Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hunter 2ED: The Code

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

  • #16
    Well, yeah. Your confidence in the code would be shaken. You get breaking points for things other than breaking the rules of the code, you know. Getting tortured is one too.
    Which brings us back to the fact not all hunters should even believe in that Code in the first place. I bring you back to my Lucifuge example above.

    A hunter stares into the abyss. For them, high integrity is about compartmentalising. Separating the hunt form their everyday life. If you go empathising with the monsters then of course that's gonna make the two sides blur together.

    I mean look at how you phrased it. High integrity is just "Bam, done, what's for lunch?" whereas the other guy meticulously goes around background checking, probably staking them out or poking their nose in weird cults. Who's putting in more effort there? Whose sanity is more likely to crack?

    It looks backward form a distance, but get up close, think about what it involves and suddenly it makes sense. Just like with non-hunters, high integrity is born of looking at the shadows and not thinking too hard about it.
    I do see your point, and yeah, I did think about that. Except no. You are right that it'd make sense... from a certain point of view only. True, the second DOES risks his sanity... but that's from exposure to the supernatural and trying to understand things he can't, not directly because he tried to be nuanced. It's the consequences that cause this (which is already covered by other breaking points), NOT the act itself.

    Moreover, based on what I read is slashers, many hunters become slashers because they become too kill-happy and lose their ability to discern the guilties from the innocents. So.... yeah, by that logic, makes no sense that the high Integrity hunter mentioned above would be less likely to turn into a slasher than the more careful one.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Elfive View Post
      Well, yeah. Your confidence in the code would be shaken. You get breaking points for things other than breaking the rules of the code, you know. Getting tortured is one too.


      A hunter stares into the abyss. For them, high integrity is about compartmentalising. Separating the hunt form their everyday life. If you go empathising with the monsters then of course that's gonna make the two sides blur together.

      I mean look at how you phrased it. High integrity is just "Bam, done, what's for lunch?" whereas the other guy meticulously goes around background checking, probably staking them out or poking their nose in weird cults. Who's putting in more effort there? Whose sanity is more likely to crack?

      It looks backward form a distance, but get up close, think about what it involves and suddenly it makes sense. Just like with non-hunters, high integrity is born of looking at the shadows and not thinking too hard about it.

      Except for the fact that Mr. Kill'em All may spend just as much time poking around the shadows as Ms. Compassion does, just with different motivations. However, as long Mr. K manages to avoid harming normal humans in the process, he can be as brutal and merciless as he likes without risking the Merciless Condition or eventual slasherhood. Ms. Compassion, on the other hand, will likely become Merciless if she continually attempts to use mercy.

      Mr. K: "Yeah, it turns out that guy was limiting his molestation to the kids at this one school, right? Real asshole, and I figured that he was probably some kind of monster, maybe one of those damn nightmare critters. Good thing I did my homework, because it turned out that the little school was actually a front for a group of Cheiron group escapees. They were hiding their mutant children there in the hopes that they could pretend to have a normal life. This asshole turns out to just be human, and he only likes the freak kids, so way I figured it, I take out all those little monster children, he's no longer got anyone to prey on. Two birds, one stone. So, I slaughtered all 30 of the kids. If that guy turns his attention to normal kids, I'll call the cops, but since he wasn't targeting humans, I figure no harm done." Still maintains high Integrity and runs little risk of becoming slasher.

      Ms. Compassion: "My best friend came back from the dead. She had a ghost riding with her behind her eyes, but it was still her. It was weird at first, but she's been a real help to me. She spoke to the ghosts and led us to the people that needed to be punished. I always dreamed of making the world a better place. I tried to see everyone as people. I tried to use mercy when possible. I was a fool. You can't help everyone. How many rapists and murderers ended up being thrown into prison just because some fucking Casper held a grudge? How many others were injured when they attacked my friend? How many hunters did we end up hurting together, just because I was trying to protect her from their attacks? I tried to avoid violence. That was a problem, and I failed. I tried to see everyone as a person, and largely succeeded. But that's the problem. Good and evil... That's a war that can't be won. You can't just focus on the bad guys. Mercy doesn't work. If you want to make the world a better place, you need to get rid of the people. All of them. Mr. K had the right idea, but his old prejudices get in the way. He seems pretty happy, dividing the world into monsters and humans, just like I did with good and evil once upon a time. He doesn't see the big picture. You can't divide the world, not by race, not by actions. You have to treat everyone equally. If you can't spare everyone, then everyone must die." The likely fate of anyone who tries to take a more merciful approach to the Vigil. Especially if you're a member of the Lucifuge or Cheiron Group and already traded out your one tenet for something besides the supernatural power source one.

