Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

About garou sex and metis before the first change

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    If you want to play a character who's reputation is plagued by having a Metis child, there's a Flaw for that, if you don't want to deal with that, don't take the Flaw. This acknowledges that it is possible for such a reputation to be a problem, but not inherent.
    Player and ST should discuss this, because if it happens during the game (especially if there is a prelude being played) the ST might be under the impression that you acquire this Flaw in-game. Personally I would think you shouldn't have a character with a metis child and not have the Flaw. On the other hand, I (as a general rule) dislike Merits and Flaws that leave the burden of incorporating them into the game with the ST and other players because they don't modify the PC, but everyone else's behaviour towards the PC.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by heinrich View Post
      Personally I would think you shouldn't have a character with a metis child and not have the Flaw.
      "If a character sires or bears a metis cub during the
      events of the chronicle, the penalties of this Flaw may
      apply, but no bonus points are granted for it."

      Very important wording here is: "may apply," not "must apply" or something similar.

      If the books wanted you to suffer the penalties regardless of the situation, they'd make those penalties non-optional. The fact that they're optional in the already optional Merits & Flaws system says more than enough.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
        If the books wanted you to suffer the penalties regardless of the situation, they'd make those penalties non-optional. The fact that they're optional in the already optional Merits & Flaws system says more than enough.
        That is true.
        Still, I personally dislike the idea.
        "My character is named Snowflake and is special among other things because it sired a Metis, but doesn't suffer the penalties because I didn't choose the Flaw. Wouldn't make sense, because I already have seven dots in intolerances against stuff like different kinds of wyrm minions, and Donald Trump."

        Comment


        • #34
          Or, you know, perfectly reasonable good faith reasons like the situation presented in this thread. Or a Black Fury that joined that Tribe after being raped by another Garou and her sisters don't hold the crime of a rapist against his victim. Or a dozen other things I can come up with off the top of my head.

          If you're going to toss out everything in the WtA books that can be used in a off putting fashion by disruptive players? You might as well just burn your books and find a different game to play.

          Comment


          • #35
            The real purposes of Merits and Flaws are to provide build points (or certain advantages) during character creations. That's it. They are not meant to be used as the sole means of enforcing certain social expectations of the setting. An ST is going to have NPCs react to other NPCs and PCs based on their conduct. Certain Merits and Flaws can play into that (and an ST may choose to give one for free to PCs later in the chronicle), but they are not the whole thing. The same conduct can even be approved in certain septs or disapproved in others at the same time characters interact with both.

            In a case where a Garou inadvertently violated the Litany's prohibition against mating with another Garou, there will be many different reactions within the Garou Nation. Some will say the person was not at fault and won't hold it against the Garou. Some may do that, but only if the Garou meet certain criteria. Others will say it doesn't matter if it is "fair" at all, since the mere act of violating a spiritual taboo will anger Gaia - like how Oedipus doomed himself with inadvertent incest, or how a child sticking a fork into an electric shock is going to shock him even if he didn't know about it beforehand. We can all guess who the usual suspects are for those among the tribes.

            There are going to be STs who will not want any kind of Oedipus style punishment for violating taboos and bringing down spiritual miasma and punishment for then. "You know player of Oedipus, it is OK that you slept with your mother. She won't kill herself, and you won't want to blind yourself and go into exile. Everyone understands it was unintentional." Other STs are going to punish Oedipus for crime as the erinyes/furies punish such transgressions regardless of intent. There are lots of old tragedies where a character HAS to do something, but in doing so violates an important taboo and gets punished for that. Orestes is commanded by Apollo to kill his mother to avenge her murder of his father, and not doing so would provoke the wrath of Apollo. But guess what, killing your mother is just as bad as a wife killing her husband, so he gets punished for that. Cuchulain has two conflicting geases where he must choose to violate one of them in a certain situation, and violating either geas will result in his death. Unfair! Such things suck for the characters, but there's a lot of drama in it. They're still good stories. It's also not surprising PCs HATE to be put in such no win situations.

            Neither ST would be wrong in their approach. I think both can work for Garou culture. Even among the ancient Greeks there were various versions of these myths. It's probably best for the ST to explain to the PC(s) beforehand what consequences would be had if a player wants to include certain kinds of material in their backstory. Or even if it is just part of the setting for some NPC if the ST will be portraying the Garou taking a strong stance one way or the other that may clash with how the PCs would expect the Garou to act (I know you may think this is unfair, and it is unfair but it also doesn't matter that it is unfair and this is why...). That way the players don't blunder into something they didn't expect, or allow the group to discuss controversial topics OOC before they come into play.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by heinrich View Post
              That is true.
              Still, I personally dislike the idea.
              "My character is named Snowflake and is special among other things because it sired a Metis, but doesn't suffer the penalties because I didn't choose the Flaw. Wouldn't make sense, because I already have seven dots in intolerances against stuff like different kinds of wyrm minions, and Donald Trump."
              You’re being mean

