No Roads or Paths (Was Humanity and the Beast)
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?
>
> Kish
>
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.
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/
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
> > >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?
> >
> > Kish
> >
>
> 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.
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.---
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
franco frare
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
Kish
franco frare wrote in message <374308...@psico.med.unipi.it>...
>> 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 ?
>
Judeo-Christian values," Humanity would be the only way to stop it.
However...I'm at a loss for a reason why the Beast would represent that.
Kish
DasBastard
wrote:
I don't necessarily see the Beast as the complete antithesis of
Judeo-Christian idelas, but pretty close. You know kill, maim,
whatever suits your needs, indulge yourself. I think the Beast is
inexctricably linked to Judeo-Christian mythology by the Biblical
history of vampires (that, is, descendance from Caine). It is
everything the human ideal is not... it wants to kill, it wants to
take what it wants NOW, and it is aggressive in tempting the vampire
to do so.
Of course, it's all in how you see the Beast... if you're treating the
Beast as simply the survival urges of say, a wolf (or other natural
predator), then Humanity won't necessarily be the best or only way to
deal with it. But I personally prefer a darker Beast than that.
DasBastard
DasBastard
<SNIP>
>>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.
I think sparing the Sabbat from the consequences of low Humanity is a
very weak reason for sabotaging Humanity with the Paths.. this is
exactly what people are talking about when they say "Path of What I
Was Going To Do Anyway".
DasBastard
Jason Corley
: DasBastard wrote:
: >
: > 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 ?
It doesn't. That's what he just said.
--
"He means well for his country, is always an honest man, often a wise man,
but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."
-----Benjamin Franklin, 1783
Jason D. "cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu" Corley isn't John Adams.
franco frare
>
> franco frare wrote:
> >
> > 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 ?
>
> 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.
People can consciously reject the ethic they were raised into and embrace another
one. It happens all the time. People raised in Fundamentalist Christian families
embrace Neo-Paganism and others with Marxist parents become strict Muslims. Human
beings are learning machines. Not so unfrequently, this involves rejecting the ethic
or the cultural values you were raised into. Otherwise, there would never be a change
of paradigm, nor new religions would spread.
> 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.
Ok. But this can only justify the universality of the most heinous sins, like
torture, sadism or premeditated murder. It cannot justify pretending that for all
human beings stealing is a worst violation than, say, betraying a friend or your
word, or destoying beauty, or suppressing knowledge. I can easily think up of many
people who would consider betraying a friend more heinous than killing for survival.
I have no great objections to see the low end of the hierarchy of Sins (4-0) more or
less universal. What annoys me to no end is the pretense to say that the high part
(5-10) expresses the universal, ineherent morality of human beings.
> > > 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.
There are a lot of ethical rules and questions that aren't covered by the Humanity
hierarchy of Sins. Why those who find them more important than don't steal should be
considered less human than others ?
>
> 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.
Are you saying that only a Judaeo-Christian ethic can effectively prevent people from
killing ? Couldn't someone avoid murder because isn't honorable, or because he
believes the evil he does will return unto him ?
What I find unsufferable it's the equation high Humanity = being nice = highest
expression of human nature.
Franco
> > Franco
franco frare
>
> >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 ?
>
> Because those who have no empathy do not feel "human," do they?
This is a very restricted and suffocating view of human nature. An
artist that creates a masterpiece is still a magnificent example of
human potentials, even if she pushes away beggars. Many important
artists and scientists were less than exemplar in private life. Their
example is no less shining because of that. Leonardo would have been
less a pinnacle of human nature if he had deemed stealing or vandalism
non-consequential ? Michelangelo ?
Caravaggio did repeteadely kill in the heat of passion. Yet the beauty
he created did and will inspire and elevate people down the centuries.
Does not this make him a more perfect realization of the best
potentialities of human nature than law-abiding Joe Average ?
>
> >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.
And many, many, many, many, many, many, many others (including many
Westerners or raised in a Chrsitian culture) said that the highest human
virtue, the essence of man is its curiosity about the universe or its
desire to perfect itself. Why I should believe the former and not the
latter ? Leonardo, Einstein or Shakespeare are as shining an example of
the essence of man as Mother Teresa or S.Francis.
>
> >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.
And why being humane should be more important than say, being wlling to
risk life to keep his word ? Humanity is taught; If you aren't taught
those values, or you reject them, you are on a Path, as long as you
embrace a different moral code. This does not make you less human.
>
> 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.
>
Inhuman = a characteristic that does not partake or is directly contrary
to the basic features of human nature. Human nature (fortunately) is
made up of many more things than empathy, even if you include only the
features others generally find desirable. You would call someone who
risks life to save a child because of its sense of duty or
responsibility "inhuman", even if he is a low-empathy "cold fish" ?
Empathy is not all that matters to being human, otherwise we'd still be
apes, maybe very chummy apes, but still apes.
Go out on a starry night, look at it, think you have a mind apt to fully
appreciate its beauty and understand its structure, and then say, if you
dare, that the essence of man is only being nice to its fellows.
Franco
David Johnston
> >> 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
> >to them ?
> >
> Exactly so. "If the Beast represents the antithesis of modern
> Judeo-Christian values," Humanity would be the only way to stop it.
Given that vampires are traditionally repelled by crosses, have had
their resurrection characterised as a parody of the Resurrection, have
been given a J-C origin story in this game, why not?
Not, however, that I consider Humanity to represent 20th century
Christian values.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > franco frare wrote:
> > >
>
> > > 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 ?
> >
> > 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.
>
> People can consciously reject the ethic they were raised into and embrace another
> one. It happens all the time. People raised in Fundamentalist Christian families
> embrace Neo-Paganism and others with Marxist parents become strict Muslims. Human
> beings are learning machines. Not so unfrequently, this involves rejecting the ethic
> or the cultural values you were raised into. Otherwise, there would never be a change
> of paradigm, nor new religions would spread.
Certainly people can consciously reject the ethic they were raised into.
Subconsciously, whatever rules about good and bad behavior instilled into them
in childhood will stay with them all of their lives.
>
> > 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.
>
> Ok. But this can only justify the universality of the most heinous sins, like
> torture, sadism or premeditated murder. It cannot justify pretending that for all
> human beings stealing is a worst violation than, say, betraying a friend or your
> word, or destoying beauty, or suppressing knowledge. I can easily think up of many
You realise that the Heirarchy sins are just examples, rough approximations of
the kind of wrong doing that calls for a given roll, don't you? There is nothing
in there says that you do not have to make a Humanity roll when you betray a friend,
very possibly at a lower Humanity level than that required for stealing.
