makes sense, because I thought
> > the "magic shovel of enlightenment"* was implausible. Other people dislike
> > it because they think it makes the Sabbat too close to humans and other
> > vampires (which was my intent... heehee!).
>
> Fine; what I find so implausible is the way Embrace is supposed to act
> as a contrary-effect "magic shovel". All kinds of people who in life
> cared little for empathy, compassion and Judaeo-Christian values and
> lived by other ethics and rules (even personal ones; a lot of people
> reject the values they were groomed with in childhood) suddenly with the
> Embrace are turned into nice guys who swear by the mantra of "Don't
> kill; don't steal; be nice to your fellow man".
No they aren't. They just have a Humanity score based on what they are
comfortable doing.
If they do not they are
> supposed to turn into sadistic copies of Lecter or Dahmer.
If you want to kill freely, then a serial murderer seems like quite an
adequate model.
>
> Franco
Rebecca Sutton
>>>That doesn't mean that you can't feel guilt for it. Sin has -nothing-
>>>to do with Humanity rating. Sin is a religious construct.
>>
>>Then why is it called the heirarchy of sins? :-)
>
>semantics :)
really? I thought they were using a definition of sin as
contravention of personal morality.
>>no seriously... a woman who's been raped generally feels guilty,
>>should a character who's been raped (though I should hope no GM would
>>go so far this is a question in hypothesis) have to roll to see if her
>>humanity is effected?
>
>yes. Being a victim can easily make you less human.
Possibly... but why should she lose humanity for being able to cope?
>>Sin in the game context is an infringment of your conscience (or
>>conviction). If you fail to feel guilt (or recognise your failure)
>>your defense against the beast, the morality and beliefs on which you
>>hold to your self crumble a little more. In game terms you lose a
>>virtue point and a humanity (or path) point to reflect this.
>
>Yes, and as such, the mechanics work.
I know
>>yes but they generally accept on some level that it was not their
>>fault.
>
>which means you succeeded in the roll.
hey? Now you lost me, if you feel guilty you lose humanity if you
don't you do. Therefore if you have misapplied guilt relating to a
sin in the humanity heirachy and cure it your humanity falls because
humanity has little to do with being human I'm afraid.
>> Mortal soceity tries to cure people of misapplied guilt...
>
>which means your Humanity score rose.
it does? Okay I'm confused how does stopping feeling guilty for
something make your humanity rise?
>>at
>>least it's best aspects do. It's worst aspects play on that guilt to
>>make a profit and people also can be crazy and mixed up. A person who
>>doesn't feel guilty about cold blooded killing may feel guilty about
>>stealing... and when they cease to feel guilty about stealing they've
>>lost something of themselves.
>
>I have no idea what you're saying here.
I'll try again.
Most people find killing people more abborant than stealing and this
is shown in the mechanics by the relative positions on the scale.
It is possible for people with tendancies to not find killing people
who anger them morally reprehensible and thus to feel no guilt for it.
This would cause their humanity to degrade rapidly under normal
circumstances.
The same individual may find stealing a truely reprehensible and feel
guilty if they do it and at lower humanity than normal. They may even
FEEL they have to prevent theft and kill theives.
The above individual is probably sociopathic. Come to think of it he
or she might make a really scary Malkavian. Such a person's morality
is skewed but not completely out of comprehension. They could be on a
path or simply a twisted form of humanity but the humanity mechanics
would make what might be an interesting character unplayable. If
except for these two quirks (albeit a horrifying quirk in the killing
case) the character conforms to expected levels in humanity. How do
you handle it?
>>Humanity alone cannot reflect that
>>easily, it would take some extra working out between Storyteller and
>>player to allow the rolls called for to actually reflect the fact that
>>the character has a skewed as opposed to absent morality and when
>>morality becomes skewed enough it ceases to be humanity and becomes a
>>path.
>
>The entire game works around ST and player interaction.
It does, but some things are so complicated. If a player told you
that they wanted a character who if they killed in certain (very
specific) circumstances at below humanity seven but rolled for theft
or even allowing a theft they could prevent to take place at humanity
3 what would you say?
>If want a better insanity system, check out Unknown Armies.
really?
>>which is why I accept the concept of paths but prefer the rules from
>>DA for changing from one to another. My prerogative :-)
>
>They really aren't much different, are they?
It's that whole atrocity thing... it's easier to change roads in DA
than Paths in V:tM.
>and I think that your setting are off, you sent me a personal email as
>well.
oops... I have it set that way for the IC threads and sometimes forget
to reset for normal ones. It avoids waiting for usenet on a bad day.
>kabael kab...@bu.edu ICQ #24193592
>
>"And all the fears you hold so dear
>will turn to whisper in your ear."
> -Serial Experiments Lain
>http://members.xoom.com/McGuffins/
Becka
Rebecca Sutton
<joh...@prometheus.frii.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 May 1999, Rebecca Sutton wrote:
>
>> In humanity you have to roll for degredation at moderate levels if you
>> kill someone even if it was reasonable force in self defense. It's
>> prawnball!
>
>It's not prawnball at all. It's real life. Remember -- you're
>/rolling/ for degredation for killing. You're not automatically falling
>down the ladder. You have just killed a human being, and your
>conscience is having a crisis of faith. If you succeed in the roll, you
>feel true remorse for what you've done. If you fail, you've just
>hardened your heart a little more and become a little less humane. Your
>conscience decided that it /is/ okay to kill in this sort of situation
>without feeling bad. And believe me, the Beast likes that.
okay... so well informed Catholics with a well formed conscience by
Catholic standards will have a low humanity in the WoD. Woah!
>Regardless of if the killing was done in self-defense, you've just ended
>a human life. You've just killed someone's child, someone's parent,
>someone's spouse, someone's best friend. You can attempt to dehumanize
>the person you've killed, of course. And if you win in that endeavor,
>you lose to the Beast. So yeah, the way I see it, rolling for
>degeneration after killing someone, even in self-defense, makes absolute
>sense (given the basics of the Judeo-Christian ethics, which I imagine
>most players of V:tM have been raised on, even if they were not
>presented as Judeo-Christian ethics when taught).
Hmmm.... judeo-christian ethics seem at variance.... and I apologise
for the religious references but it's difficult to discuss
judeo-christianity without discussing religion. :-) I believe (though
not knowing it i couldn't swear) that the Talmud says "Allow yourself
to be killed but do not kill"
St Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church however say the following.
"If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will
be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense
will be lawful... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit
the act of moderate self defence to avoid killing the other man, since
is one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's"
Oh and the catechism also differentiates between Unitentional and
unavoidable killing... which is never a sin and Culpable Unintentional
killing which is homicide unless there was a grave reason to do so.
eg a person who is starving does not have to share his food with
another starving person who has none but a healthy person does.
The catechism is also pretty clear on the fact that a person with a
well formed conscience will only feel guilty if they've done something
wrong. Misplaced guilt is a symptom of the spiritual malaise that
afflicts all human beings and if it gets out of hand it becomes a
genuine condition called scruples. (okay part of this is drawn from
my Catholic encyclopedia. If you hadn't guessed I'm Catholic)
I would also say that regret and remorse are different things. Regret
stems from empathy and remorse from conscience. Certainly one should
regret it if your moderate self-defence led to someone's death but
remorse or guilt are for when you did something wrong.
Okay now I've bored you all to death I'll shut up... until someone
replies
Johnny Mayall
> THe problem is not that they're silly, it's that they advocate things
> like premeditated murder and diablerie (iirc, it's 3 or 4 level path
> check for Blood to not diablerize someone who is of lesser blood) ...
> no matter how strongly you beleive in your path, those actions pretty
> much embody handing the reins over to the Beast.
I disagree. Those actions embody cutting the beast off at the pass.