      Once again, I use extreme examples, but it strikes me as odd that a vigilante hunter that allies with a vigilante vampire is going to have constant issues with his buddy's superpowers, but one that allies with a vigilante member of a Conspiracy like the Lucifuge would be cool with it.


      Jason Ross Inczauskis, Freelance Writer
      Currently writing: Dark Eras 2, Mummy: The Curse 2e, Pirates of Pugmire, TC In Media Res. Previous projects: DtD Night Horrors: Enemy Action; C20 Anthology of Dreams
      Masculine pronouns preferred.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by The Kings Raven View Post
        Monica asked that all discussion on The Code be moved to a different thread, so I thought someone should create one. With that in mind here's what I'd like to see changed about the Code from the playtest draft.
        2) don't make "monsters don't deserve to exist" the default. There's definitely room for that, but looking at the corebook alone I don't think: the Long Night, Network Zero, Null Mysteries, the Loyalists of Thule, the Ascending Ones, or the Lucifuge will agree with that view. And the MM would make an exception for angels and god. That's over half the groups.
        Save
        I am pretty sure MM wouldn't counter God and Angels as "monsters".

        I'm not saying that they have to be psychologically healthy. Someone who willingly let's spirits possess them is, at least by modern western standards, questionable at best. What I am saying is that breaking points are the wrong mechanic to represent the drawbacks of any kind of questionable behaviour that's encouraged by your Compact or Conspiracy. A Breaking Point should represent a significant moment in your charachter's charachter development. For business as normal, something like Tells or Vampires Banes would work better.
        I haven't really seen them used like that, I think you are giving too much weight to Breaking Points. Especially for mortals-seeing a supernatural power is a breaking point. Getting hit by a super natural power is a breaking point. Killing someone is a breaking point. A Mortal Investigator would be getting at least three breaking points from a fight with any kind of supernatural creature without any sort of character development, possibly more if he sees the state its victims are in. A Hunter under the 2E code would be getting less breaking points for the same actions, even if he is in a compact/conspiracy that clashes with the Code.

        Especially if you're a member of the Lucifuge or Cheiron Group and already traded out your one tenet for something besides the supernatural power source one.
        You get a breaking point every time you receive a new Endowment. You can have up to five endowments, likely spaced out over a lot of time. From a mechanics standpoint it would be a waste for them to do that.
        Last edited by Ruger; 10-30-2017, 01:44 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          I am pretty sure MM wouldn't counter God and Angels as "monsters".
          If you use Dread Powers to represent them, then yes they do.

          You get a breaking point every time you receive a new Endowment. You can have up to five endowments, likely spaced out over a lot of time. From a mechanics standpoint it would be a waste for them to do that.
          Unless the mechanics changed in 2e, both can remove their powers to replace them by new ones, and I am pretty sure the Cheiron Group don't have the 5 max limit. So yeah, they will end up doing it far more often than that.

          Anyway, i guess I'll have to give an example of my own.

          I am currently running a Hunter Chronicle. In the last session, my players had a brief encounter and semi-truce with a vampire hermit. Said vampire had never killed or harmed anyone, lived alone away from civilization, and ended up putting himself to sleep by staking himself just to make sure he wouldn't cause problem, only asking from them they let him rest in peace. Now, the Cell in general decided to honor this, and just let him be in this Torpor state in the middle of nowhere. But two of the players, respectively a Lucifuge and a Cheiron Group agent, both decided to act behind their comrads back: the Cheiron Group agent contacted his superiors and gave them the location of the vampire's resting place, so they could grab him and dissect him in their lab as they always do. Meanwhile, the Lucifuge (who had suspicions about what the Cheiron Group agent was doing) contacted his own allies and also gave them the location, so they could move him to a new, safer place.