> people who would consider betraying a friend more heinous than killing for survival.
> I have no great objections to see the low end of the hierarchy of Sins (4-0) more or
> less universal. What annoys me to no end is the pretense to say that the high part
> (5-10) expresses the universal, ineherent morality of human beings.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> There are a lot of ethical rules and questions that aren't covered by the Humanity
> hierarchy of Sins. Why those who find them more important than don't steal should be
> considered less human than others ?
They wouldn't.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Are you saying that only a Judaeo-Christian ethic can effectively prevent people from
> killing ? Couldn't someone avoid murder because isn't honorable, or because he
> believes the evil he does will return unto him ?
The HoS doesn't deal with the question of _why_ someone wouldn't want to commit
murder.
David Johnston
>
> Kintaro Oe wrote:
> >
> > >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 ?
> >
> > Because those who have no empathy do not feel "human," do they?
>
> This is a very restricted and suffocating view of human nature. An
Humanity has nothing to do with human nature. It has to do with giving
a damn about humans. And _why_ you give a damn isn't important in the
least.
> artist that creates a masterpiece is still a magnificent example of
> human potentials, even if she pushes away beggars. Many important
> artists and scientists were less than exemplar in private life. Their
> example is no less shining because of that. Leonardo would have been
> less a pinnacle of human nature if he had deemed stealing or vandalism
> non-consequential ? Michelangelo ?
> Caravaggio did repeteadely kill in the heat of passion. Yet the beauty
> he created did and will inspire and elevate people down the centuries.
> Does not this make him a more perfect realization of the best
> potentialities of human nature than law-abiding Joe Average ?
No, not really. It makes him a murderer with an exceptional skill.
In any case there is nothing that keeps a Humanity 3
vampire from creating great art.
>
> >
> > >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.
>
> And many, many, many, many, many, many, many others (including many
> Westerners or raised in a Chrsitian culture) said that the highest human
> virtue, the essence of man is its curiosity about the universe or its
> desire to perfect itself. Why I should believe the former and not the
> latter ? Leonardo, Einstein or Shakespeare are as shining an example of
> the essence of man as Mother Teresa or S.Francis.
So what?
>
> >
> > >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.
>
> And why being humane should be more important than say, being wlling to
> risk life to keep his word ? Humanity is taught; If you aren't taught
> those values, or you reject them, you are on a Path, as long as you
> embrace a different moral code. This does not make you less human.
Humanity isn't about being human. The highest levels of Humanity are
nothing like the ethical standards of normal human beings.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Inhuman = a characteristic that does not partake or is directly contrary
> to the basic features of human nature.
Wrong. All the characteristics we call "inhuman" are not in fact atypical
of human nature. The human species has plenty of cold blooded killers
and savage rapists.
Human nature (fortunately) is
> made up of many more things than empathy, even if you include only the
> features others generally find desirable. You would call someone who
> risks life to save a child because of its sense of duty or
> responsibility "inhuman", even if he is a low-empathy "cold fish" ?
Empathy is irrelevant.
Kish
David Johnston wrote in message <37447B...@telusplanet.net>...
>No, not really. It makes him a murderer with an exceptional skill.
>In any case there is nothing that keeps a Humanity 3
>vampire from creating great art.
The book makes Humanity 3 vampires sound barely coherent, much less creating
great art.
>> > >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.
>>
>> And many, many, many, many, many, many, many others (including many
>> Westerners or raised in a Chrsitian culture) said that the highest human
>> virtue, the essence of man is its curiosity about the universe or its
>> desire to perfect itself. Why I should believe the former and not the
>> latter ? Leonardo, Einstein or Shakespeare are as shining an example of
>> the essence of man as Mother Teresa or S.Francis.
>
>So what?
So...Why Humanity as-written only upholds the moral code of 20th Century
Western Judaeo-Christian Man that's pretty high on empathy and compassion?
>Humanity isn't about being human. The highest levels of Humanity are
>nothing like the ethical standards of normal human beings.
Let's see...Page 134, VtM3: "It is a moral code that allows Kindred to
retain their mortal sensibilities..."
Under Effects of Humanity: "A Kindred's Humanity score reflects how much of
a character's mortal nature remains despite the curse of Caine."
>Wrong. All the characteristics we call "inhuman" are not in fact atypical
>of human nature. The human species has plenty of cold blooded killers
>and savage rapists.
Paths are, or should be, about being inhuman--actually inhuman--not just
about being a nasty human.
Kish
David Johnston
> >In any case there is nothing that keeps a Humanity 3
> >vampire from creating great art.
>
> great art.
The actual Humanity 3 vampires in sourcebooks seem pretty coherent to
me, as long you don't irritate them.
>
> >> > >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.
> >>
> >> And many, many, many, many, many, many, many others (including many
> >> Westerners or raised in a Chrsitian culture) said that the highest human
> >> virtue, the essence of man is its curiosity about the universe or its
> >> desire to perfect itself. Why I should believe the former and not the
> >> latter ? Leonardo, Einstein or Shakespeare are as shining an example of
> >> the essence of man as Mother Teresa or S.Francis.
> >
> >So what?
>
> So...Why Humanity as-written only upholds the moral code of 20th Century
> Western Judaeo-Christian Man that's pretty high on empathy and compassion?
It doesn't. As I've said before, all the terms used in the HoS
are culturally variable except for "inflict harm".
>
> >Humanity isn't about being human. The highest levels of Humanity are
> >nothing like the ethical standards of normal human beings.
>
> Let's see...Page 134, VtM3: "It is a moral code that allows Kindred to
> retain their mortal sensibilities..."
>
> Under Effects of Humanity: "A Kindred's Humanity score reflects how much of
> a character's mortal nature remains despite the curse of Caine."
Now for the other side. Where does it say in the new edition that all
humans have Humanity 10?
>
> >Wrong. All the characteristics we call "inhuman" are not in fact atypical
> >of human nature. The human species has plenty of cold blooded killers
> >and savage rapists.
>
> Paths are, or should be, about being inhuman--actually inhuman--not just
> about being a nasty human.
I'd say they fail. Not surprising when they were invented by human
beings.
Kish
David Johnston wrote in message <374483...@telusplanet.net>...
>> >Humanity isn't about being human. The highest levels of Humanity are
>> >nothing like the ethical standards of normal human beings.
