Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can Ghouls Learn Devotions?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post

    blah
    Ok, so basically what I was doing is rejecting the premise that the wording for ghouls and revenants are equivalent.

    Revenants are "vampires unless noted", so their rules are subtractive. You start with everything a Kindred can do and you then cross off the things listed.

    Ghouls, on the other hand, are "human unless noted", so their rules are additive. You start by assuming nothing and then add any abilities mentioned.

    This means that the same wording in the two sections can't be assumed to mean the same thing.

    It's a question of context.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Elfive View Post
      Standard discipline techniques are the ones revenants can learn.
      Originally posted by Vitalis View Post
      Where in the book does it explain that? Please provide an example. After looking over the Revenant section I see nothing of the sort.
      Originally posted by Elfive View Post
      Well, if they can't use devotions, what else would you call the things they can use?
      Honestly, I think this was glossed over too quick. I'm not sure how much weight it would have in this discussion. However, for those who would like the rules to reflect a consistent metaphysic, it raises good questions regarding the equating of devotions and disciplines.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Vitalis View Post

        There have been a few cases where a simple yes or no question ended in all out war .... The Devs I think avoid these threads like the plague
        Well, that and the book that's going to have the official answer is in process anyway.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Elfive View Post
          Ok, so basically what I was doing is rejecting the premise that the wording for ghouls and revenants are equivalent.

          Revenants are "vampires unless noted", so their rules are subtractive. You start with everything a Kindred can do and you then cross off the things listed.

          Ghouls, on the other hand, are "human unless noted", so their rules are additive. You start by assuming nothing and then add any abilities mentioned.

          This means that the same wording in the two sections can't be assumed to mean the same thing.

          It's a question of context.
          This later argument is a good one to support your view on whether Ghouls should or shouldn't be able to learn Devotions, but it is still based on a subjective affirmation that Devotions are not Disciplines when there are reasonable arguments to the contrary. Since it depends on an opinion for it to even matter, it is just an argument to support an opinion, not logical proof of fact.

          Revenants are not Kindred, which is a political term that certain vampires use to refer to themselves.

          Since Devotions can only be learned by Kindred why the need to clarify that Revenants can´t learn them?

          If Devotions are not Disciplines, why isn't it discussed under it´s own topic, but instead discussed with everything that is considered a Discipline on page 94 on the "Rules for Revenants" sidebar?

          Why don't you leave the adolescent approach aside and answer the questions?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
            Since Devotions can only be learned by Kindred why the need to clarify that Revenants can´t learn them?
            Because the very first line of the revenant sidebar is
            Unless noted below, revenants function identically to Kindred.
            The thing is, devotions are disciplines in one sense, Because disciplines are, in general terms "magic stuff vampires can do".

            However, they are mechanically distinct. They don't have dot ratings, they don't use discipline experience costs. No devotion has another as a prerequisite. The rules treat them as sepeate things for most purposes. Even the line about them being taught in the same way as disciplines is an in-universe thing. Nobody really teaches anyone anything. You just write the name of the power down on some paper.

            So when the ghoul section says that they can learn disciplines using the same rules as kindred, I read that in the strictest sense possible. The ten groups of five powers actually listed under the section "disciplines".

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Elfive View Post
              Because the very first line of the revenant sidebar is

              Unless noted below, revenants function identically to Kindred
              This makes complete sense.

              The thing is, devotions are disciplines in one sense, Because disciplines are, in general terms "magic stuff vampires can do".

              However, they are mechanically distinct. They don't have dot ratings, they don't use discipline experience costs. No devotion has another as a prerequisite. The rules treat them as sepeate things for most purposes. Even the line about them being taught in the same way as disciplines is an in-universe thing. Nobody really teaches anyone anything. You just write the name of the power down on some paper.

              So when the ghoul section says that they can learn disciplines using the same rules as kindred, I read that in the strictest sense possible. The ten groups of five powers actually listed under the section "disciplines".
              And under a sidebar called "Rules for Revenants", Devotions are discussed as a subset of Disciplines.