Instead of resisting as per Humanity, you choose to commit those
actions. This feeds the beast before it can get truly ravenous from a
Humanity-inspired starvation. You keep the beast fat and happy so that
it doesn't go berserk and take control of you. Sure, it's far from
humane, but it's still a way of not letting the beast take over.
Johnny Mayall
> Is it
> against Humanity to kill something you *know* (as much as you can know
> anything, of course) will wreak great suffering upon the world?
> Or is it against Humanity to *not* kill it?
Yes, it's against Humanity to kill it, IMO. It would also be against
high Humanity to not try and fight it, however, without killing it. I'd
say high Humanity believes in redemption. YMMV.
> One thing- Isn't someone with True Faith pretty much clear-cut good?
Dear God, no. Unless, of course, you consider burning suspected witches
to be good. And good is rarely clear-cut. It's a very relative term.
> Aren't demons clear-cut evil?
I'd say many of their actions are, but again, there's always redemption.
Molds are not unbreakable.
> I'd noticed that, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. Is it *that* much
> easier to hold to a Path than Humanity?
Inherently, I'd say no. However, some Paths have ways of dealing with
the Beast that are easier than Humanity's method of simply relying on
willpower to deny it. Some Paths work with the beast by feeding it
occasionally and thereby not letting it get starved to the point of
making you frenzy. Humanity denies feeding the beast, and as such,
you're more prone to frenzy and degeneration.
Kintaro Oe
>archetypes /are/ one-dimensional, and not just because of the space
>provided. :)
that's most likely due to bad writing and poor execution :)
>However, it
>takes less space overall to flesh out a group than a school of
>thought, thinks I.
Indeed, but the schools of thought are deep enough for me, I can find
enough water to swim at least... :)
Kintaro Oe
>>to do with Humanity rating. Sin is a religious construct.
>
>Then why is it called the heirarchy of sins? :-)
semantics :)
>no seriously... a woman who's been raped generally feels guilty,
>should a character who's been raped (though I should hope no GM would
>go so far this is a question in hypothesis) have to roll to see if her
>humanity is effected?
yes. Being a victim can easily make you less human.
>Sin in the game context is an infringment of your conscience (or
>conviction). If you fail to feel guilt (or recognise your failure)
>your defense against the beast, the morality and beliefs on which you
>hold to your self crumble a little more. In game terms you lose a
>virtue point and a humanity (or path) point to reflect this.
Yes, and as such, the mechanics work.
>yes but they generally accept on some level that it was not their
>fault.
which means you succeeded in the roll.
> Mortal soceity tries to cure people of misapplied guilt...
which means your Humanity score rose.
>at
>least it's best aspects do. It's worst aspects play on that guilt to
>make a profit and people also can be crazy and mixed up. A person who
>doesn't feel guilty about cold blooded killing may feel guilty about
>stealing... and when they cease to feel guilty about stealing they've
>lost something of themselves.
I have no idea what you're saying here.
>Humanity alone cannot reflect that
>easily, it would take some extra working out between Storyteller and
>player to allow the rolls called for to actually reflect the fact that
>the character has a skewed as opposed to absent morality and when
>morality becomes skewed enough it ceases to be humanity and becomes a
>path.
The entire game works around ST and player interaction.
If want a better insanity system, check out Unknown Armies.
>which is why I accept the concept of paths but prefer the rules from
>DA for changing from one to another. My prerogative :-)
They really aren't much different, are they?
and I think that your setting are off, you sent me a personal email as
well.
kabael kab...@bu.edu ICQ #24193592
Pax
<SNIP>
> The ones I consider most workable are Honourable Accord and Feral
> Heart, which provide logical alternatives (strict codes of honour and
> controlled indulgence, respectively) to human morality as methods for
> resisting the Beast. The worst are Path of Blood and Path of Paradox.
While I agree that Honorable Accord and Feral Heart provide obviously
workable alternatives, I think that what is important in a Path is
that it is *something* to cling to. It doesn't really *matter* how
silly or contradictory it is, as long as it's something the specific
person following it can *believe* in. The effectiveness of a Path in
general would thus be based on how easy it is for most people to obsess
over it's tenants, basically. The weirder and/or more contradictory, the
less likely they Path is to work for most people. In that light,
the Path of Blood and the Path of Paradox seem fairly valid to me, as
they are no weirder or more contradictory than many real-world religions
I see people fully capable of obsessing over.
> What I think is missing is a more refined Path of the Scorched Heart..
> something that goes beyond Honourable Accord into the realm of
> resisting the Beast through complete emotional detachment, with acts
> like impassioned killing and succumbing to frenzy at the extreme end
> of the hierarchy of sins.. i think that would satisfy the desires of a
> lot of players to roleplay a fairly alien path, while satisfying
> people like me who would like to see some logical thought put into the
> development of the paths of enlightenment.
I've got to agree here. Scorched Heart is a Path I think has great potential.
It's not bad as is, but with some revision, it could be one of the more
effective Paths out there. Plus, I think while being fairly alien, it
still is *playable*, something I think is key (Evil Revelations, frx, seems
pretty unwieldy to try and play in a mixed Path game with other people).
-Pax
Geoffrey Brent
<7hqk1d$a...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> > Arbitrary "good" and "evil" are not explorations of morality, and I
keep
> > them way the hell away from Vampire. "Good" and "evil" are convenient
> > concepts for high-fantasy games in which one must save the virtuous
princess
> > from the evil dragon. From Vampire's point of view, if you killed the
dragon
> > just because he was a dragon, you'd be a racist. (And you'd probably
have to
> > check for degeneration after killing because the Beast _likes_ you to
kill.)
>
> Even if it *was* an evil dragon? Evil in the "Burns villages to the
ground
> for kicks, eats people because he like the way they screeam when you
start
> on the feet, enslaves races it consider's lesser because it likes power,
etc."?
>
> In say, AD&D, red dragons are evil. More than that, they're BIG evil
that
> goes out of it's way to inflict itself on people. Sort of like demons.
> All of them are like this- it's seems to be hardwired into them.
If going out of your way to inflict yourself on people and steal
their valuables is intrinsically evil, then so are most of the AD&D
PCs I've seen... most were quite happy to talk about saving
villagers from the shadow of the Orcish hordes/dragon on the hill/
etc, but showed no signs of returning the _money_ they found on
the way...
> > That's one of the things I like. In fact, it sounds to me like you _do_
want
> > a clear-cut "good" or "evil." There's nothing wrong with that, of
course,
> > but it's not what Vampire seeks to give.
>
> One thing- Isn't someone with True Faith pretty much clear-cut good?
Nope. You can have True Faith and still be a bigoted witch-
burner.
> > This is part of why I wanted to make them more rare. As of GttS, most
Sabbat
> > are still followers of Humanity. I think it makes sense, because I
thought
> > the "magic shovel of enlightenment"* was implausible. Other people
dislike
> > it because they think it makes the Sabbat too close to humans and other
> > vampires (which was my intent... heehee!).
Thank you, Justin. I mean that :-)
> > * Whack! "Ow, my head! Why are you burying me? I now espouse spiritual
> > dualism, and I believe one's moral duty is to diablerize those with
more
> > potent blood than me!" Where can I buy such a shovel?
>
> Find a Mage. Mind 5, Prime 3, Matter 3 should do it. ;)
I have horrible images running through my mind, now.
Chantry meetings turning into shovel duels. Men in Black
carrying funky little trowels and quietly converting people
in dark alleyways. Make it stop.
> -Pax
> Likes Feral Heart, Honorable Accord quite a bit. And a redone Scorched
> Heart would rock my world.
> Elder Brujah on a revised Scorched Heart seems a perfect fit to me.
I'm tempted to treat Scorched Heart as being a particular
attitude towards Humanity - i.e. its followers are actually
on the Path of Humanity, they simply have a bleaker way
of following it than the guy who smiles at everybody.