>>
>> Let's see...Page 134, VtM3: "It is a moral code that allows Kindred to
>> retain their mortal sensibilities..."
>>
>> Under Effects of Humanity: "A Kindred's Humanity score reflects how much
of
>> a character's mortal nature remains despite the curse of Caine."
>
>Now for the other side. Where does it say in the new edition that all
>humans have Humanity 10?
It doesn't. In fact, it describes Humanity 10 vampires as "more human than
human." It still indicates that Humanity is about being human,
however--about being the ideal human, perhaps, but still about being human.
>> Paths are, or should be, about being inhuman--actually inhuman--not just
>> about being a nasty human.
>
>I'd say they fail. Not surprising when they were invented by human
>beings.
>
Inevitable when they were invented by human beings. <shrug> Until Justin
can hire an actual nonhuman to write up some Paths, I'm prepared to exercise
suspension of disbelief. The Paths I've got strike me as as close as
anybody could reasonably be expected to come to inhuman philosophies, and
that little essay on page 287 makes it clear that is what they're meant to
be.
Kish
David Johnston
> >> >nothing like the ethical standards of normal human beings.
> >>
> >> retain their mortal sensibilities..."
> >>
> >> Under Effects of Humanity: "A Kindred's Humanity score reflects how much
> of
> >> a character's mortal nature remains despite the curse of Caine."
> >
> >Now for the other side. Where does it say in the new edition that all
> >humans have Humanity 10?
>
> It doesn't. In fact, it describes Humanity 10 vampires as "more human than
> human." It still indicates that Humanity is about being human,
> however--about being the ideal human, perhaps, but still about being human.
That's where Franco has his problem. The virtues of Humanity aren't
about being human. They are about being humane. Many people,
including the authors of Vrev, apparently, confuse
those concepts, in part because of their desire to regard
humanity as a better species than it is.
>
> >> Paths are, or should be, about being inhuman--actually inhuman--not just
> >> about being a nasty human.
> >
> >I'd say they fail. Not surprising when they were invented by human
> >beings.
> >
> Inevitable when they were invented by human beings. <shrug> Until Justin
> can hire an actual nonhuman to write up some Paths, I'm prepared to exercise
> suspension of disbelief. The Paths I've got strike me as as close as
> anybody could reasonably be expected to come to inhuman philosophies, and
> that little essay on page 287 makes it clear that is what they're meant to
> be.
However in the end it's a simple question. Do you give a damn about the
people you hurt and kill, or don't you? If you don't, meet the Beast,
the two of you should get along just fine. If you do, then you have
Humanity.
Kish
David Johnston wrote in message <374491...@telusplanet.net>...
>That's where Franco has his problem. The virtues of Humanity aren't
>about being human. They are about being humane. Many people,
>including the authors of Vrev, apparently, confuse
>those concepts, in part because of their desire to regard
>humanity as a better species than it is.
>
>people you hurt and kill, or don't you? If you don't, meet the Beast,
>the two of you should get along just fine. If you do, then you have
>Humanity.
>
<shrug> At this point, you're not talking about what Humanity, Paths, or the
Beast are presented as being, but what you think they should be. I like
them as they are, myself.
Kish
Marizhavashti Kali
>
> I think sparing the Sabbat from the consequences of low Humanity is a
> very weak reason for sabotaging Humanity with the Paths.. this is
> exactly what people are talking about when they say "Path of What I
> Was Going To Do Anyway".
So, instead of saying "This is what paths are," prove it to us. Demonstrate
that yes, indeed, the paths let you "do what I was going to do anyway." Use
Guide to the Sabbat and Vampire Revised.
Alik Widge
>DasBastard wrote:
>>
>> 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 ?
Well, if you believe the Book of Nod, Kindred are directly linked to good
ol' YHWH, being created from his curse and all that. So, it makes sense
that they're judged by his definition of "good".
Alik
Marizhavashti Kali
>
> > So, instead of saying "This is what paths are," prove it to us. Demonstrate
> > that yes, indeed, the paths let you "do what I was going to do anyway." Use
> > Guide to the Sabbat and Vampire Revised.
> >
>
Did you mean "Guide to the Sabbat" here?
> How in the hell does this Path enable a Vampire to control his or her Beast?
It doesn't. I suppose that's why it has "Instinct" as a Virtue instead of
Self-Control.
> Even if you take a morally nuetral viewpoint, this Path does nada to control
> the raging, inhuman hungers and urges that course through the Vampire frame.
> Basically, IMO, its a twinky,
> get-out-of-wassail-I-get-to-be-kewl-and-evilll-kard.
I think you must have missed my other post in which I stated "Sabbat games
aren't necessarily about overcoming the beast with humanity."
> Cases can perhaps be made for Honorable Accord, Path of Caine and other
> disciplined Paths, but not this one.
> A way to restrain the Beast? *I Think Not*. Pardon me if I'm not convinced.
The Paths - and the Sabbat - aren't about that. You persist in judging
Sabbat games by Camarilla standards, and by that measure, the Sabbat games
will always fail. You're looking at the Sabbat style through the wrong
lens. The *Camarilla* is about being human, the Sabbat is about being a
monster. The Cathari path emphasizes the monstrous over the human, and so
fits into the Sabbat outlook.
This is clearly not a path of "Do whatever I want and get away with it."
If you have a path rating of 7, you have to frenzy - you can't try to
resist it. You could lose points if you do.
You can't kill just because you're in a bad mood. Hey, you can't kill just
because the mortal is there. Cathari can't just run around and whack humans
- is this "Doing what I want?" I don't think so.
From reading the stuff here, it seems most people I know would have a
harder time practicing Cathari than Humanity... Just my opinion.
> Think it's time to turn on CNN.
Marizhavashti Kali
>
I stand corrected, you didn't miss this post. :-)
> Call me crazy, but I see the unique feature of Vampire is the issue of the
> *alienness* of the Vampire. On far too many MU*'s and Larps, Sabbat are played
> like Spider-Man second string villains with fangs.
Both aspects are true here... Both that vampires are alien, and that MU*s
and LARPS tend to get bogged down in superheroism.
> Mark me - There *is* a place for the Kindred who feels deep down that the Vampire
> is a superior creature. Personally, I feel that the majority of the Sabbat *and*
> the Camarilla hold this point of view. The issue here is, like you said, how one
> deals with becoming a blood-hungry, murderous creature who preys on humans, but
> who still, for the moment, has a mind, emotions and perhaps a soul.
Yes, and how the vampire holds onto his mind, emotions and perhaps his
soul.