          Now, at the time, I used the Mortal Remains rules. But let's examine how it would have turned out if I had used the Code as defined in this playtest, shall we?

          Both players acted in the back of their Cell, plus against each other. I am pretty sure that qualifies as "betraying a fellow hunter": Breaking point triggered with a -2 penalty. So far, nothing wrong.

          But the Cheiron group agent acted at the vampire's detriment and to the benefit of his organization, so he gets no further modifier and stick to the -2

          Meanwhile, the Lucifuge acted against humans (the Cheiron Group) to the benefit of a monster (the vampire); he gets the -3 modifier, leaving him with a -5 penalty.

          Soooo, the Cheiron group agent, who is willingly trying to doom someone to a horrible fate with no further self-justification than the fact he is doing his job, get a lesser penalty than the Lucifuge, who is just trying to spare a horrible fate to a "monster" who represents no risk whatsoever to anyone at the moment, and is doing it with the firm conviction this is the right thing to do. I think that's kind of a problem here.

          And guess what? The Lucifuge can't even fix that by changing one of the Tenets, because "actively helping a supernatural" is a modifier, not a Tenet. He is stuck with a penalty that made no sense because it's based on an aspect of the Code he has no reason to believe in considering his origin, and which he can't even remove.
          Last edited by Darinas; 10-30-2017, 02:39 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Darinas View Post

            If you use Dread Powers to represent them, then yes they do.



            Unless the mechanics changed in 2e, both can remove their powers to replace them by new ones, and I am pretty sure the Cheiron Group don't have the 5 max limit. So yeah, they will end up doing it far more often than that.

            Anyway, i guess I'll have to give an example of my own.

            I am currently running a Hunter Chronicle. In the last session, my players had a brief encounter and semi-truce with a vampire hermit. Said vampire had never killed or harmed anyone, lived alone away from civilization, and ended up putting himself to sleep by staking himself just to make sure he wouldn't cause problem, only asking from them they let him rest in peace. Now, the Cell in general decided to honor this, and just let him be in this Torpor state in the middle of nowhere. But two of the players, respectively a Lucifuge and a Cheiron Group agent, both decided to act behind their comrads back: the Cheiron Group agent contacted his superiors and gave them the location of the vampire's resting place, so they could grab him and dissect him in their lab as they always do. Meanwhile, the Lucifuge (who had suspicions about what the Cheiron Group agent was doing) contacted his own allies and also gave them the location, so they could move him to a new, safer place.

            Now, at the time, I used the Mortal Remains rules. But let's examine how it would have turned out if I had used the Code as defined in this playtest, shall we?

            Both players acted in the back of their Cell, plus against each other. I am pretty sure that qualifies as "betraying a fellow hunter": Breaking point triggered with a -2 penalty. So far, nothing wrong.

            But the Cheiron group agent acted at the vampire's detriment and to the benefit of his organization, so he gets no further modifier and stick to the -2

            Meanwhile, the Lucifuge acted against humans (the Cheiron Group) to the benefit of a monster (the vampire); he gets the -3 modifier, leaving him with a -5 penalty.

            Soooo, the Cheiron group agent, who is willingly trying to doom someone to a horrible fate with no further self-justification than the fact he is doing his job, get a lesser penalty than the Lucifuge, who is just trying to spare a horrible fate to a "monster" who represents no risk whatsoever to anyone at the moment, and is doing it with the firm conviction this is the right thing to do. I think that's kind of a problem here.