              Anyway. I feel better knowing that a character in this situation would not necessarily have to take the Flaw if her player didn’t want that for a violation of the Litany that really wasn’t her fault


              “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her. She/her.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Black Fox View Post
                The real purposes of Merits and Flaws are to provide build points (or certain advantages) during character creations. That's it. They are not meant to be used as the sole means of enforcing certain social expectations of the setting. An ST is going to have NPCs react to other NPCs and PCs based on their conduct. Certain Merits and Flaws can play into that (and an ST may choose to give one for free to PCs later in the chronicle), but they are not the whole thing. The same conduct can even be approved in certain septs or disapproved in others at the same time characters interact with both.

                In a case where a Garou inadvertently violated the Litany's prohibition against mating with another Garou, there will be many different reactions within the Garou Nation. Some will say the person was not at fault and won't hold it against the Garou. Some may do that, but only if the Garou meet certain criteria. Others will say it doesn't matter if it is "fair" at all, since the mere act of violating a spiritual taboo will anger Gaia - like how Oedipus doomed himself with inadvertent incest, or how a child sticking a fork into an electric shock is going to shock him even if he didn't know about it beforehand. We can all guess who the usual suspects are for those among the tribes.

                There are going to be STs who will not want any kind of Oedipus style punishment for violating taboos and bringing down spiritual miasma and punishment for then. "You know player of Oedipus, it is OK that you slept with your mother. She won't kill herself, and you won't want to blind yourself and go into exile. Everyone understands it was unintentional." Other STs are going to punish Oedipus for crime as the erinyes/furies punish such transgressions regardless of intent. There are lots of old tragedies where a character HAS to do something, but in doing so violates an important taboo and gets punished for that. Orestes is commanded by Apollo to kill his mother to avenge her murder of his father, and not doing so would provoke the wrath of Apollo. But guess what, killing your mother is just as bad as a wife killing her husband, so he gets punished for that. Cuchulain has two conflicting geases where he must choose to violate one of them in a certain situation, and violating either geas will result in his death. Unfair! Such things suck for the characters, but there's a lot of drama in it. They're still good stories. It's also not surprising PCs HATE to be put in such no win situations.

                Neither ST would be wrong in their approach. I think both can work for Garou culture. Even among the ancient Greeks there were various versions of these myths. It's probably best for the ST to explain to the PC(s) beforehand what consequences would be had if a player wants to include certain kinds of material in their backstory. Or even if it is just part of the setting for some NPC if the ST will be portraying the Garou taking a strong stance one way or the other that may clash with how the PCs would expect the Garou to act (I know you may think this is unfair, and it is unfair but it also doesn't matter that it is unfair and this is why...). That way the players don't blunder into something they didn't expect, or allow the group to discuss controversial topics OOC before they come into play.
                Very good point


                “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her. She/her.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Penelope View Post
                  You’re being mean
                  I was aiming for sarcastic.

                  Originally posted by Penelope View Post
                  Anyway. I feel better knowing that a character in this situation would not necessarily have to take the Flaw if her player didn’t want that for a violation of the Litany that really wasn’t her fault
                  On a compassionate human level I fully understand that there are scenarios where either parent of a Metis did not act premeditated and should therefore not bear the social repercussions associated with it. I myself had a character who sired, under mind control, a set of Metis triplets, lived with that for a while, used the Rite of Renunciation and moved half around the world so no body would know. Why? Because I wanted a crazy backstory, and I was young.

                  Today my view on that has changed in so far, as that the person who without wrongdoing on their part becomes parent to a Metis isn't a real person. It's a fictional character. So, if this happened during the character creation, what purpose does it serve for the narrative, if the Flaw or other drawbacks are not part of the game moving forward? That's why I said, the ST and Player should discuss this.
                  If this happens during the game, then obviously the drama of the game is its own reason. But, the player of the PC should be aware of the consequences and accept them in order to make it realistic within the setting (in my opinion, but I see, others feel garou can be more forgiving). To not enforce said consequences, with mitigating circumstances factored in, if applicable, doesn't seem right to me. It feels like a "Simpsons"-like approach to gaming, where the effects of this subplot are not carried on for very long. Similar to the way each Simpsons episode starts with a clean slate, with only few events of episodes having lasting effects (like the death of Maud Flanders).

                  In any case it is a topic ST and the player in question, and possibly the other players as well, should discuss and find a common ground on how to approach the topic, even if it is to not include it into the game in the first place.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Interesting that the discussion here is focusing on the mother, yet it would be equally possible for the father to have the flaw. Also if the father had not undergone his first change when the child was conceived, the local sept have just found anther person who will undergo the change at some point. Also I'd see some of the social stigma would extend equally to both of the parents.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      You also raise a good point. Both the girl and the boy are equally innocent under this scenario and should be treated equally by Garou society.