Geoffrey Brent
DasBastard
>In alt.games.whitewolf DasBastard <bas...@freakland.net> wrote:
>
>
>While I agree that Honorable Accord and Feral Heart provide obviously
>workable alternatives, I think that what is important in a Path is
>that it is *something* to cling to. It doesn't really *matter* how
>silly or contradictory it is, as long as it's something the specific
>person following it can *believe* in. The effectiveness of a Path in
>general would thus be based on how easy it is for most people to obsess
>over it's tenants, basically. The weirder and/or more contradictory, the
>less likely they Path is to work for most people. In that light,
>the Path of Blood and the Path of Paradox seem fairly valid to me, as
>they are no weirder or more contradictory than many real-world religions
>I see people fully capable of obsessing over.
THe problem is not that they're silly, it's that they advocate things
like premeditated murder and diablerie (iirc, it's 3 or 4 level path
check for Blood to not diablerize someone who is of lesser blood) ...
no matter how strongly you beleive in your path, those actions pretty
much embody handing the reins over to the Beast.
DasBastard
DasBastard
wrote:
>
>
>
>Playable with Self-Control and Courage 5, maybe. Anytime you frenzy or
>Rotschreck, you violate the Path 1. Every time you don't roll well enough
>to suppress all outward signs of the frenzy or Rotschreck, you violate the
>Path 1. Arguably, every time you /check/ for frenzy or Rotschreck, you
>violate the Path 3.
>
Hence the need for revision.
DasBastard
Patrick Baldwin
> Pax <p...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote in article
> <7hqk1d$a...@news-central.tiac.net>...
<SNIP the evils of dragons>
> If going out of your way to inflict yourself on people and steal
> their valuables is intrinsically evil, then so are most of the AD&D
> PCs I've seen... most were quite happy to talk about saving
> villagers from the shadow of the Orcish hordes/dragon on the hill/
> etc, but showed no signs of returning the _money_ they found on
> the way...
True, but they don't usually set the village on fire just because, or
eat the villagers. But I wouldn't categorize most of the PCs in AD&D
as really "good", no.
>> > That's one of the things I like. In fact, it sounds to me like you _do_
> want
>> > a clear-cut "good" or "evil." There's nothing wrong with that, of
> course,
>> > but it's not what Vampire seeks to give.
>>
>> One thing- Isn't someone with True Faith pretty much clear-cut good?
> Nope. You can have True Faith and still be a bigoted witch-
> burner.
Doesn't True Faith have Humanity requirements?
<SNIP>
>> > * Whack! "Ow, my head! Why are you burying me? I now espouse spiritual
>> > dualism, and I believe one's moral duty is to diablerize those with
> more
>> > potent blood than me!" Where can I buy such a shovel?
>>
>> Find a Mage. Mind 5, Prime 3, Matter 3 should do it. ;)
> I have horrible images running through my mind, now.
> Chantry meetings turning into shovel duels. Men in Black
> carrying funky little trowels and quietly converting people
> in dark alleyways. Make it stop.
OK. How about the image of the SoE Steam-Powered Quantum Teleportion
and Attitude Improvement Shovel. Convert your whole town to a better
way in just one night!
>> -Pax
>> Likes Feral Heart, Honorable Accord quite a bit. And a redone Scorched
>> Heart would rock my world.
>> Elder Brujah on a revised Scorched Heart seems a perfect fit to me.
> I'm tempted to treat Scorched Heart as being a particular
> attitude towards Humanity - i.e. its followers are actually
> on the Path of Humanity, they simply have a bleaker way
> of following it than the guy who smiles at everybody.
Interesting take on it, but I think that Scorched Heart should let
you get away with some things that would be pretty bad for Humanity.
Pre-meditated murder for a logical reason, for example. By the same
token, it shouldn't let you get away with things like crying over
your best friend who just died.
~Pax
Kintaro Oe
>for kicks, eats people because he like the way they screeam when you start
>on the feet, enslaves races it consider's lesser because it likes power, etc."?
Killing the dragon because it's evil is one thing. Killing it because
it's a dragon is another.
>One thing- Isn't someone with True Faith pretty much clear-cut good?
>Aren't demons clear-cut evil?
Nope. I can easily see either stepping out from behind their usual
venues. And for True Faith in particular, look at the Inquisition in
the WoD.
Kish
Kintaro Oe wrote in message <37422d34...@news.bu.edu>...
>um... she doesn't. If she copes (i.e. makes the Conscience roll), she
>doesn't lose Humanity.
I believe what she's getting at is:
Successful Conscience roll=Guilt
Failed Conscience roll=No Guilt
No Guilt=Loss of Humanity
Guit=No Loss of Humanity
Healthy Reaction to being raped=No Guilt
Unhealthy, dehumanizing Reaction=Guilt
Is that clearer?
Kish
franco frare
>
> In article <373F01...@telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
> > Mant wrote:
> >
> > Humanity 6: Negligent killing (Killing people you didn't mean to
> kill)
> > Humanity 4: Murder in the heat of passion (Killing people you aren't
> > allowed to kill because you are angry or even berserk)
> > Human 2: Premeditated Murder (Killing people you aren't allowed
> > to kill without being angry)
>
> Depends how you define 'murder' here.
>
> > Nothing in there suggests that killing in self defense is wrong.
> > (It does however count as purposefully inflicting injury).
> > Similarly there are no problems with killing to save others, including
> > serving as a soldier.
But killing in self defense, to protect others or in war are not stated
in the chart, so the prevalent interpretation, idiotic as it may be, is
to to group them with murders and so regard them as Humanity 4 or 2
sins. By reading the comment to the chart, you get the impression this
was the meaning developers wanted, unfortunately. Notwithstandind as
much absurd and morally repugnant it may be to equate killing in
self-defense and murder.
>
> Teach me for not checking my Humanity chart and going from memory of
> 2nd ed. Every group I've played with has forced humanity checks for
> self-defence killings and protecting others and I've heard loads of
> complaints about how soldiers would all be on low Humanity for killing
> people.
Unfortunately this is the way Humanity rules are interpreted, most of
the time, even Vrev ones. To make Humanity rules playable, an explict
statement in Vrev that killing in self defense, to protect others or in
war are not to be regarded as murder for Humanity loss would have been
sorely needed (along with a graduation of the severity of theft:
shoplifting and stealing a poor his last crumb of bread are *not* the
same, morally speaking). Unfortunately, these revision never came, so
after three editions you get the distinct suspicion that a morality
respectful of common sense of cultural relativism was never meant for
vampire.
>
> >
> > While those have shifted a little over time, it's easy enough to
> decide
> > that the Vampire is being evaluated by God, and God agrees with the
> ST's
> > ideas about what is right and wrong.
If you adopt this view, and simultaneously enforce a Judaeo-Christian
ethic as the "correct" one, it's tantamount to say that the
Judaeo-Christian is the Only True God in WoD. WW and individual ST's are
free to open this can of worms, but surely I'd not follow them on this
path.
>
> Well, I wouldn't mind if the ST had a rational like that for it. I
> probably wouldn't play in such a game but that's a different issue.
Nor would I.
Franco
(who would be cheerful if more people would share your opinions on
Humanity and the Beast)
>
> Mant
Chris Bell
post. Regardless of our differences in regards to the vision of Vampire:The
Masquerade, you show thoughtfullness and dedication to the fans and doing the best
job possible. I salute you!
"Justin R. Achilli" wrote:
> In article <1nq%2.1948$nZ4....@monger.newsread.com> , "Chris Bell"
> <sart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is actually more the fault of WWGS, than anything else.
> >
> > You see, WWGS wants to make use of the dramatic impact of the universal
> > struggle of 'good' vs 'evil'.
>
> Um, no.