            And guess what? The Lucifuge can't even fix that by changing one of the Tenets, because "actively helping a supernatural" is a modifier, not a Tenet. He is stuck with a penalty that made no sense because it's based on an aspect of the Code he has no reason to believe in considering his origin, and which he can't even remove.
            Somehow, I feel that the scenario "The Christian God is real, shows up in person for the story, and is represented only by Dread Powers" is an incredibly rare one. Certainly not a canon one, unless the writers are feeling particularly brave.

            The new list says you can have as many Endowments as you have dots in status. Whether you can switch them out like you could in 1E is well beyond the playtest, though at worst it still isn't something you are going to do more often than other breaking points barring a strange playstyle. There is a note that some groups can have more than the five, but you are still looking at one breaking point every four EXP at worst.

            Comment


            • #21
              Those are suggested modifiers. You don't have to apply them if you don't want to.

              But besides that, all the examples given only reinforce what I and the text says: that the code is a facade, and that high integrity is built on a foundation of cognitive dissonance. Yes, the lucifurge might get a bigger penalty to the roll for doing the right thing. Here's the rub: that's the whole point.
              The hunter tells herself she’s different, that she’s doing it all for the greater good. If she can cling to her Integrity, she might even be right. The more she violates this Code, the hollower her insistence rings. She builds a wall of scars around her heart so she can live with herself. Do the job, slay the fiend, save the day. But the more Integrity she loses, the less she knows herself anymore. The further she falls, the harder it is to see the difference between herself and any other killer.

              Comment


              • #22
                Those are suggested modifiers. You don't have to apply them if you don't want to.
                Precising this would have been nice; I just checked the playtest, and I read "Breaking Point Modifiers", not "Suggested Modifier". And don't tell me that goes without saying, because other books do bother precising it.

                But besides that, all the examples given only reinforce what I and the text says: that the code is a facade, and that high integrity is built on a foundation of cognitive dissonance. Yes, the lucifurge might get a bigger penalty to the roll for doing the right thing. Here's the rub: that's the whole point.
                Yes, if Hunters actually follow that damn Code. In order for the infraction of the Code to bother them, they have to actually follow it in the first place, to make the concious decision of seeing it as their code of life, even if deep down they know it's all rubbish. A Muslim won't feel bad or feel torn about eating meat on Friday, because that's part of the Catholic belief (well, some Catholics, at least), and he doesn't believe himself that's important. And the Lucifuge have no reason of feeling bad about screwing the Code because their description makes it pretty clear they don't believe in it in the first place.

                Correct me if I am wrong, but the way I get it, Breaking Points are supposed to represent a character's sanity withering due to being conflicted about his convictions and the way he understands things around him, the fact he goes against what he believes. It probably represents more than that, but that's the part the Code is supposed to represent. The Lucifuge in my example above was acting completely in accord with his own convictions; he wasn't just doing the right thing, he was convinced that was the right thing with no doubt about it. And as such he shouldn't get screwed up by the Code.

                But the more Integrity she loses, the less she knows herself anymore. The further she falls, the harder it is to see the difference between herself and any other killer.
                You're telling me my Lucifuge player saving someone from being dissected by scientists make it harder for him to make the difference between himself and some random killer?
                Last edited by Darinas; 10-30-2017, 03:51 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Darinas View Post

                  Precising this would have been nice; I just checked the playtest, and I read "Breaking Point Modifiers", not "Suggested Modifier". And don't tell me that goes without saying, because other books do bother precising it.



                  Yes, if Hunters actually follow that damn Code. In order for the infraction of the Code to bother them, they have to actually follow it in the first place, to make the concious decision of seeing it as their code of life, even if deep down they know it's all rubbish. A Muslim won't feel bad or feel torn about eating meat on Friday, because that's part of the Catholic belief (well, some Catholics, at least), and he doesn't believe himself that's important. And the Lucifuge have no reason of feeling bad about screwing the Code because their description makes it pretty clear they don't believe in it in the first place.

                  Correct me if I am wrong, but the way I get it, Breaking Points are supposed to represent a character's sanity withering due to being conflicted about his convictions and the way he understands things around him, the fact he goes against what he believes. It probably represents more than that, but that's the part the Code is supposed to represent. The Lucifuge in my example above was acting completely in accord with his own convictions; he wasn't just doing the right thing, he was convinced that was the right thing with no doubt about it. And as such he shouldn't get screwed up by the Code.