              So this separation of "Disciplines in Some Sense" and "Not Disciplines for the Rules" is not consistent with the text, and while it is a reasonable take on the whole thing it is not the only reasonable take on the whole thing.

              So, reasonably intelligent people can look at it and decide that either of the reasonable interpretations suits their game better, they might even choose to change this for different games they run if they think they can get something thematic out of this distinction.

              One can even argue that this general vaguery on some things is intentional and fits CofD's toolbox design.

              I'm not arguing that your position is wrong, I'm just saying that mine isn't either.

              Comment


              • #67
                Yeah, it's probably vague on purpose.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
                  Why don't you leave the adolescent approach aside and answer the questions?
                  You seem to be having a reasonable discussion here, this wasn't necessary. It's rude at best and a ToU violation at worst, please don't do it again.


                  Onyx Path Forum Administrator
                  Posts in this color are moderator posts
                  Posts in this color mean a Great Old One has driven me mad.
                  Forum Terms of Use
                  the Contact Us link.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Darksider View Post

                    You seem to be having a reasonable discussion here, this wasn't necessary. It's rude at best and a ToU violation at worst, please don't do it again.
                    Hello Darksider,

                    Can you please clarify how this is a statement worthy of moderation and a possible violation of the terms of use?

                    When you quote someone and substitute the words they said for "blah", that is a childish action, to say nothing of rudeness. I only asked that he drop that kind of attitude so we could discuss the actual matter at hand. And we apparently reached a point of agreement after that. I made no mention of qualities or characteristics of their person, simply called out a behavior that wasn't constructive to the discussion.

                    On some threads we have moderators defending people´s right to be curt, and even to use very polemic and charged words to describe a group of people in the name of free speech, and then in another we have a person being censored for being "rude".

                    The lack of isonomy in the moderators action is understandable, but when the deviations are too significant it is confusing. I am not disputing your assessment, I want to better understand so that I adjust my posting style so this kind of interference is unnecessary.

                    Regards,

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Elfive's quote was not acceptable either and it has been addressed. Your post was reported and theirs was not, I was responding to a flagged post report which is why your post got red texted and theirs did not. In the future if you have a question like this please handle it via PM as stated in the Forum Rules. It was a fair/legitimate question and I would have replied.


                      Onyx Path Forum Administrator
                      Posts in this color are moderator posts
                      Posts in this color mean a Great Old One has driven me mad.
                      Forum Terms of Use
                      the Contact Us link.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        I was really just using the quote to make it obvious which post I was replying to. Wasn't trying to be dismissive or anything. Just save space.

                        Genuinely didn't even realise that was what you were objecting to when you called me "adolescent".
                        Last edited by Elfive; 01-24-2017, 06:29 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Elfive View Post
                          I was really just using the quote to make it obvious which post I was replying to. Wasn't trying to be dismissive or anything. Just save space.

                          Genuinely didn't even realise that was what you were objecting to when you called me "adolescent".
                          A good way to save space is just to use ellipsis. If I call what you say "blah" it means its drivel and unworthy of even hearing it out.

                          I didn't call you adolescent (I don't even know you to be able to characterize you as something).

                          I just said that approach was adolescent. In the sense that teenage people tend to think they have the world figured out and other people's point of view is just wrong. People can have wildly different and shifting attitudes when dealing with certain things so I try not to call people things, but I do label their actions. For all I know you are a philosopher and a model of temperance when discussing other things.

                          I recognize that it was a somewhat terse and antagonistic way to suggest that, so I apologize.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I'm 95% temperance, 5% random mood swings where I get worked up for no reason whatever, then later calm down and go "What the fuck was that about?".

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Darksider View Post
                              Elfive's quote was not acceptable either and it has been addressed. Your post was reported and theirs was not, I was responding to a flagged post report which is why your post got red texted and theirs did not. In the future if you have a question like this please handle it via PM as stated in the Forum Rules. It was a fair/legitimate question and I would have replied.
                              Looks fair to me, I will restrain myself further and take note to address moderators privately in the future.

                              Thank you for your time and work on the forums.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X