>
> This is why I scaled back so heavily on infernalism in the Sabbat book. This
> is why we took such deliberate pains to illustrate the Camarilla as "not the
> good guys." This is why we harp on the fact that Humanity does not equate to
> how nice your vampire is -- it's a measure of how prominent the Beast and
> its urges are as compared to the Man.
I believe that Ethan can be quoted as saying, "Humanity is about being the Ideal
Human." Now, I know he's the Werewolf developer, and this was on a thread a month
or two ago on Wyrm taint, so it's your call, but at a certain point a line must be
drawn, as Paths of Enlightenment are, as page 286 of VRev defines them, "...are
codes of immortal ethics that Kindred have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of
years studying." Thus, while we may not want to make the mistake of precisely
defining what good or evil is *outside* of the game world, I feel that in order to
follow the Campbellian model of the Heroic Cycle that WWGS seems to espouse (and
which is finely depicted in Mage, Werewolf, Wraith and Changeling), a baseline
indication in broad strokes of universal themes of compassion, courage and heroism
*need* to be defined in Vampire. Shades of grey are definitely needed for an
intrigue and secrecy-laden setting such as this, but there must be some light and
courage, *especially* from amongst some of the Kindred, if only to illuminate the
horrible wickedness of the vast majority of the Vampire population. I personally
think it's a drastic mistake to give the Paths any kind of moral equivalency with
Humanity.
>
>
> Arbitrary "good" and "evil" are not explorations of morality, and I keep
> them way the hell away from Vampire. "Good" and "evil" are convenient
> concepts for high-fantasy games in which one must save the virtuous princess
> from the evil dragon. From Vampire's point of view, if you killed the dragon
> just because he was a dragon, you'd be a racist. (And you'd probably have to
> check for degeneration after killing because the Beast _likes_ you to kill.)
>
There's lots I find wrong about the western fantasy genre, as well. Much of it is
pretty fascist, IMO :) I dig ancient myths from other cultures. In most settings,
however, there are the classic Campbellian themes of sacrifice for others, the
Hero's journey, personal sacrifice and loss, temptation, and difficult choices.
I'm not asking for white and black hats, but I'm asking that a price be paid for
succumbing to monstrosity. Most mythic settings have that. I'm not against the
Sabbat, quite to the contrary...they're almost *necessary* for the Vampire
setting. However, their very nature and behavior almost contradicts the essential
haunting spirit of the game's 1st edition. "A Beast I am, lest a Beast I become."
Sabbat get to be horrible monsters, have kewl powers, feel no guilt and never
Wassail! The Sabbat should stay, IMO, but should pay *some* kind of price for
their inhumanity. By the way, I thought having most Sabbat have (low) Humanity was
an excellent decision.
>
> > While cultural definitions of what good and
> > evil may vary somewhat from culture to culture, it's fairly universal in
> > most cultures that there is a 'good' and 'evil'.
>
> Not in Vampire. We don't pretend to represent all cultures' moral codes.
> However, I defy you to show me a single modern culture in which killing is
> virtuous. The closest you'll be able to come is the Aztecs (who I'd count as
> modern for the sake of argument), whose killings were not performed
> rampantly and with abandon, but rather as vital facets of a faith intended
> to appease vengeful gods.
>
Killing, conditionally, is considered to be virtuous in most cultures, but there
are baseline controls as to under what circumstances killing can be done. I can
see where you're reluctant to define a morality in Humanity that is cross
cultural, but I think the question is better answered by defining what's *good* in
most cultures.
I'll do the opposite...To varying degrees, most (but not all) cultures generally
agree that kindness to others is a primary virtue. Depending on culture, you will
find varying emphasis on the importance of duty to family, loyalty to social
structures as opposed to oneself, the roles of men and women in society, and so
forth. But, regardless of the degree to which they are practiced, compassion, love
and selflessness are considered, in various expressions and modes, as primary
virtues and essential to a society's survival, as well as being 'good' in and of
themselves. I'm not commenting on how these are practiced, that's for politics,
history and sociology. However, except perhaps for our own capitalist,
survival-of-the-fittest culture (which IMO is quite the bit unhealthy), generally
being decent to others on some level is a *good thing*, or at least to members of
your own group/family whatever. This is a universal, *human* constant, IMO, AFAIK
>
> > This is all well and good,
> > and is part of most mythologies.
> >
> > However, enter post-modern moral relativism. You see, WWGS wants to make use
> > if the struggle of Good vs Evil.
>
> I reiterate: Um, no.
Oh, come on, you guys do, admit it :) It's what drives Werewolf, and to a lesser
degree, Mage.
>
> The entire concept of varying scales of morality is designed to allow
> players to make _individual_ choices for their characters. If we stuck with
> "ol' fashioned good-n-evil," you would have no choices to make. You would be
> a vampire, and hence an evil creature, incapable of undertaking any acts of
> arbitrarily defined altruism.
>
> And I think we all know that's not how the game is (usually) played.
>
> > However, when it comes down to brass
> > tacks, they don't want anyone, nay, ANYONE, to have the moral high ground.
> > They hide behind the clarion call of 'shades of grey'. This would give a
> > particular group the justification they need to be allowed to win the
> > Jyhad/Ascension War/Apocalypse/Whatever.
>
> This is precisely point-of-view. Me, I think killing virgins to appease the
> angry gods is unacceptable. Ancient Aztecs thought it was right on the
> money. Who's right? Me? Why? Would I be wrong were I transplanted into an
> ancient Aztec society? It's cultural bias and the result of individual
> choices made by a larger group of people. Despite the fact that Aztecs
> participated in acts that I find morally wrong doesn't mean they're evil.
>
Think about what you just said. Perhaps the difference between our views is that
I believe in some very broad, base-level decency. If you read pre-columbian and
Cortez era Mexcian/South American history, you'll find that the majority of the
Aztec tribes sided with the Conquistadors since they were being terrorised by the
murderous Aztecs! I can understand where you don't want to say that a *culture*
is evil, because justifications like that can lead to genocide. However, extreme
moral relativism runs the risk of saying *everyone* is okay, and everyone has the
right to do whatever they want. Yes, there are shades of grey, but there is also
a line, when, once crossed, results in objectively bad and evil stuff. What
Stalin did to his own people was evil. The Khmer Rogue were evil. I won't even
broach the Nazi's, or the current leaders of the Serbs. However, I can understand
your reluctance to have Vampire paint stark, broad lines.
>
> > Personally, I think this sucks.
> >
> > I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty secret, some
> > crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt.
>
> That's one of the things I like. In fact, it sounds to me like you _do_ want
> a clear-cut "good" or "evil." There's nothing wrong with that, of course,
> but it's not what Vampire seeks to give.
>
> > The entire
> > concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the entire
> > morality issue of Vampire. By their very nature as defined in the first
> > edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire existence is
> > bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco. IMO, The
> > Sabbat were allowed to be pursued as an option for PC's purely for
> > commercial reasons.
>
> Then why won't I do an Inconnu book? You know how much that thing would
> sell? We walk a fine line over between "let's sell books! and "that's not
> true to the art!" and we shake our fists at each other daily over it. I
> don't think the two are mutually exclusive, however. It's possible (and it's
> been done!) to make a book that's true to the high-art psychomeme behind
> Vampire and still sell a buncha books.
>
You folks came out with Dirty Secrets of the Black Hand, didn't you? Evil Inconnu,
the handbook.
Instead of an Inconnu book, what I would really like to see is a Storytellers
guide to Golconda chronicles. Golconda is one issue you folks have really been
hedging and dodging around for a long time. Golconda, and the whole issue of the
vampire curse and vampiric salvation, comes right to the heart of the Myth of
Caine as written by Mssr Rein Hagen. No, I don't want to see a book about how the
Inconnu works or about the objective truth of Golconda. I want to see a book
about how to run this Vampiric spiritual journey to redemption, with hints and
clue and snatches of prophecy, since IMO most of us have no clue how to start such
an *important* phase of a player character's development or to carry out a
Golconda chronicle with the gravity and grace it deserves.