                  You're telling me my Lucifuge player saving someone from being dissected by scientists make it harder for him to make the difference between himself and some random killer?
                  Well it does say "Other modifiers may apply to the roll as well, at the Storyteller’s discretion" (the modifier referred to was based on the level of the 'sin')

                  As it says in the Core, "Note that a breaking point is not necessarily something that the character considers wrong". In that situation, the Lucifuge member is putting the well being of something that isn't "really" alive (both in the sense that it is a vampire, and that it is in an apparently permanent self inflicted coma) over that of what is supposed to be an ally. By doing this, he is saying that the monster's life is worth at least as much as a humans, meaning that being a "Monster Hunter" is just being a vigilante who picks hard targets. Meanwhile, while the Cheiron operative is saying "this walking corpse is just a walking corpse". If he had agreed with you, that means he was sending "human beings" to be horribly experimented on every time he sent a major splat monster back to the labs. Even if they had it coming, that realization wouldn't be good for your mental health. "They are just monsters. I send them back to the lab, they get cut up for life saving medicine and weapons, there is one less monster in the world, and I get a fat paycheck. Good deal." Both come with the realization "I can't really trust my allies when it counts", which is were the penalty comes from.

                  In addition, you could give your Lucifuge +2 for "Acting in the defense of another person", with another +2 if he has a Touchstone attached (which he does by default). If his Virtue is involved, or if he has interacted with someone he trusted recently he gets more bonuses.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well it does say "Other modifiers may apply to the roll as well, at the Storyteller’s discretion" (the modifier referred to was based on the level of the 'sin')
                    I didn't see that part. My bad.

                    As it says in the Core, "Note that a breaking point is not necessarily something that the character considers wrong". In that situation, the Lucifuge member is putting the well being of something that isn't "really" alive (both in the sense that it is a vampire, and that it is in an apparently permanent self inflicted coma) over that of what is supposed to be an ally. By doing this, he is saying that the monster's life is worth at least as much as a humans, meaning that being a "Monster Hunter" is just being a vigilante who picks hard targets. Meanwhile, while the Cheiron operative is saying "this walking corpse is just a walking corpse". If he had agreed with you, that means he was sending "human beings" to be horribly experimented on every time he sent a major splat monster back to the labs. Even if they had it coming, that realization wouldn't be good for your mental health. "They are just monsters. I send them back to the lab, they get cut up for life saving medicine and weapons, there is one less monster in the world, and I get a fat paycheck. Good deal." Both come with the realization "I can't really trust my allies when it counts", which is were the penalty comes from.
                    Yes, the -2 Penalty, which I explicitly said wasn't a problem. Not the -3 one, which had no place here. Also, no, the Lucifuge isn't "putting the well being of something that isn't "really" alive over that of what is supposed to be an ally". Nobody was being put in danger by moving that vampire; he was in Torpor, meaning he wouldn't harm anyone, and placed in an area where nobody could free him. Nobody mortal was put in danger by his action. I get that you're suggesting this makes him realize the Cheiron Group can't be trusted, but I would expect that to make him more distrustful toward them, not to question himself and get his sanity shaken.

                    In addition, you could give your Lucifuge +2 for "Acting in the defense of another person", with another +2 if he has a Touchstone attached (which he does by default). If his Virtue is involved, or if he has interacted with someone he trusted recently he gets more bonuses.
                    Except the rules are pretty clear that in game system, a monster doesn't count as a "person".

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Darinas View Post

                      I didn't see that part. My bad.



                      Yes, the -2 Penalty, which I explicitly said wasn't a problem. Not the -3 one, which had no place here. Also, no, the Lucifuge isn't "putting the well being of something that isn't "really" alive over that of what is supposed to be an ally". Nobody was being put in danger by moving that vampire; he was in Torpor, meaning he wouldn't harm anyone, and placed in an area where nobody could free him. Nobody mortal was put in danger by his action. I get that you're suggesting this makes him realize the Cheiron Group can't be trusted, but I would expect that to make him more distrustful toward them, not to question himself and get his sanity shaken.