> I feel that legitimate Sabbat chronicles (when they are run) are about the
> terrible magnifence of being a monster. What are you willing to sacrifice for that
> magnificence? One can get quite into the spirit of Dante here. Even then, Sabbat
Perfectly valid. Note that most Sabbat characters should start on Humanity,
and so they have to *deal* with bargaining away their humanity bit by bit,
or catch on and hold on to it (at the risk of social backlash). The lucky
ones catch an elder's eye and get invited to learn a path. The stupid ones
go screaming into the wassail.
> Vampires should be torches that burn brightly and then fade away quickly, as
> opposed to Camarilla Vampires are perhaps cowards who merely smoulder. In a
As Justin has noted, many Sabbat vampires do exactly that.
> twistedly tragic sense, the age of the maginificent monster that made humans cower
> ended with the Inquisition, and Kindred were forced to make a choice...pride, or
> survival. The Sabbat would rather choose pride, it seems. In a sense, this makes
> Vampires bygones as much as any Unicorn, although one that has adapted well to
> modern nights.
Vampires still ain't bygones, damn you.
> Mark my words. To allow the Beast issue to slide to the wayside is to let Vampire
> become simply a cheap, violent fanged superhero game.
But Paths don't necessarily make it so. They give another (valid, I say)
means of dealing with the conflict of humanity vs. the beast, and in some
ways, much more strict.
> No, this is more criticising The Hunger for being Army of Darkness.
The same basic concept. You're taking something that is one thing, and
criticizing it for not being this other thing, or for being something that
it is not.
Marizhavashti Kali
>
> Uh uh. I'm criticising one thing for going down in quality and pandering to the lowest
> common denominator. IMO, there's no 'other thing' here. The struggle of man vs beast is
> one of the interlocking peices of Vampire. Take it away, then the whole thing falls
> apart. But, however, see my post on 'Beast'-less Vampire.
I did.
I dispute your assumption that paths "pander to the lowest common
denominator." Or that Vampire has only one basic theme and that theme MUST
be used in all games. Clearly, the Sabbat and Camarilla-style games each
have a different focus on dealing with the Beast.
It still appears to me that you're criticizing the Sabbat setting for not
being the Camarilla setting, when it never set out to be the Camarilla
setting.
Marizhavashti Kali
>
> In a sense, dear, in a sense! :) Although their day is done just as much as the
> Unicorn's is. However, for my games, I *like* the Bygone theory. But you *know* how I
> feel about Mage :)
40,000 undead does not make a case for "their day is done just as much as
the unicorn's."
The Bygone Theory is fatuous.
> Ya know, this really *does* make the Vampire tragic.
The vampires aren't tragic as a species, but as individuals. That's why
it's "Personal Horror."
> Chris Bell
> arg...@xsite.net
Chris Bell
Marizhavashti Kali wrote:
> DasBastard wrote:
> >
> > I think sparing the Sabbat from the consequences of low Humanity is a
> > very weak reason for sabotaging Humanity with the Paths.. this is
> > exactly what people are talking about when they say "Path of What I
> > Was Going To Do Anyway".
>
> So, instead of saying "This is what paths are," prove it to us. Demonstrate
> that yes, indeed, the paths let you "do what I was going to do anyway." Use
> Guide to the Sabbat and Vampire Revised.
>
Check out Path of Cathari, Sabbat Player's Guide, page 132.
Score Moral Guideline
10 - Exercising Restraint
9- Showing Trust
8- Failing to pass the Curse onto the passionately wicked or virtuous.
7-Failing to ride the beast in Frenzy
6-Act against another Albigensian
5-Impassioned Killing
4-Sacrificing gratification for someone else's convenience
3-Refraining from indulgence
2-Arbitrary Killing
1-Encouraging others to exercise restraint
How in the hell does this Path enable a Vampire to control his or her Beast?
Even if you take a morally nuetral viewpoint, this Path does nada to control
the raging, inhuman hungers and urges that course through the Vampire frame.
Basically, IMO, its a twinky,
get-out-of-wassail-I-get-to-be-kewl-and-evilll-kard.
And the restraints against killing at levels 5 and 2? So you can corrupt
mortals and make them a peice of shit, just like you! This Path is Cartoon
Evil. "I'm Zorak. Space Ghost, you suck!"
Cases can perhaps be made for Honorable Accord, Path of Caine and other
disciplined Paths, but not this one.
A way to restrain the Beast? *I Think Not*. Pardon me if I'm not convinced.
Think it's time to turn on CNN.
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
Chris Bell
> > 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.
>
Call me crazy, but I see the unique feature of Vampire is the issue of the
*alienness* of the Vampire. On far too many MU*'s and Larps, Sabbat are played
like Spider-Man second string villains with fangs.
Mark me - There *is* a place for the Kindred who feels deep down that the Vampire
is a superior creature. Personally, I feel that the majority of the Sabbat *and*
the Camarilla hold this point of view. The issue here is, like you said, how one
deals with becoming a blood-hungry, murderous creature who preys on humans, but
who still, for the moment, has a mind, emotions and perhaps a soul.
I feel that legitimate Sabbat chronicles (when they are run) are about the
terrible magnifence of being a monster. What are you willing to sacrifice for that
magnificence? One can get quite into the spirit of Dante here. Even then, Sabbat
Vampires should be torches that burn brightly and then fade away quickly, as
opposed to Camarilla Vampires are perhaps cowards who merely smoulder. In a
twistedly tragic sense, the age of the maginificent monster that made humans cower
ended with the Inquisition, and Kindred were forced to make a choice...pride, or
survival. The Sabbat would rather choose pride, it seems. In a sense, this makes
Vampires bygones as much as any Unicorn, although one that has adapted well to
modern nights.
Mark my words. To allow the Beast issue to slide to the wayside is to let Vampire
become simply a cheap, violent fanged superhero game.
No, this is more criticising The Hunger for being Army of Darkness.
Chris Bell
argrath@
Chris Bell
> killing ? Couldn't someone avoid murder because isn't honorable, or because he
> believes the evil he does will return unto him ?
>
> expression of human nature.
>
>
> > > Franco
Actually, I find myself agreeing with Franco. To this I would add that the circumstances
and context of the situation should *always* be taken into account when judging a
degeneration check.
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
David Johnston
No, I'm talking about the actual game mechanic rather than the editorial
commentary, because you know, you really can't trust White Wolf's
commentary.