And yes, I can see your point. But, however, get a little acid here, I find it
hard to believe that *all* of the decisions that lead to books being printed were
entirely motivated by 'The Art'. The Twinks and Munchies *LOVE* The Sabbat. "I
get to kill stuff, kewl!" I'm sure you want as much as I to push the Twinkies
into actually exploring character roles, the meaning of personal horror, and the
despair and anguish of the cursed seed of Caine, but in the meantime you guys have
your bills to pay and a portion of your customer base to consider. I'm sure that a
backlash against the company by fans had you decided to ditch the
'get-out-of-wassail-free' cards that Paths are would have resulted, and would have
reflected against the Bottom Line. On the opposite side, there are Twinkie
Camarilla gamers too (trust me, I emphatically agree with you that they are *not*
the good guys!), but at least with the Cams the urge to be twinky-stoopid doesn't
seem so...institutionalised? Perhaps it's just my bad experiences?
By the way, *why* did you decide to have the Inconnu cut out their ghoul's tongues
in Ghouls:Fatal Addiction? Wait, I take that back...They also worship demons, my
bad. At least let their be one group in the WoD be around that I won't feel like
a total shit for being a part of or personally loathe. Let the good guys *win*,
every once in a while. Otherwise, let Gehenna come, and be done with it. Let
their be good guys, even if they're somewhat sooty and besmirched.
>
> > As now the Sabbat have been part of the Canon eliminating them from the game
> > system would be impractical. Also, some good work has been done with them.
>
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome. :) I always felt the Lasombra and Tzimisce should have been Cam
Clans. I think that the major mistake was letting Sabbat be PC's. As an NPC sect,
they would have had much more impact and horror power, as the Black Spirals and
Nephandi do in their respective game systems.
>
> > A
> > better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
> > eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of the
> > Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires.
>
> This is part of why I wanted to make them more rare. As of GttS, most Sabbat
> are still followers of Humanity. I think it makes sense, because I thought
> the "magic shovel of enlightenment"* was implausible. Other people dislike
> it because they think it makes the Sabbat too close to humans and other
> vampires (which was my intent... heehee!).
>
Good for you, Justin! Although, ironically, I find myself of the bent that as Cam
Elders get older, they may find themselves drawn to at least the philosophical
precepts of some Paths. However, perhaps the Paths don't provide the control over
the Beast *and* the ability to mingle amongst humans that some Camarilla vampires
need.
>
> Of course, that's your choice to make in your game. I like PoE's, you don't.
> Some people like more vampires to have them than I do... it's our own little
> shade of gray ;)
I've noticed quite a bit of resistance to VRev, especially in the MUSH community.
To each their own poison :)
>
> But, once claimed by the Beast, they become literal animals, incapable of
> reasoned thought and serving no purpose other than feeding.
>
> > Any sacrifice will be made to
> > defeat the Antediluvians! Clinging to human values may extend your unlife
> > somewhat, but such cowardice is weakness in disguise! Or, this is what
> > Sabbat propganda would have the issue be.
>
> This is again where I like to sow the seeds of hypocrisy. "Propaganda" is a
> perfect word for it. You don't get to be an elder by kicking Antediluvians
> in the groin. You get to be an elder by pointing the thirsty childer at
> vampires other than yourself. Of course, it's not so simple -- many Sabbat
> elders _do_ believe in the cause, or even in the sect's "old ways" that
> became perverted so many years after the Anarch Revolt. They're not all
> conniving fuckheads. Just most of them, because that's the best way to keep
> your unlife. And after sending countless neonates, etc., to their deaths,
> they've _got_ to be able to cope with things in a way that Humanity cannot
> sensibly withstand.
Sending Neonates to senseless deaths? How does this make the Sabbat Archbishop
any different from the Camarilla Prince? Sending the young to their doom has been
the vampire way for millenia. And the majority of Cam elders espouse *Humanity*.
In terms of the horrid things they have to do and deal with, I see Cam and Sabbat
Elders as no different.
Does this imply that Cam Elders are as likely to adopt Paths as Sabbat of equal
age are?
> Vampires are not human -- the older they get, the more
> alien they become. That's another one of my secret directives -- in Children
> of the Night, many of the Camarilla characters are far weaker than their
> Sabbat counterparts. Those Camarilla vampires have had to spend much of
> their unlives fighting back the Beast, while the Sabbat have pursued other
> goals.
This implies that the Sabbat have less trouble with their Beasts. Again, we're
back to the crux...I think it's cheap that Sabbat have an easier time of dealing
with the Beast with Paths as opposed to Cam Vamps with Humanity. Vampires are
*Damned*, and unlife should be just as hard in both sects.
> Ultimately, the Camarilla character will be more able to convince
> anotehr person that he's mortal than the Humanity-3 or Path of Caine-7
> Sabbat war fiend. And that's their intent.
>
It can be argued that the Sabbat would have worked as hard at his or her Path of
Enlightenment as the Camarilla Elder at Humanity, and would have encountered just
as many circumstances where violating the tenets of the Path would bring him or
her shrieking closer to the Beast as the struggles the Camarilla Kindred must have
faced in trying to preserve his or her Humanity. It's my contention that
Camarilla Elders would be just as powerful, effective and capable as their Sabbat
counterparts, if not more so. It's simply a matter of being more attuned to
social interaction and manipulation amongst humans as opposed to strict combat
skills. The Sabbat is also a millenarian, combat-oriented sect. It's my thought
that while the Sabbat has it's skilled intriguers, the Camarilla is a whole *sect*
of them, and the Camarilla's deftness and subtlety in using humans to thwart
Sabbat aims enrages the Sabbat to no end. Further, the Jyhad in both Sects would
create vampires who would be supremely capable, just with different orientations.
>
> > Please also note... I'm not opposed to the Sabbat being in the canon (I
> > think that Sabbat as PC's were a mistake, but not a drastic one, and set
> > some bad precedents for the other game systems (like BSD and Fomor PC's, for
> > instance), but I am against the elimination of the struggle against the
> > Beast being a central factor in a Vampire's unlife, regardless of sect.
>
> The struggle against the Beast is still there, it's just dealt with
> differently. It's also possible for the Sabbat (or any vampire, of course)
> to say "fuck it" and jump helter-skelter into the Beast's control. But, then
> again, that's not what we're doing with Vampire.
>
What view do you take in regards to the Beast and the Sabbat, Justin? Are Paths
more or less difficult to follow than keeping one's Humanity? If so, I have a few
ancillary questions...
If it is just as hard, on an objective level, to maintain control with a Path, or
harder, then why do they do it? It would seem to me to involve many factors,
including personality, desperation, philosophical bent, and so on. If this is to
be an issue in a Sabbat campaign, how would you personally implement it?
If holding to a Path is *easier* than maintaining Humanity, then why isn't it a
'get-out-of-wassail-free' card? For example, I've never, EVER seen Path of
Cathari played right. Honorable Accord, Path of Caine, and all the others I've
seen played with some degree of personality, drama and thought...Path of Cathari,
"I get to do whatever the fuck I want, and frenzy too!"
Finally, from the loyal opposition...
Don't get me wrong. Vampire is a fucking *fantastic* game. However, my
encounters with players over the years who have taken the concepts of the game and
have turned it inside out have...soured me, a bit. I prefer the person who makes
the difficult choices, the man or woman, who, despite their weaknesses, overcomes,
even if this destroys them, and who during the journey home knows pain and doubt.