                      Except the rules are pretty clear that in game system, a monster doesn't count as a "person".
                      Ah, for some reason I was under the impression that they fought over it. The core issue is believing "This monster has a right to live" goes to "All monsters have a right to live" goes to "Monsters are basically just people with powers". This in turn goes to "I kill/hurt people. I'm just a vigilante with an odd choice in targets". It still putting the well being of the Monster over that of humans to a lesser extent (as before, Cheiron isn't cutting it up for fun. They do make medicine out of the creature, which could save human lives, and make their organization stronger). The Cheiron example was there just for comparison, what the "violent" hunter does vs what the "merciful" hunter does.

                      The idea is that it shakes his worldview. "I can't trust Cheiron" isn't the lesson, its "I can't trust other hunters", a group Cheiron happens to be a part of. And if I can't trust other hunters, I can't trust anybody. It makes your character a little more paranoid, a little more jaded, a little more like the middling/low integrity hunters if he fails his test.

                      As above, the breaking point modifiers are suggestions. If you are running the game and you think he should get a +2 or a +1 for acting to save the vampire, you can give it to him.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Ah, for some reason I was under the impression that they fought over it.
                        No, at least not directly. They just acted behind each other's backs, with no direct confrontation. The mistake is understandable, though^^

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Darinas View Post
                          Correct me if I am wrong, but the way I get it, Breaking Points are supposed to represent a character's sanity withering due to being conflicted about his convictions and the way he understands things around him, the fact he goes against what he believes.
                          You are wrong. Breaking Points are not the when the character's sanity withers, losing a dot of Integrity is. Which can happen when you FAIL a breaking point but doesn't when you succeed. The point being that Breaking Points should occur when the character questions their world view (which for a hunter is going to be a bit different from a non-Hunter), if they pass then they have successfully coped with their world.

                          So yeah, being a member of the Lucifuge and having to deal with the idea of defining a monster and what is good and bad and where you fall on the spectrum should cause a lot of Breaking Points cause it is a really hard life. The character shouldn't be able to just go 'welp, I'm descended from a demon prince and have powers that defy understanding and go around making decisions about good and bad/ monster and not; all while being a person/or not without having to face any difficult sense of self challenges about it. Life is good'


                          (he/him/his)


                          Backer #2010

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by ElvesofZion View Post

                            You are wrong. Breaking Points are not the when the character's sanity withers, losing a dot of Integrity is. Which can happen when you FAIL a breaking point but doesn't when you succeed. The point being that Breaking Points should occur when the character questions their world view (which for a hunter is going to be a bit different from a non-Hunter), if they pass then they have successfully coped with their world.

                            So yeah, being a member of the Lucifuge and having to deal with the idea of defining a monster and what is good and bad and where you fall on the spectrum should cause a lot of Breaking Points cause it is a really hard life. The character shouldn't be able to just go 'welp, I'm descended from a demon prince and have powers that defy understanding and go around making decisions about good and bad/ monster and not; all while being a person/or not without having to face any difficult sense of self challenges about it. Life is good'
                            I'm not saying that the compassionate hunter should have it easy. If Ms. Compassion saves a monster because it looks like a child and she finds it the next morning feasting upon the intestines of her friend, that should totally be a Breaking Point, regardless of her original good intentions. I just don't see why treating each monster on an individual basis should run a greater risk to the sanity of a hunter than slaughtering every one of them indiscriminately. If Mr. K in my earlier example is hunting down every hiding deviant child at the school so that he can shoot them in the face as they cry and plead for their lives, why should his sanity be more secure than that of a compassionate hunter witnessing their monster buddy hurting a human in self defense?