Consider, for example, the whole concept of being more human than a
human. Either you are human, or you aren't. If you aren't, you might
be similar to a human to varying degrees, but you can't be more like a
human than a human is, any more than you can act more like Richard Nixon
than Richard Nixon could. You might do a funnier impression of him, but
you'll never do a more faithful one, even if Nixon should decide to sing
"I'm a Little Teapot" in falsetto.
No matter what Richard Nixon did, he could never be anything except
Richard Nixon, even if what he doing conflicted with what other people
or even Nixon thought Nixon was.
Similarly if you tell me that the ultimate in humanity is behaving quite
unlike a human being, my only response has to be that your definition of
humanity means something different from "behaving like a human being".
Chris Bell
>
>
> 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!
>
Again, this is an ST call thing. For example, I've never made any killing in self
defense call for a roll in all my games. However, killing someone, even if it's
justified, *does* affect you. Ask a cop or soldier. Policeman who have killed in the
line of duty do oftimes feel guilty for killing someone, even though they had to
protect someone and had no other choice. I think that this is what the Heirarchy of
Sins for Humanity table is trying to reflect.
Also, check out VRev, page 221. Killing a vessel from starvation (Accidental
Violation) is treated as a 6, which seems pretty lenient. This means that Humanity
5 characters can drain Vessels accidentally and not be bothered at all! *Casually*
draining Vessels dry is a different scenario, however, that's Humanity 2.
Surprisingly, the new Heirarchy of Sins table doesn't list a level for killing in
self defense.
I would personally treat it a Humanity 8 act if it were justified (He's attacking me
with intent to kill, he'll kill that guy if I don't stop him.) If the person who's
attacking to kill is mind-controlled or some how being manipulated, I may lower it a
notch or two (Oh My God, He's Dominated Kenny! The Bastard!), as by definition
you'll feel more hurt and self-loathing at having to kill someone who has no free
will. Lower it some more if it's someone you know and care about, but had no choice
in killing (He made me kill Kenny, the Bastard!). Hate to say it, but nameless goons
don't have as much of an impact on the psyche as someone you know and love.
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
>
> Becka
> Rebecca Sutton
> be...@malcop.u-net.com
> http://www.malcop.u-net.com
Chris Bell
> criticizing it for not being this other thing, or for being something that
> it is not.
Uh uh. I'm criticising one thing for going down in quality and pandering to the lowest
common denominator. IMO, there's no 'other thing' here. The struggle of man vs beast is
one of the interlocking peices of Vampire. Take it away, then the whole thing falls
apart. But, however, see my post on 'Beast'-less Vampire.
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
Chris Bell
> > Vampires bygones as much as any Unicorn, although one that has adapted well to
> > modern nights.
>
>
In a sense, dear, in a sense! :) Although their day is done just as much as the
Unicorn's is. However, for my games, I *like* the Bygone theory. But you *know* how I
feel about Mage :)
Ya know, this really *does* make the Vampire tragic.
Chris Bell
arg...@xsite.net
David Johnston
All in all, the Humanity mechanic was probably originally intended to give STs a
way to discourage Vampire turning into a gore-fest as the PCs run wild with
sadistic power fantasies and to reward "good" behavior by getting yourself closer
to Golconda. If those aren't problems or priorities, the whole business probably
could be dispensed with.
Ratspaw
> 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?
I tried to convince a GM once to let me run a Malkavian
whose Derangement was Amorality. He was simply unable to
integrate a set of morals at all, and acted solely on
desires and self-interest. My GM refused on the basis that
he wouldn't last very long. I said that was the point.
<shrug>
Ratspaw
The fleeing rat's tail
Wheels in the corner shadow
Frenzied blood red eyes
Mant
Chris Bell <spambloc...@xsite.net> wrote:
> > Which bit sucks?
> >
>
> The fact that there are no clear *protagonists*.
Plenty of protagonists, they just aren't necessarily heroes.
> 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.
Maybe, but the WoD was built morally grey from the start. The only game
that looks like good vs evil is werewolf, and thats only if you don't
scratch the surface. While there is obvious evil in the WoDm there has
never, ever been obvious good.
What you are complaining about seems to have been a concsious design
descision right from start. That doesn't mean you can't complain of
course, but this is nothing new.
> >
> > > 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.
Well I always thought that there was room for the player character to
be the exceptions if thats what they wanted. But thats what they should
be, exceptions.
> >
> > > 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.
The moral issues? Not even _slightly_, in fact the Path PCs have been
distinctly more moral than the Humanity ones, since they are striving
to increase in their Paths and improve themselves where as the Humanity
vampires are ususaly just trying to hold on.
And if they fail in their morals they slip closer to the Beast. Is that
irrelevant?
You have morals, you must keep to these morals in the face of temptaion
(Beast or otherwise) to hold onto who you are. Thats the issue, and
Paths and Humanity both provide it.
> > > "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?
The Sabbat see themselves as all sorts of things becuase they are
individuals first, Sabbat second. Some Sabbat see themselves as
monsters, some thing their state is a blessing and some are on a power
trip.
> > 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.
And to each other, and to the plot and to everything else. Its a part
of vampire, but for many people its not the be all and end all. It
wouldn't be Vampire if it wasn't there, but you don't have to hit
people over the head with it all the time.
> Remember, Vampires are called the Damned for a reason.
Yeah, in Book of the Wyrm 1 in mentioned the young ones called
themselves that because it sounded cool.
> If you want to have
> it not suck, I hear TSR makes this great superhero game with cards.
Although plenty of Vampires in Vampire don't think being Vampire suck.
> > > 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.
I agree completely 100% with that. A Sabbat character should spend at
least as much time dealing with the Beast. Those trying to get onto a
Path should spend far more time.
They have to descend into the grip of the Beast and then claw their way
back out again through a fanatical devotion to a new set of ideals.
Play through a character going from Humanity to Path and you'll deal
with the Man vs Beast far more deeply than any Humanity only game.
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.---
Mant
bas...@freakland.net (DasBastard) wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 1999 06:22:05 GMT, kab...@bu.edu (Kintaro Oe) wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >>What? The Sabbat don't see themselves as monsters/demigods?
> >
> >monsters, which is what a low-Humanity score would require them to
be.
>
> I think sparing the Sabbat from the consequences of low Humanity is a
> very weak reason for sabotaging Humanity with the Paths..
How about the opportunity to introduce new roleplaying experinces and
broaden the game?
> this is
> exactly what people are talking about when they say "Path of What I
> Was Going To Do Anyway".
The old Sabbat book had some really crummy paths. The new Sabbat book
has better Paths and stuff on roleplaying them.