But I also believe very strongly in Joseph Campbell's model of the Hero's Journey,
which is even quoted in the Vampire 2nd Edition Player's guide. A return to the
Hero's Quest from Darkness may well help this dark and moody game world we love so
much from becoming...a cheap splatterpunk fiasco. :)
>
> Regards,
> Justin
>
Thank you for the personal response. Again, I applaud the WWGS developers for
their participation in the newsgroups.
>
> --
> [Justin R. Achilli]
> [Vampire: The Masquerade Developer]
> [White Wolf Game Studio]
> [jach...@white-wolf.com - www.white-wolf.com]
> "I've lived my life on alcohol.
> I've lived my life on pills."
> -- New Order, "Thieves Like Us"
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
Chris Bell
> > If going out of your way to inflict yourself on people and steal
> > their valuables is intrinsically evil, then so are most of the AD&D
> > PCs I've seen... most were quite happy to talk about saving
> > villagers from the shadow of the Orcish hordes/dragon on the hill/
> > etc, but showed no signs of returning the _money_ they found on
> > the way...
>
> True, but they don't usually set the village on fire just because, or
> eat the villagers. But I wouldn't categorize most of the PCs in AD&D
> as really "good", no.
>
> > want
> >> > a clear-cut "good" or "evil." There's nothing wrong with that, of
> > course,
> >> > but it's not what Vampire seeks to give.
> >>
>
> > burner.
>
> Doesn't True Faith have Humanity requirements?
This illustrates the problems with Vampire in particular, and the WoD in a broader
sense. Justin, you never quite answered my question. You folks seem to want the
dramatic *impact* of Good vs Evil (caps on purpose), for the purposes of making a
raging good story. But then you tease us and say 'well, the antagonist is just as bad
as the protagonist!' It may make for a great philosophy discussion, but lousy drama.
All great drama not only needs protagonists, but ones the audience likes, can
sympathise with, and can agree with protagonist's aims and justifications for his or
her actions.
Chris Bell
who wants a lil bit of color in those shades of grey, including the blood.
Kintaro Oe
>>>should a character who's been raped (though I should hope no GM would
>>>go so far this is a question in hypothesis) have to roll to see if her
>>>humanity is effected?
>>yes. Being a victim can easily make you less human.
um... she doesn't. If she copes (i.e. makes the Conscience roll), she
doesn't lose Humanity.
>hey? Now you lost me, if you feel guilty you lose humanity if you
>don't you do.
Simpistic in a way, but yeah.
>Therefore if you have misapplied guilt relating to a
>sin in the humanity heirachy and cure it your humanity falls because
>humanity has little to do with being human I'm afraid.
Overcoming and -resolving- your guilt is different from never having
guilt in the first place.
An example: I'm a stone-cold killer. I tromp around, wantonly
murdering people until I kill a little girl. Examining her body, I
find that she has a picture of her smiling with her little kitten and
a doll. For some reason, this strikes me (maybe I like cats) and I
feel guilty about killing her. I reform and begin to feel a flood of
guilt for all the pain I've caused over the years. Eventually though,
I resolve my guilt enough to function in society.
What happened in the game system? Rapid Humanity loss until a
Reforming Incident, when Humanity stabalized and slowly climbed back
up.
>>> Mortal soceity tries to cure people of misapplied guilt...
>>which means your Humanity score rose.
>it does? Okay I'm confused how does stopping feeling guilty for
>something make your humanity rise?
It depends on -how- you stopped feeling guilty. Not caring anymore is
a drop, resolving and coming to terms with it is not. Guilt is not the
sum of Humanity.
>It is possible for people with tendancies to not find killing people
>who anger them morally reprehensible and thus to feel no guilt for it.
>This would cause their humanity to degrade rapidly under normal
>circumstances.
No, that means that they already -have- a low Humanity score.
>The same individual may find stealing a truely reprehensible and feel
>guilty if they do it and at lower humanity than normal. They may even
>FEEL they have to prevent theft and kill theives.
Just because you are further down on Humanity does -not- mean that you
-cannot- feel guilt for something higher up, it's just a guideline.
You won't make a Path roll, no, but that doesn't mean you won't feel
guilty.
>The above individual is probably sociopathic. Come to think of it he
>or she might make a really scary Malkavian. Such a person's morality
>is skewed but not completely out of comprehension. They could be on a
>path or simply a twisted form of humanity but the humanity mechanics
>would make what might be an interesting character unplayable.
Not really. Give them a low Humanity (they -are- alien and inhuman)
but play her with a different emphasis. Easy.
>It does, but some things are so complicated. If a player told you
>that they wanted a character who if they killed in certain (very
>specific) circumstances at below humanity seven but rolled for theft
>or even allowing a theft they could prevent to take place at humanity
>3 what would you say?
I'd say that there is no need. Just because a character defines his
values and yet follows the Path of Humanity does not mean that he has
to make a roll every time he violates those values.
>>If want a better insanity system, check out Unknown Armies.
>
>really?
yes, really :)
>It's that whole atrocity thing... it's easier to change roads in DA
>than Paths in V:tM.
You have to drop your Virtues to 0 and build back up. I don't think
that there is any mention of how to change Paths in VRev, only from
Humanity to Path. I like the new rules. They make sense.
>>and I think that your setting are off, you sent me a personal email as
>>well.
>
>oops... I have it set that way for the IC threads and sometimes forget
>to reset for normal ones. It avoids waiting for usenet on a bad day.
ah, I see. I don't bother with IC threads, myself.
Kintaro Oe
>way to Humanity, one that expouses a different core *human* virtue for
>its ethic instead of empathy ?
Because those who have no empathy do not feel "human," do they?
>Why Humanity as-written only upholds the moral code of 20th Century
>Western Judaeo-Christian Man that's pretty high on empathy and
>compassion ?
because many, many, many, many, many, many, many people (not all of
them either Western or Christian) have said that empathy/compassion is
the highest virtue, the essence of man. Hence, the Path of Humanity.
>Let's check it. Suppose I make a 20th Century Mesoamerican characters
>that believes with all its heart and mind that Aztecs were right and
>follows a personal code of ethics rooted on Aztec religion. He gets
>embraced. Does he start its vampiric unlife on the Path of Huitzpotchli
>or on Humanity, or to say it otherwise, has its Humanity a Hierarchy of
>sins modeled on Aztec ethic or on Western Judaeo-Christian one, like
>default ?
Was he "humane" in life, or raised on a Path? That's your answer. If
he wasn't taught a Path, he still has a low Humanity.
Humanity is not a trait that spontaneously appears upon the Embrace,
it's there during life as well.
>Fine; what I find so implausible is the way Embrace is supposed to act
>as a contrary-effect "magic shovel". All kinds of people who in life
>cared little for empathy, compassion and Judaeo-Christian values and
>lived by other ethics and rules (even personal ones; a lot of people
>reject the values they were groomed with in childhood) suddenly with the
>Embrace are turned into nice guys who swear by the mantra of "Don't
>kill; don't steal; be nice to your fellow man". If they do not they are
>supposed to turn into sadistic copies of Lecter or Dahmer.
That just means they were -raised- on a Path and if you were to meet
them, you would say they were "inhuman." The very definition of
inhuman calls to mind cold, lacking empathy, callous. I.e. low
Humanity.
Kintaro Oe
>morality if they choose, and their spiritual development suffers no harm
>because of this, nor there are in-rule peanlities for this. Why Cainites
>should be different ?
they aren't. Follow a Path.
Chris Bell
> make use
> > tacks, they don't want anyone, nay, ANYONE, to have the moral high
> ground.
> > They hide behind the clarion call of 'shades of grey'. This would
> give a
> > particular group the justification they need to be allowed to win the
> sucks.
>
> Which bit sucks?
>
The fact that there are no clear *protagonists*. Now, again, if this were a
deliberately morally vague game, say, like CP 2020, then it would be okay.
