Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V5 and a discussion regarding Humanity

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
    When characters lose contol due to something they couldn't possibly forsee, It's wise to be leniant.
    Seems to be a running theme with messy criticals and the Hunger system. Not overly fond of that myself. It feels patronising. But yes, you have a point. Perhaps those rolls could've resulted in something less, well, kill-y?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
      When characters lose contol due to something they couldn't possibly forsee, It's wise to be leniant.
      While this is true in the case made by the OP the player was given freedom to decide how the messy critical should have gone and he chose to kill the helpless opponent right after he had done the same a few moments before. He could have chosen to break the opposing vampire's legs or something similar, painful but not lethal, he could have used some form of dominate or something else, insted he went for the kill twice in a row and it was not the ST forcing the player to kill but the player deciding it was appropriate to do so.

      The ST's call is perfectly fine imo.

      Comment


      • #18
        I think that the player's right. Unless "do not kill or maim for pleasure" means "do not kill" (at all) and "do not maim for pleasure", there's nothing that prohibits killing kindred under any circumstances. You probably meant that when you came up with the tenets, but you don't have it in writing. An example of a tenet in the core samples that could penalise that behaviour is "Thou shalt not kill, save in self defense".

        Technically, as the results of a messy critical and a bestial failure, they could come under "control your hunger", but then so would getting any compulsion, regardless of what they do in that state of mind. By itself, the letter of that sentence could be very strict.

        Comment


        • #19
          If I were a playing a character with a humanity of 8, and the Beast got the better of my character and I lost my shit, killing torpored foes, I'd be okay with that stain. I think its fair for the ST to say that constitutes a stain under the first chronicle tenet. This isn't the supreme court, with people lawyering the "plain meaning of the tenet", contextualism, constructivist and all that.

          Comment


          • #20
            Basically Humanity just means being a good person. Tenets just highlight different facets of that philosophy. Would a good person kill a torpored foe? I think the answer is yes so I would say it’s not a stain. Someone else might say the opposite. It’s a judgment call.


            “It is a far far better thing I do than I have ever done...” Sidney Carton’s last line before going to the guillotine to save his True Love and her husband

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Haquim View Post

              While this is true in the case made by the OP the player was given freedom to decide how the messy critical should have gone and he chose to kill the helpless opponent right after he had done the same a few moments before. He could have chosen to break the opposing vampire's legs or something similar, painful but not lethal, he could have used some form of dominate or something else, insted he went for the kill twice in a row and it was not the ST forcing the player to kill but the player deciding it was appropriate to do so.

              The ST's call is perfectly fine imo.
              This is wrong
              If you encourage your players to rollplay their beasts lightly and harmlessly, they won't rollplay the beasts at all.


              Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
                This is wrong
                If you encourage your players to rollplay their beasts lightly and harmlessly, they won't rollplay the beasts at all.
                This opinion of yours is predictably in line with your usual philosophy:"Let players do whatever suits their fancy and don't you dare enforcing consequences for their actions".

                Players are free to make their own choices but they should also be aware those choices have consequences attached to them.

                If a player wants to be a murderhobo, killing and diablerizing right and left and generally being antisocial and power hungry, screwing others in the course of play he's making a choice and that should be respected.

                That does not mean those actions don't have consequences and the ST should absolutely enforce them.

                In this case the player was given agency on how to portray his Character's actions. He choose to kill twice in the span of minutes when he could have done something different. We don't know if the player was trying to ROLEplay his character or just wanted to act antisocially for the shake of it. That doesn't really matter though. What matters is he had a choice and he choose killing when he had other options potentially as or more poignant and that action warrants a stain on humanity (as many other people noted, especially because the PC is supposed to be a humanity 8 vamp, which means he should be more huiman than most humans alive).

                Comment


                • #23
                  We're talking about a the beast taking control of their characters. The players were rollplaying choices they didn't want to make. "Oh your character lost control to the monster inside of her and as a player you thought it fitting that the monster chose to do this heinous thing rather than a less heinous thing you totally could've done- Shame on you" doesn't fly for reasonable people.
                  Originally posted by Haquim View Post
                  This opinion of yours is predictably in line with your usual philosophy:"Let players do whatever suits their fancy and don't you dare enforcing consequences for their actions".
                  I can only conclude you came to this assumption by seeing that i've flatly disagreed with you now and before and now want to imagine me as a silly caricature so that you can reassure yourself that I am wrong and wrong and dumb and you are right, righteous and smart. Let me comfort you: My games are filled with 5th gen humanity 9 Baali murderhobos and I've never killed off a single one of my PCs (or the foolish players who played them)


                  Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I mean, Haquim is right, Humanity 8 is more human than most people, so I guess I can see giving him a stain for that. But at the same time, I still don’t think killing an unconscious enemy is inherently a stain on Humanity. It’s not cruel and it’s not needless, so in my opinion it doesn’t violate the OP’s tenets.