If you're picking a Path of "what you were goining to do anyway" then
you aren't roleplaying well. Thats a fault of the _player_ not the
system. No system can stop that.
Mant
Chris Bell <spambloc...@xsite.net> wrote:
<huge snip>
> Mark my words. To allow the Beast issue to slide to the wayside is to
let Vampire
> become simply a cheap, violent fanged superhero game.
But coping with the Beast is NOT allowing the Beast issue to slide, its
just not figtining it in the same way.
Johnny Mayall
> 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 ?
The game was built and billed as a game of personal horror. The
personal horror was becoming a monster in form and degenerating into a
monster in soul via monstrous actions. The game was created and
originally sold in the USA. As such, the prevailing themes of monstrous
actions that caused one to degenerate into a walking horror were used.
Of course, these prevailing themes are the Judaeo-Christian ethics.
Remember, the game essentially started out as a garage band. Although
it got to the point of selling out international arenas, it still
started as a garage band.
--
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
David Johnston
>
> On Wed, 19 May 1999, franco frare wrote:
>
> > 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 ?
>
> The game was built and billed as a game of personal horror. The
> personal horror was becoming a monster in form and degenerating into a
> monster in soul via monstrous actions. The game was created and
> originally sold in the USA. As such, the prevailing themes of monstrous
> actions that caused one to degenerate into a walking horror were used.
> Of course, these prevailing themes are the Judaeo-Christian ethics.
Of course actually those ethics are actually pretty universal among
human cultures save for a few cultures that lived under unusual
circumstances. _Really_ J-C ethics would include things like "failure
to pray regularly", and "blaspheming the Lord".
Johnny Mayall
> >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!
Ummm... no. Exactly the opposite, actually. A well informed Catholic
with a well formed conscience would feel guilt from sinning. This would
mean that he or she had succeeded in their Conscience roll and kept
their current Humanity rating.
> >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"
It is ALL a matter of interpretation. But it usually can be boiled down
into the precept that killing is a bad thing. Not a bad place to start
from.
> St Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church however say the following.
<snip>
Quite frankly, I don't care (on a game level, that is). As I said, it's
a matter of interpretation. Current popular interpretation is that
killing is bad and that it is something that one should feel guilt or
remorse for doing.
> 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.
Interesting points, but the game mechanics do not provide for this kind
of angel-pin-counting. Nor should it -- IMO, one of the most attractive
aspects of the game is its simplistic mechanical framework.
Rebecca Sutton
<joh...@prometheus.frii.com> wrote:
>> okay... so well informed Catholics with a well formed conscience by
>> Catholic standards will have a low humanity in the WoD. Woah!
>
>Ummm... no. Exactly the opposite, actually. A well informed Catholic
>with a well formed conscience would feel guilt from sinning. This would
>mean that he or she had succeeded in their Conscience roll and kept
>their current Humanity rating.
yes they would they would also feel no guilt from not sinning and
various not sins (to a catholic) are sins on the path of humanity
>> 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"
>
>It is ALL a matter of interpretation. But it usually can be boiled down
>into the precept that killing is a bad thing. Not a bad place to start
>from.
>
>> St Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church however say the following.
><snip>
>
>Quite frankly, I don't care (on a game level, that is). As I said, it's
>a matter of interpretation. Current popular interpretation is that
>killing is bad and that it is something that one should feel guilt or
>remorse for doing.
it comes into play if someone wants to play a firm Catholic who's been
embraced. I run most of my vampire characters (ironically Catholic or
not) on a path of my own invention, it's a kind of harmony/heaven
hybrid that promotes moral behaviour, fidelity to whatever faith,
inner reintegration and a distinct lack of angsting even when
remorseful. True remorse makes recompense it doesn't whine.
>> 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.
>
>Interesting points, but the game mechanics do not provide for this kind
>of angel-pin-counting. Nor should it -- IMO, one of the most attractive
>aspects of the game is its simplistic mechanical framework.
An infinite number I think, angels don't take up space being spirit -
oh sorry you weren't asking :-)
actually, two possible solutions.
1. in situations like that role empathy instead of conscience. If you
empathise you regret if you don't you won't. If the character doesn't
have empathy... well...
2. making a conscience role means an appropriate response, not
necessarily guilt. Inappropriate guilt is dehumaniizing. Therefore
you lose humanity for feeling guilty when you shouldn't as well as for
not feeling guilty when you should. I got this idea from another
post in this thread. At least I think that's what he meant.
Neither adds a major complication imo since it's still a simple roll.
It's just how you role play afterwards. at least if the role comes up
successful you should act it again imo
David Johnston
Angst isn't mandatory. Just encouraged.
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >Interesting points, but the game mechanics do not provide for this kind
> >of angel-pin-counting. Nor should it -- IMO, one of the most attractive
> >aspects of the game is its simplistic mechanical framework.
>
> An infinite number I think, angels don't take up space being spirit -
> oh sorry you weren't asking :-)
>
> actually, two possible solutions.
>
> 1. in situations like that role empathy instead of conscience. If you
> empathise you regret if you don't you won't. If the character doesn't
> have empathy... well...
>
> 2. making a conscience role means an appropriate response, not
> necessarily guilt. Inappropriate guilt is dehumaniizing. Therefore
> you lose humanity for feeling guilty when you shouldn't as well as for
> not feeling guilty when you should. I got this idea from another
> post in this thread. At least I think that's what he meant.
>
> Neither adds a major complication imo since it's still a simple roll.
> It's just how you role play afterwards. at least if the role comes up
> successful you should act it again imo
That boils down to nitpicking nomenclature. Just as Humanity is really
how humane you are, not how human, and just as "Wisdom" in D&D is closer
to "Willpower" or "Faith" in practise, so "Conscience" as game jargon
doesn't necessarily correspond to your dictionary's definition.
Besides, as I keep pointing out, killing in self defense is not murder
or negligent homicide.
franco frare
>
> Kish wrote:
> >
> >
<snip>
> > >Now for the other side. Where does it say in the new edition that all
> > >humans have Humanity 10?
> >
> > It doesn't. In fact, it describes Humanity 10 vampires as "more human than
> > human." It still indicates that Humanity is about being human,
> > however--about being the ideal human, perhaps, but still about being human.
>
> That's where Franco has his problem. The virtues of Humanity aren't
> about being human. They are about being humane. Many people,
> including the authors of Vrev, apparently, confuse
> those concepts, in part because of their desire to regard
> humanity as a better species than it is.