But the basic flavor of horror is *good* vs *evil*, even if it's adjust and
made more morally relativistic in our day and age. Many horror tales, and
most certainly the Vampire metaphor, are essentially morality tales, much
the same as fairy tales are. Indeed, early Fairy Tales and Horror Stories
(ghost stories and whatnot) were more or less the same genre.
>
> > I'm sick and tired of every group in the WoD of having a dirty
> secret, some
> > crime they've comitted in the past or some secret shame or guilt.
>
> I don't think every group has them, but its true nobody is the good
> guys. Kinda like real life.
>
See above. That makes for great news, but for lousy drama. If I want to see
'Battle of the Scumbags', I'll watch WCW or CNN.
>
> > The entire
> > concept of Paths and Roads is bogus and fake, IMO, and bypasses the
> entire
> > morality issue of Vampire.
>
> I've played Humanity vampires and Paths vampire, and I can say I've had
> as many moral issues with Path vampires as Humanity ones. So I can say
> from direct experience it doesn't bypass the issue at all, although it
> does change the nature of the moral issues.
>
Yes, it makes them essentially irrelevant.
>
> > By their very nature as defined in the first
> > edition of the rules, the very riddle and tragedy of Vampire
> existence is
> > bypassed and cheapened into some stoopid splatterpunk fiasco.
>
> Paths = Splatterpunk is a complete fallicy.
>
> Try this, Twinks like splatterpunk and twinks like Paths. Consequently
> yhey get branded as "twinky" becasue yes they are easier to abuse the
> Humnaity. Thats why third ed slapped "for experienced roleplayers only"
> all over them. Don't judge Paths by the worst players.
>
> > As now the Sabbat have been part of the Canon eliminating them from
> the game
> > system would be impractical. Also, some good work has been done with
> them. A
> > better tack (and one I follow in my tabletop games) would be to simply
> > eliminate Roads and Paths entirely, while keeping the philosophies of
> the
> > Paths and Roads as IC philosophies followed by Vampires.
>
> Fair enough. Just use the vampires beleif to determine what you
> consider a "violation".
>
Not a bad approach.
>
> >
> > "But wait," you say. "Won't all the Sabbat go crazy and Wassail?"
> Having
> > the Sabbat as low Humanity Vampires who revel in their monsterdom
> will more
> > or less achieve the same effect as what currently exists in the canon
> now.
>
> Obviously you have a different view of the Sabbat.
>
What? The Sabbat don't see themselves as monsters/demigods?
>
> > An interesting RP exploration that the Sabbat Guide (which was
> otherwise
> > excellent) would be the issue of Sabbat self-loathing,
>
> I don't think any vampire who has much self-loathing will last long at
> all particulary in the Sabbat. One of my problems with the early
> approaches to Humanity and to some extent Vampire in general was
> vampires with all that angst and self-loath really aren't going to last
> long. Not to mention it gets very boring after a while.
>
It's the essential core of the game. What the hell has happened to me? Have
I become this *thing*? The interesting question is how do PC's react to it.
To be fair, some would get their rocks off on that kind of power, others
would run to meet the sun. Most would, IMO, be scared shitless. That, down
to it's core, is Vampire:The Masquerade.
Remember, Vampires are called the Damned for a reason. If you want to have
it not suck, I hear TSR makes this great superhero game with cards.
>
> > Please also note... I'm not opposed to the Sabbat being in the canon
> (I
> > think that Sabbat as PC's were a mistake, but not a drastic one, and
> set
> > some bad precedents for the other game systems (like BSD and Fomor
> PC's, for
> > instance), but I am against the elimination of the struggle against
> the
> > Beast being a central factor in a Vampire's unlife, regardless of
> sect.
>
> Well I can say from experience of our Sabbat game playing Paths
> properly doesn't in anyway interfere with that.
>
> Mant
>
This is a question I posed to Justin. How do *you* handle issues of Man(?)
vs Beast for Sabbat characters? Even if it's handled entirely differently,
and from a different persepctive, I feel it's not an issue that Sabbat
characters should be allowed to ignore. It should be *just* as important
for Sabbat characters as for Camarilla characters.
Otherwise, excellent thoughts above.
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
David Johnston
>
> >This makes no sense. Kuei-jin are free to follow a Judaeo-Christian
> >morality if they choose, and their spiritual development suffers no harm
> >because of this, nor there are in-rule peanlities for this. Why Cainites
> >should be different ?
>
> they aren't. Follow a Path.
Comments should be read in context. That question was in reference to a
hypothetical storyteller who decides to take the J-C roots of the
Cainite myth seriously. Such a storyteller wouldn't have paths, except
possibly Evil Revelations.
Kintaro Oe
That would be the PCs, dude. Protagonist does not mean good guy.
>Now, again, if this were a
>deliberately morally vague game, say, like CP 2020, then it would be okay.
It -is- a deliberately morally vague game.
>But the basic flavor of horror is *good* vs *evil*,
I disagree. You don't need White Knights and Black Knights for horror,
that's faerie tales.
>even if it's adjust and
>made more morally relativistic in our day and age. Many horror tales, and
>most certainly the Vampire metaphor, are essentially morality tales, much
>the same as fairy tales are. Indeed, early Fairy Tales and Horror Stories
>(ghost stories and whatnot) were more or less the same genre.
You can, however, seperate them. You can make quite a good horror
story in which every character is a human bastard.
>See above. That makes for great news, but for lousy drama. If I want to see
>'Battle of the Scumbags', I'll watch WCW or CNN.
You underestimate the power of "realism."
>> I've played Humanity vampires and Paths vampire, and I can say I've had
>> as many moral issues with Path vampires as Humanity ones. So I can say
>> from direct experience it doesn't bypass the issue at all, although it
>> does change the nature of the moral issues.
>Yes, it makes them essentially irrelevant.
No it doesn't. It -changes- them. If you don't want to role-play it,
or if you've never seen someone manage to role-play it, that's one
thing. Saying they are inherently broken is another.
>What? The Sabbat don't see themselves as monsters/demigods?
they do, but they are more than just a rabble of uncontrollable
monsters, which is what a low-Humanity score would require them to be.
>It's the essential core of the game.
It is -an- essential core of the game. You can play wonderful games
that don't even touch upon Humanity.
>What the hell has happened to me? Have
>I become this *thing*? The interesting question is how do PC's react to it.
>To be fair, some would get their rocks off on that kind of power, others
>would run to meet the sun. Most would, IMO, be scared shitless. That, down
>to it's core, is Vampire:The Masquerade.
And some people manage to adapt and "accept" their state. Not every
vampire bemoans their state.
Accepting that you are a vampire does not necessitate having a low
Humanity.
The Paths are mechanical representations of real life.
>Remember, Vampires are called the Damned for a reason. If you want to have
>it not suck, I hear TSR makes this great superhero game with cards.
Your assertion that Vampire -has- to be about being Damned is stupid.
It really is. Limit the game all you want, other people can see the
potential it has beyond that.
>This is a question I posed to Justin. How do *you* handle issues of Man(?)
>vs Beast for Sabbat characters? Even if it's handled entirely differently,
>and from a different persepctive, I feel it's not an issue that Sabbat
>characters should be allowed to ignore. It should be *just* as important
>for Sabbat characters as for Camarilla characters.
Why? Why does the Man vs. Beast issue -have- to be central to -all-
Vampire products and games? I don't want a theme/plot crammed down my
throat every other book.
How to deal with it in the Sabbat? Look at it like this: the Sabbat
accepts that they are vampires and they are smart enough to realize
that control over the Beast is necessary yet Humanity is often
antithetical to vampiric existance. What to do? Find a way to retain
control and survive - the Paths.