                      “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her. She/her.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by heinrich View Post
                        So, if this happened during the character creation, what purpose does it serve for the narrative, if the Flaw or other drawbacks are not part of the game moving forward? That's why I said, the ST and Player should discuss this.
                        I think part of the issue with where all this went, is that if you acknowledge that this is an issue for the individual group, then it's not really our place to ask, "what purpose does it serve for the narrative?" because it's not really our business to investigate or judge that over a hypothetical on what the game allows.

                        Originally posted by babi_gog View Post
                        Interesting that the discussion here is focusing on the mother, yet it would be equally possible for the father to have the flaw. Also if the father had not undergone his first change when the child was conceived, the local sept have just found anther person who will undergo the change at some point. Also I'd see some of the social stigma would extend equally to both of the parents.
                        The focus on the mother is somewhat predictable when it comes to any issues around pregnancy that deal in social taboos or even criminal sanction: you always know who the mother is.

                        While the Garou have even better ways of finding out who the father is than DNA testing (there's a level 1 Rite that specifically mentions using it for the express purposes of finding out who the father of a Metis cub is and you only need the cub present to do it), that doesn't always mean the father can be easily assigned the same consequences as the mother.

                        Ideally, the father would be held to proper standards. If we're talking the pre-Change accident on both sides scenario, equal treatment should be the case, though the scenario of an older already Changed and Initiated Garou taking someone they believe to be a younger kin woman to bed the father might actually be punished more severely (though you'd hope with appropriate nuance to the specifics).

                        WtA is hardly an ideal world though. The Black Furies don't just exist because inequality in the human world. The Wendigo and Uktena have not forgotten about male European Garou that were shielded from justice for lots of crimes... including ones that left their Tribes with Metis cub to raise. The Bone Gnawers and Children of Gaia have far too many members that fled to those Tribes because the politics of the Garou Nation were too vicious to get justice.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I actually tried to use terms that aren't gender specific. I agree that both parents should be treated equally in regards to punishment or social stigma or lack thereof.

                          The older garou having intercourse with a pre-change garou scenartio also works if the older garou is female and believing the younger partner to be kin. Just saying.

                          Since W20 retconned the whole "Pre-change not discernable from kinfolk"-thing into the game world the question is, if garou society wouldn't have adjusted to that over the millennia. Let's start with the assumption that Metis aren't desirable for society, and the set as fact that at least one in ten kinfolk hitting puberty is actually a pre-change garou. Possibly more, if you factor in Pure Breed (which on the kin parent's side would increase the chance of breeding true as per Unsung Heros), and Talens that could also increase the chance if used during intercourse (as per Hammer&Klaive) - assuming both sources are still valid in W20.

                          So, starting a relationship with a person of this age is not only criminal in most human jurisdictions but also a gamble within garou society.
                          We also don't know what ratio of garou have met their first change by the age of 18, though. We know that garou with a late fist change, or none at all, are possible, but we don't know how often it really happens. Assuming that garou, like humans, usually wouldn't really want to start a family before they hit the early twenties (at the earliest), the chances of accidentally starting a family with another garou (who is pre-change) are relatively slim. Even if only 80% of garou have their first change until then, the number of undiscovered garou in the kinfolk population is 1:50.

                          Then, garou who really want to start a family with a kinfolk person might still investigate if such a paring is auspicious and, for example ask the Ritemaster to Weep for a vision, to see if such a union was blessed. If then the partner is a pre-change garou, the sings for the couple might be dire.

                          So, I would think that garou society would frown on intercourse by garou/kinfolk adolescents and employ a social stigma to such acts as a result.
                          Wouldn't you think?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            As I mentioned in my original scenario, this whole scenario could’ve been avoided if my hypothetical 16 yr old female Garou just hadn’t had unprotected sex with her boyfriend (whether Kinfolk or Garou) no matter what his age or genetic status. But THAT was her only mistake. Not intentionally violating the Litany by having sex with another Garou. And THAT shouldn’t be punished by branding her (or him) with a Scarlet Letter unless the player wants that for their character.


                            “No one holds command over me. No man, no god, no Prince. Call your damn Hunt. We shall see who I drag screaming down to hell with me.” The last Ahrimane says this when Mithras calls a Blood Hunt against her. She/her.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by heinrich View Post
                              Since W20 retconned the whole "Pre-change not discernable from kinfolk"-thing into the game world the question is, if garou society wouldn't have adjusted to that over the millennia.
                              The problem is that W20 didn't do that broadly. It did that for one Gift. More broadly W20's position is that it is harder/less certain to discern kin from pre-change, not that it's impossible.

                              I don't think it really changes Garou society that much in that light.

                              Most Tribes are very controlling over mating to try to ensure strong matches, and the ones that aren't are generally the most tolerant of Metis parents that weren't doing it to purposefully flaunt the Litany.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X