>
Yes, in particular the obnoxious pretense that all that matters to being
human, our only redeeming quality, would be being humane. Surely in a
vampire game (mostly with unexperienced players) one of the most
important mechanics should be a system to rein in the murderous
tendecies of the characters (and of the players to try and get away with
(literal) murder. However, I'd be *much* more confortable with Humanity
if a significant role would be allowed to other important human postive
qualities in keeping a cainite close to his former human nature and/or
giving a focus by which to keep the beast under control. Say, loyalty,
honor, intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensibility, lust for life (a
la Thrashing Dragon), spirituality, etc., in addition to empathy,
compassion, being humane. By limiting itself to exploring the themes of
guilt or remorse and the dichotomies kill/don't kill, be nice/be
callous, the Humanity system fails miserably to its awowed goal:
substantially helping to explore, by contrast to the vampiric nature,
what it means to be human.
Franco
David Johnston
I was unaware that was Humanity's avowed goal. I always rather thought
that the intent was to give people a warning, whether they chose to pay
attention or not, to the fact that their characters were becoming total
scumbags. I think it serves rather well in that role.
Kintaro Oe
>exactly what people are talking about when they say "Path of What I
>Was Going To Do Anyway".
That is what the old Paths were. Now you trade one set of restrictions
for another. Most Paths are narrower than Humanity anyway.
They work -fine-.
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
>artist that creates a masterpiece is still a magnificent example of
>human potentials, even if she pushes away beggars. Many important
>artists and scientists were less than exemplar in private life. Their
>example is no less shining because of that. Leonardo would have been
>less a pinnacle of human nature if he had deemed stealing or vandalism
>non-consequential ? Michelangelo ?
Why are you mistaking "achieving great things" with "having a high
Humanity"?
The two have -nothing- to do with each other, why are you saying that
they do?
>Caravaggio did repeteadely kill in the heat of passion. Yet the beauty
>he created did and will inspire and elevate people down the centuries.
>Does not this make him a more perfect realization of the best
>potentialities of human nature than law-abiding Joe Average ?
Explain where Humanity is the realization of human potential? Humanity
10 a great artist does not make.
You are confused.
>And many, many, many, many, many, many, many others (including many
>Westerners or raised in a Chrsitian culture) said that the highest human
>virtue, the essence of man is its curiosity about the universe or its
>desire to perfect itself. Why I should believe the former and not the
>latter ? Leonardo, Einstein or Shakespeare are as shining an example of
>the essence of man as Mother Teresa or S.Francis.
I disagree. Curiosity is all well and good, but in service to mercy
and compassion is the only time it is "humane." I can be curious about
how to kill people, damn, I guess those death camps in WWII were
pretty humane after all. Woopsie!
>And why being humane should be more important than say, being wlling to
>risk life to keep his word ? Humanity is taught; If you aren't taught
>those values, or you reject them, you are on a Path, as long as you
>embrace a different moral code. This does not make you less human.
You can live you life on a Path, but you WILL SEEM LESS EMPATHETIC AND
HUMANE, which is the essence of humanity boiled down to its last bit.
That is the view in Vampire, my experience in life and among
philosophers. That is the stance the game takes.
>Inhuman = a characteristic that does not partake or is directly contrary
>to the basic features of human nature. Human nature (fortunately) is
>made up of many more things than empathy,
yes, but empathy is it's central feature.
>even if you include only the
>features others generally find desirable. You would call someone who
>risks life to save a child because of its sense of duty or
>responsibility "inhuman", even if he is a low-empathy "cold fish" ?
Yes. If he did -anything- solely because of duty, he is cold. Tell him
to save a child. He does it. Tell him to strangle the child. He does
it. He is inhuman.
>Empathy is not all that matters to being human, otherwise we'd still be
>apes, maybe very chummy apes, but still apes.
No, it's not, but it is the central tenet limiting everything else
from excess and horror.
>Go out on a starry night, look at it, think you have a mind apt to fully
>appreciate its beauty and understand its structure, and then say, if you
>dare, that the essence of man is only being nice to its fellows.
I already did. And I dare to say it, I do more than dare. I -believe-
it.
I am an intensely curious man, and I am a scientist. And I say that
compassion is the highest of human virtues.
Compassion, not curiosity, is why man is not an ape any longer, to
answer your question above.
Kintaro Oe
>about being human. They are about being humane. Many people,
>including the authors of Vrev, apparently, confuse
>those concepts, in part because of their desire to regard
>humanity as a better species than it is.
the noble essence of being human is being humane. It is the readers
that confuse the books as saying "the only thing about being human is
being humane."
Stephanie M. Pennington
I don't believe humanity comes from the word human, but the word humane.
Adolf Hitler was human...but not humane. Ike Turner created some great
music that may inspire lots of people, but he beat and raped his wife.
This gives him a low humanity but high charisma. Come to think of it,
there are a lot of people with low humanity but lots of beauty, charisma
and influence.
Too bad really.
Steph
Stunt Borg
> Explain where Humanity is the realization of human potential?
> Humanity 10 a great artist does not make.
>
> You are confused.
But to some degree, the mechanics *do* try to make 'having high
Humanity' be equivalent to 'being human'. Particularly in the
mechanics of spending blood to appear human and behave humanly,
since all Path vampires are flat out forbidden to even try and
low-Humanity vampires have to spend gallons of Blood to do so.
Why someone following a duty-oriented morality of Honor and
fair-treatment is forbidden to even try to look rosy cheeked is
something of a mystery.
Paul Lowe Hlavacek
can see the occasional Catharist wanting to emulate the
sex-act to better seduce and tempt someone, too ... too
bad that he's forbidden to even try
Stunt Borg
> I agree completely 100% with that. A Sabbat character should
> spend at least as much time dealing with the Beast. Those trying to
> get onto a Path should spend far more time.
This contradicts strongly with Justin's operating principle that
Sabbat vampires of a given age should be more powerful than Cammies
of a certain age because the Cammies have spent more effort
fighting their Beast to retain vestiges of Humanity (which causes
them to appear more mortal) than the Sabbat have had to spend in
acquiring Path Ratings in *excess* of the Cammie elders' Humanity
Ratings.
Needless to say, I strongly disagree with that operating principle,
since it is de facto *admitting* that Paths are less ethically
challenging and time-consuming than Humanity, because that is the
only way that the Sabbat elders can have more time and free energy
to focus on Discipline-boosting and skill acquisition.