Kintaro Oe
>
>Successful Conscience roll=Guilt
>Failed Conscience roll=No Guilt
>No Guilt=Loss of Humanity
>Guit=No Loss of Humanity
>Healthy Reaction to being raped=No Guilt
>Unhealthy, dehumanizing Reaction=Guilt
>
>Is that clearer?
yes, but too simplistic. It's too rigid and not as flexible as the
system really is.
Saying that making a Conscience roll -always- means that you feel
guilt doesn't work. For most things requiring a Path roll, that works,
but not for all, as this case -clearly- shows.
Kintaro Oe
>hypothetical storyteller who decides to take the J-C roots of the
>Cainite myth seriously. Such a storyteller wouldn't have paths, except
>possibly Evil Revelations.
Why on earth would that happen? Just because you say "Yeah, Caine was
out there and yeah God kicked his ass, but now we're here..." doesn't
mean that all the Paths go up in smoke. It has no effect on them at
all, really.
Geoffrey Brent
<7hr5g8$5...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> > If going out of your way to inflict yourself on people and steal
> > their valuables is intrinsically evil, then so are most of the AD&D
> > PCs I've seen... most were quite happy to talk about saving
> > villagers from the shadow of the Orcish hordes/dragon on the hill/
> > etc, but showed no signs of returning the _money_ they found on
> > the way...
>
> True, but they don't usually set the village on fire just because, or
> eat the villagers.
I think most people would consider it wrong to sweep down
and destroy an entire village, including the women and
children, even if that village _was_ the base for a bandit
raiding party. OTOH, if they're orcs... no problem. And if
orcs tasted good, PCs _would_ eat them.
> >> One thing- Isn't someone with True Faith pretty much clear-cut good?
>
> > Nope. You can have True Faith and still be a bigoted witch-
> > burner.
>
> Doesn't True Faith have Humanity requirements?
Under Vampire rules, yes. (If your preferred game is Werewolf,
people don't necessarily _have_ Humanity ratings, even though
True Faith is available.) The loophole is in the interpretation. An
Inquisitor who truly believes that vampires are irredeemable
demons can probably get away with a lot. At the least, it should
allow a Conscience roll to avoid losing Humanity for killing a
vampire - remember, you don't _automatically_ lose Humanity
for committing one of the path's sins.
> > I'm tempted to treat Scorched Heart as being a particular
> > attitude towards Humanity - i.e. its followers are actually
> > on the Path of Humanity, they simply have a bleaker way
> > of following it than the guy who smiles at everybody.
>
> Interesting take on it, but I think that Scorched Heart should let
> you get away with some things that would be pretty bad for Humanity.
> Pre-meditated murder for a logical reason, for example. By the same
> token, it shouldn't let you get away with things like crying over
> your best friend who just died.
I think there's a distinction to be made between methodology
and values. Humanity and Scorched Heart seem to have very
similar values (don't be cruel, don't let evil take over the world,
etc.) but very different methodologies - Scorched Heart is
pessimistic and claims that unless you abandon emotion etc.
you'll inevitably betray those values. Neither Humanity nor
Scorched Heart claim that feeling emotion is in itself evil;
SH believes that emotion makes one _vulnerable_ to evil.
Most ardent followers of Humanity would have similar restrictions -
for instance, a fearless vampire hunter would be at fault if he
didn't keep fit and alert, because it jeopardises his ability to
protect others.
OTOH, you're right about premeditated murder; it's very hard
to get away with that under Humanity, even though Scorched
Heart would accept it if the justification was watertight.
Geoffrey Brent
David Johnston
>
> >Comments should be read in context. That question was in reference to a
> >hypothetical storyteller who decides to take the J-C roots of the
> >Cainite myth seriously. Such a storyteller wouldn't have paths, except
> >possibly Evil Revelations.
>
> Why on earth would that happen? Just because you say "Yeah, Caine was
> out there and yeah God kicked his ass, but now we're here..." doesn't
> mean that all the Paths go up in smoke. It has no effect on them at
> all, really.
It eliminates the relativism of the Paths, and of Humanity's culturally
variable phraseology. Either God approves of your behavior or God does
not. And in a Vampire game, you know who plays God.
Marizhavashti Kali
>
> The fact that there are no clear *protagonists*. Now, again, if this were a
> deliberately morally vague game, say, like CP 2020, then it would be okay.
There are clear shades of black throughout the WoD: Infernalists, Black
Spiral Dancers, Nephandi, Spectres, Dauntain, Yama Kings...to name a few.
There aren't many "pure white" types, but there's more than a few
*protagonists*. Many fit the anti-hero role (Vampires and Werewolves
especially), even if they aren't all lily-white.
> > I've played Humanity vampires and Paths vampire, and I can say I've had
> > as many moral issues with Path vampires as Humanity ones. So I can say
> > from direct experience it doesn't bypass the issue at all, although it
> > does change the nature of the moral issues.
> >
>
> Yes, it makes them essentially irrelevant.
Games centered around the Sabbat are really not intended to be run like
games centered around the Camarilla. So, if you go into a Sabbat game
looking to find humanist (Camarilla) tendencies, you're doomed to
disappointment. Where the Camarilla is about holding on to humanity, the
Sabbat is about rejecting it.
> > I don't think any vampire who has much self-loathing will last long at
> > all particulary in the Sabbat. One of my problems with the early
> > approaches to Humanity and to some extent Vampire in general was
> > vampires with all that angst and self-loath really aren't going to last
> > long. Not to mention it gets very boring after a while.
> >
>
> It's the essential core of the game. What the hell has happened to me? Have
> I become this *thing*? The interesting question is how do PC's react to it.
> To be fair, some would get their rocks off on that kind of power, others
> would run to meet the sun. Most would, IMO, be scared shitless. That, down
> to it's core, is Vampire:The Masquerade.
Not really. I don't see it as a game about "self-loathing." That's no fun
to play through. Vampire is about *dealing with becoming a vampire*.
There's two overarching models presented in the game:
The Camarilla (hold on to humanity)
The Sabbat (embrace your vampiric nature)
> Remember, Vampires are called the Damned for a reason. If you want to have
> it not suck, I hear TSR makes this great superhero game with cards.
Not to say it doesn't suck to be a vampire, but to say that you must be the
angst-ridden ubergoth is just really, really limiting.
> This is a question I posed to Justin. How do *you* handle issues of Man(?)
> vs Beast for Sabbat characters? Even if it's handled entirely differently,
> and from a different persepctive, I feel it's not an issue that Sabbat
> characters should be allowed to ignore. It should be *just* as important
> for Sabbat characters as for Camarilla characters.
Why? The Sabbat isn't about Man vs. Beast. It's about man coming to terms
with The Beast, or subsuming the man into The Beast.
You might as well criticize Star Wars for not being 2001: A Space Odyssey.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Unofficial Fading Suns mailing list
Listowner: Unofficial Trinity mailing list
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Marizhavashti Kali
>
> It eliminates the relativism of the Paths, and of Humanity's culturally
> variable phraseology. Either God approves of your behavior or God does
> not. And in a Vampire game, you know who plays God.
Really?
I haven't noticed this duality...unless you're saying that acceptance of
this particular route is inherently manichean?
franco frare
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 19:55:15 +0000, franco frare
> <f.f...@psico.med.unipi.it> wrote:
>
> The fact of the matter is, if the Beast represents the antithesis of
> modern Judeo-Christian values, committing Judeo-Christian crimes is
> going to give it power over the vampire. It isn't going to matter if
> you were an Aztec priest, a Catholic priest, or a raging Satanist in
> life. If you indulge the urges of the Beast, you degenerate.
>
> DasBastard
The beast is the expression of the instinct of a supernatural predator.
Why instincts should ever care for Judaeo_christian virtues or have a
special meaning in relation to them ? OOC, why the system should cater
to them ?
Franco