                    “It is a far far better thing I do than I have ever done...” Sidney Carton’s last line before going to the guillotine to save his True Love and her husband

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Haquim I thought about your argument for a few minutes and I’ve reconsidered. I think I was thinking more from emotion than from reason originally. The player was Humanity 8 (more human than most people), it was a pretty gruesome killing, he had other options available and he basically killed two helpless Kindred in the span of a few minutes. Under the circumstances, giving him a stain was totally within the ST’s discretion.


                      “It is a far far better thing I do than I have ever done...” Sidney Carton’s last line before going to the guillotine to save his True Love and her husband

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think there are situations where relatively high humanity individuals would kill enemies at their mercy, they would totally do this. But it would still risk humanity. They might get lucky and their conviction holds even through self reflection, or it might turn out to take its toll on their soul and maybe they become colder in the process.


                        It is a time for great deeds!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Eldagusto View Post
                          I think there are situations where relatively high humanity individuals would kill enemies at their mercy, they would totally do this. But it would still risk humanity. They might get lucky and their conviction holds even through self reflection, or it might turn out to take its toll on their soul and maybe they become colder in the process.
                          I agree. That makes a lot of sense.


                          “It is a far far better thing I do than I have ever done...” Sidney Carton’s last line before going to the guillotine to save his True Love and her husband

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Penelope View Post
                            Haquim I thought about your argument for a few minutes and I’ve reconsidered. I think I was thinking more from emotion than from reason originally. The player was Humanity 8 (more human than most people), it was a pretty gruesome killing, he had other options available and he basically killed two helpless Kindred in the span of a few minutes. Under the circumstances, giving him a stain was totally within the ST’s discretion.
                            It's important to note that a single stain for a couple of killings in a row is a pretty mild consequence. A stain is not garanteed to result in humanity loss after all. A PC could feel remorse for his own actions and thus mantain humanity. Personally I feel like a humanity 8 vampire would question his own morality after a double murder even if the people he killed were enemies. They were incapacitated and did not pose an active menace anymore, bestial failure means the PC loses control but the ST gave the player the choice to determine the outcome of the roll. The player chose to kill twice.

                            It seems pretty clear to me even if he was not in complete control of himself the high humanity PC should absolutely question his own morality the moment he realizes what he did.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by MyWifeIsScary View Post
                              We're talking about a the beast taking control of their characters. The players were rollplaying choices they didn't want to make. "Oh your character lost control to the monster inside of her and as a player you thought it fitting that the monster chose to do this heinous thing rather than a less heinous thing you totally could've done- Shame on you" doesn't fly for reasonable people.
                              The fact the beast was in control means nothing. The actions the player chose to enact determined the POTENTIAL loss of humanity (a stain does not cause an automatic loss but rather the chance of losing humanity if you cannot find within yourself to repent for what you have done) because he choose to kill two people in cold blood when he had an alternative.

                              He could have ROLEplayed something like this:"When all is said and done the lick is lays sprawled on the ground, a stake made of ash wood protruding from his chest just above his dead heart. I walk towards him, slowly but with a determination born of the rage boiling in my guts. I seem collected but the Beast is screaming to me to punish the upstart who just threatened me and my friends. As I reach him I very deliberately stare at his immobile form and then raise my foot in the air before bringing it down at full force on his right knee. A loud, satisfying CRACK, rings in the air as bones shatter. He does not make a noise but inside me I know he felt that. Despite all of my pretended morality my soul rejoices at the thought of punishing the wicked. I intended to do this just once and then stop but something snaps inside me and suddenly I find myself hitting the prone vampire again, again and again. By the time my companions manage to restrain me his legs have been shattered in multiple points, his undead flesh reduced to a bloody pulp. It will take him some time and much blood to heal them correctly. Strangely, I don't feel regret for what I just did. He was trying to kill us and he deserved to be punished, yet I realize the Beast taking control like that is worrisome... what if I lose control again and there's no one near capable of stopping me in time? I need to be more careful or one of these nights I might end up doing something I will truly regret, losing a part of myself in the process".

                              Given the Chronicle tenets this would have been acceptable and not nearly as damning as killing two incapacitated enemies in the span of a few minutes.
                              Last edited by Haquim; 08-02-2020, 01:13 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                So you want players to cheese things with unintentionally funny monologues? There are only so many hours in the game.


                                Did the characters kill people? yes. They get stains for that.
                                Did the characters break chronicle tennets? No. They were victims of an unavoidable beast seizure. They could have reasonably done very little to mitigate that. The beast took control, it wasn't your fault, it did a thing that was slightly worse than what you were already doing. No stains. Quite frankly it doesn't matter if you shoot the guy in the head a couple of times or if you use a gun that goes Brrrrrrrr; your intent was the same.


                                Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X