If anything, vampires on High Path ratings should have *less* skill
and Discipline potency than a low Humanity Cammie of the same age,
because the Humanity 3 Cammie with 3 for every Virtue is exerting
merely the *minimum* effort to prevent Wassail and pouring
everything else into selfish power-enhancement, while the
Path/Humanity 8 vampire with 4 or 5 for every Virtue is enduring
a never-ending drain of time and energy so as to never ever even
slip *occasionally* to the Beast.
Paul Lowe Hlavacek
strongly dislikes the tacit assertion that the Paths are
and *should be* easier to uphold, because it hypocritically
undermines (nay, destroys) the premise that the Paths are
complex, equally valid, and equally challenging moral
systems in their own right
Kish
Stunt Borg wrote in message ...
>Paul Lowe Hlavacek
> strongly dislikes the tacit assertion that the Paths are
> and *should be* easier to uphold, because it hypocritically
> undermines (nay, destroys) the premise that the Paths are
> complex, equally valid, and equally challenging moral
> systems in their own right
>
More like it indicates that Paths are actually complex, equally valid, and
challenging but /possible/ moral systems--as opposed to Humanity, which is a
delusion (vampires are not human, and never can be) and, according to all
the books, inevitably goes down over time (short of Golconda). The 2nd
Edition book indicated clearly that without Golconda, Humanity goes down to
0 over time; now it just goes down, but it still goes down.
Kish
Wade Lahoda
: What I find unsufferable it's the equation high Humanity = being nice =
:highest
: expression of human nature.
I think the problem is...people mix up HUMANITY with MORALITY.
Humanity isn't about being moral..it's about retaining your connection to
the species you were born in, and keeping from becoming another species..
Let's put it this way...
Inherint characteristics of The Beast(Vampires):
Desire to sleep when sun is in the sky
Thirst for Blood
Desire to kill(especailly when provoked)
Cunning
Mindless Predator...primal killing force
Characteristics of The Man(Humanity):
Reason and Emotion
Compassion
Empathy
Sentient being
Obviously...mankind has negative instincts too... But those negative
instincts help out the Beast, instead of oppose the Beast, so you can't
try and reinforce negative aspects of Humanity...the Beast just takes
advantage of THOSE aspects. =)
In short... Vampire is a struggle between the Beast and the
Man. Humanity indicates how much of the human is left in you. To retain
things like Sentience and avoid becoming a mindless(if cunning) predator,
you need to also retain your connection to the other aspects of
humanity. This commonly might be percieved as morality...most morals
have developed to help humans work together as a community, and thus keep
people connected to the rest of humanity, but it isn't nessisary.
And, yes, you can view Vampires as a seperate species. If so, by
all means, give up all that it is to be human. However, that includes
rational thought... Sentience is a characteristic of humans, not of
vampires. ;)
A. Wade Lahoda
ab...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
Wade Lahoda
: All in all, the Humanity mechanic was probably originally intended to give
: way to discourage Vampire turning into a gore-fest as the PCs run wild with
: sadistic power fantasies and to reward "good" behavior by getting yourself
closer
: to Golconda. If those aren't problems or priorities, the whole business
probably
: could be dispensed with.
Hey, I have to admit...that's half the reason I like Humanity.
It keeps things from degenerating too much into hack n' slash, and
supposedly forces players to play people with emotions, instead of
mindless killing machines set on mission objectives. ;)
"Alright folks... You can play with Humanity, or you can all be
Lawful Good. Your call." ;)
A. Wade Lahoda
ab...@sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca
David Johnston
> Paul Lowe Hlavacek
> strongly dislikes the tacit assertion that the Paths are
> and *should be* easier to uphold, because it hypocritically
> undermines (nay, destroys) the premise that the Paths are
> complex, equally valid, and equally challenging moral
> systems in their own right
I don't know what they are like in Vrev. A number of the ones I saw
either weren't, or were just Humanity in drag.
Angel the Halfling!
head that it's better than other species because of some sense of morality
the better. Just look at the world at the moment... you can't exactly say
we're nice to each other can you.
Having said that Vampire as a game wouldn't be worth it without the paths...
they set a marker on what characters will do to survive and I think prevent
the game from degenerating into something akin to Buffy the Vampire Slayer
only from the opposite side, okay which maybe fun for a evening to two, but
I don't think would make for a lasting storyline.
Angel the Halfling!
>compassion is the highest of human virtues.
>
>Compassion, not curiosity, is why man is not an ape any longer, to
>answer your question above.
Scientist... I assume not a biologist from that comment. I've worked with
Chimps, I spent an awful lot of time watching them, and the conclusion I
came too is there ain't a great deal of difference between us and them
If compassion is to be the defining factor that elevates an ape to something
'higher' then there is no such thing as an ape. I've seen them protecting
weaker members, nursing others wounds. I've even had one attempt to feed me
through the bars of her cage after she heared my stomach growling 'cos I was
hungry. One chimps was still protecting her three year old son who had a
growth problem and was no bigger than an eight month old chimp. At the same
time I've seen a female beat up her child for misbehaving, blatently
ignoring pleas for attention, siblings fighting and virtual riots because
one of them looked at another the wrong way.
In my experience humans show all the same characteristics as the animals
they hold to be 'inferior' or 'less evolved'. How many people who read thid
board were bullied by an older sibling... or bullied a younger sibling
themselves, either physically or mentally. How many people exclude others
from their social groups because they don't fit in? How many parents smack
children for misbehaving... or shout at them? To my mind this behaviour is
no different to that of the Chimp.
And it isn't just the apes that demonstrate 'compassionate' behaviour.
Whales have been observe supporting sick companions at the surface of the
water so they can breathe, African Wild Dogs have been observed caring for a
paraplegic member of the pack... carrying him around, giving it food.
Eventually the pup grew too big to carry and of course couldn't keep up with
the pack, but they supported it as long as they were able.
And that I believe is the key thing... humans are compassionate when they
are able to be compassionate, just like other animals. If food is scarce
you're less likely to give it away, most people are far more likely to put
grandma in a home than change their lifestyle to look after her if money is
tight, conversely if you can afford to pay someone to look after Grandma at
home... or your husband/wife/whatever is earning enough that you don't have
to work. Even if you feel guilty about it, life goes on, and you start
saying "well it was the best thing for her really." Exactly the same way the
whale pod stays in the cove waiting for their beached whale to return, or
the dog pack called for the cripple to keep up, but eventually they move on.
Humans are animals, pure and simple, and anyone who thinks differently is
deluding themsleves.