                            Jason Ross Inczauskis, Freelance Writer
                            Currently writing: Dark Eras 2, Mummy: The Curse 2e, Pirates of Pugmire, TC In Media Res. Previous projects: DtD Night Horrors: Enemy Action; C20 Anthology of Dreams
                            Masculine pronouns preferred.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              You are wrong. Breaking Points are not the when the character's sanity withers, losing a dot of Integrity is. Which can happen when you FAIL a breaking point but doesn't when you succeed. The point being that Breaking Points should occur when the character questions their world view (which for a hunter is going to be a bit different from a non-Hunter), if they pass then they have successfully coped with their world.
                              Now you are just playing with semantics. Yes, the Sanity withers only and only when the Breaking Point fail. But that doesn't change anything to the fact going through a Breaking Point suggest you need to be in a situation where your sanity is put at risk of withering. And the current system looks like it'll trigger them even in situations where your character has no reason to question what he is doing.

                              So yeah, being a member of the Lucifuge and having to deal with the idea of defining a monster and what is good and bad and where you fall on the spectrum should cause a lot of Breaking Points cause it is a really hard life. The character shouldn't be able to just go 'welp, I'm descended from a demon prince and have powers that defy understanding and go around making decisions about good and bad/ monster and not; all while being a person/or not without having to face any difficult sense of self challenges about it. Life is good'
                              No, but there is such a thing as middle ground. If making a distinction between good and bad monsters is something they do on regular basis, then by all logic that should have less impact on their point of view of the world; they cannot question their point of view on the world each time they meet a supernatural who isn't evil and decide to help it if they don't expect supernatural beings to be all evil in the first place. Taking time to observe monsters, capture them/approach them and talk with them, with clear plans of what to do regardless of if they are good or evil doesn't sound like you'd need to question your point of view. Breaking points should be for situations that get out of your comfort zone, like morally grey monsters or monsters who pretend to be good only to turn out worse later. Or having to pick a lesser evil.
                              Last edited by Darinas; 10-30-2017, 08:12 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Darinas View Post

                                Now you are just playing with semantics. Yes, the Sanity withers only and only when the Breaking Point fail. But that doesn't change anything to the fact going through a Breaking Point suggest you need to be in a situation where your sanity is put at risk of withering. And the current system looks like it'll trigger them even in situations where your character has no reason to question what he is doing.



                                No, but there is such a thing as middle ground. If making a distinction between good and bad monsters is something they do on regular basis, then by all logic that should have less impact on their point of view of the world; they cannot question their point of view on the world each time they meet a supernatural who isn't evil and decide to help it if they don't expect supernatural beings to be all evil in the first place. Taking time to observe monsters, capture them/approach them and talk with them, with clear plans of what to do regardless of if they are good or evil doesn't sound like you'd need to question your point of view. Breaking points should be for situations that get out of your comfort zone, like morally grey monsters or monsters who pretend to be good only to turn out worse later. Or having to pick a lesser evil.

                                White Oak Dragon too.

                                I was only responding to the specific statement not the general point.

                                It is not just semantics though, saying that Breaking points means something other than what it does has a lot of impact. It presents as if every Breaking Point was automatically a loss of Integrity, which it isn't. That's like saying that a Vampire feeding always kills a person rather than that sometimes when a Vampire feeds they kill the person. One will be more common than the other, and they should be.

                                Originally posted by Darinas View Post
                                If making a distinction between good and bad monsters is something they do on regular basis, then by all logic that should have less impact on their point of view of the world;
                                On this point specifically, not really. If something is traumatic than doing it a bunch doesn't make it less traumatic, either they are good at coping with the trauma in the first place (they pass the tests) or it affects them (they lose Integrity).

                                Still not saying that that specific example should be a Breaking Point or not. I think it is too general to say. If it's just making the determiniation in a vacuum then probably not, if it is constantly deciding whether you should kill a sentient being because they might be 'harming' others and trying to decide if it's just 'in their nature' or a choice, and what the 'correct' choice then is for either option then yeah, that's gonna wear on you.
                                Last edited by ElvesofZion; 10-30-2017, 08:40 PM.


                                (he/him/his)


                                Backer #2010

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X