Hunter Playtest!

[Vent0]

The "Calling a Spade a Spade" section seems opposed to compacts which don't kill monsters like Talbot Group.

It also makes Hunters universally (not just specific individuals or groups), speciest. Humanity = good, not human = bad, regardless of individual merits or behavior.

[Robert D]

It also makes Hunters universally (not just specific individuals or groups), speciest. Humanity = good, not human = bad, regardless of individual merits or behavior.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought that chart was a general guideline for Code-based Integrity, and that as the Code is heavily individualized, there would be changes or differences among Hunters based on their personal Codes. Talbot Group folks would be definitely un-species, as could any hunter with a similar Code, at least as far as physical humanoid monsters go.

[milo v3]

Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought that chart was a general guideline for Code-based Integrity, and that as the Code is heavily individualized, there would be changes or differences among Hunters based on their personal Codes. Talbot Group folks would be definitely un-species, as could any hunter with a similar Code, at least as far as physical humanoid monsters go.

We're not talking about the chart, we're talking about the Calling a Spade a Spade sidebar.

Also even though it says that the code is individualized, it seems like has no method of customization without getting the rest of hunter-kind to dislike you meaning the code isn't really individualized it's just "Every hunter begins to think this way given enough time".

[mlvalentine]

Love the enthusiasm! Please keep in mind that the rules presented are designed to be used in the playtest scenario as written. While I enjoy the creativity found on the forums, it will be more helpful to my team if the scenario is run as intended first. Thank you!

[nofather]

The "Calling a Spade a Spade" section seems opposed to compacts which don't kill monsters like Talbot Group.

We don't know if they exist in second edition. But keep in mind the Talbot Group would love to kill werewolves. They believe they're possessed by demons. They just think that wolf-blooded can be 'saved' before becoming werewolves.

[The Kings Raven]

Not true. They have around six werewolves under their care and they genuinely do work with them. Though Les Mysteries is a much clearer example of a group who this universal code does not fit, since their relationship to the Spirits is the opposite of hostile. The Malleus Maleficarum and the Long Night would naturally consider God and his angels to be very different from other monsters. So would the Knights of St Arden.

[Satchel]

The problem is, while that is justified, buying Integrity still costs XP, and Addiction is still an entirely bad Condition-Obsession can help in some aspects, but Addiction is a sign things have gone wrong in someone's mind.

Hunter's iteration of the Addicted Condition is, mechanically, a recurring risk of a -1 penalty and a Persistent version of Spooked.

Exceptional Success is supposed to represent not only soaking the mental blow, but doing it with style.

It's a breaking point roll with a full Attribute-based pool representing the shifting psychology of a person who's made a long-term decision to do something that would categorically wreck a normal person. This isn't getting a lucky roll on detachment from Humanity through the strength of your connection to the living or being sufficiently careful and Wise to get more out of the stress-test of an Act of Hubris — this is you-John-the-Mortal-Hunter coming out of a tense encounter with a monster in the company of other hunters and being sufficiently mentally and socially resistant that you double down on the Vigil instead of getting desperate or giving up.

I'm fine with hunters having a way of reacting to stress positively that doesn't resemble normal ways, but developing a psychological reliance on being focused on by a target?

This isn't blood addiction we're talking about — this is the more unsettling aspects of hunting monsters on a regular basis coming to the fore when the stakes are especially high. It's the old Tell mechanic applied in a way that ties into 2e's more multidirectional take on Integrity stats.

That doesn't sound like someone who is in the higher echelons of Integrity in the very scale of the playtest, which is generally who will be having an Exceptional Success in the first place.

Someone who is in the higher echelons of Integrity in the very scale of the playtest is someone who has opened up to people multiple times and connected themselves with multiple trust-sinks for the mental strain of their Vigil. Being able to draw a clear line between yourself and the monsters is inherently going to get a little harder to manage in situations where you've invested that much in the people you nominally protect. Many of the bonuses that make exceptional success more likely are avoidable by withdrawing from interaction with people you trust before you go hunting, and the tensions this applies go a couple of different ways.

[Leliel]

We don't know if they exist in second edition. But keep in mind the Talbot Group would love to kill werewolves. They believe they're possessed by demons. They just think that wolf-blooded can be 'saved' before becoming werewolves.

Yeah, no. There's an entire and growing faction that is increasingly asking itself if spirits are really demons and wondering if they're doing the right thing, and their explicit goal is based in "exorcising the spirits that we think cause lycanthropy without death." Their whole thing is trying to find a way to stop death of their prey (a doomed effort, because lycanthropy is genetic, but their real enemy-their monsters-are malevolent spirits, who can and do cause symptoms similar to shapeshifting). To the Talbot Group, the werewolf is explicitly a person, just a victim of a malign spirit, until shown otherwise. King's Raven has specific examples.

This isn't even getting into Yuri's Group (who has "monsters can be people" as part of its core philosophy), the Merrick Institute (who hunt Beasts incidentally, their real targets are other humans) the Promethean Brotherhood (who want to be mages), hell, most of the Lucifuge (their desire to show the ultimate rebellion via embracing mercy and forgiveness) and VASCU (who don't care about monsters, just murderers who may also be monsters).

It lacks nuance and cancels out more plot hooks than it sets, is what we are saying. I am not saying the Code being xenophobic is bad, I'm saying it should be more customizable, to show hunters with different definitions of human or monster (see: Buffy, where "has a soul"=person, and it torments people when facing a souled antagonist, such as in Angel with Jasmine).

[The Kings Raven]

I agree with everything Leliel said. "I hate and fear what I don't understand" is a very valid form of Hunter. But it absolutely should not be the only one. A Hunter who's actively trying to become a Mage was a valid concept in the first edition and it should be in the second edition (whether or not it involves killing Mages like the Promethean Brotherhood).


On an unrelated note. I have a question. What exactly does Conspiracy status 5 represent. Would it be, for example, Lady Lucifuge herself or someone on Lady Lucifuge's inner circle?

Or would it represent a rank and file soldier who's a legend among their peers and held in high esteem by the brass? I ask because now a lot of Endowments require status it wouldn't make sense for them to be limited to people who're getting close to or have become too important to go on risky field operations.

[nofather]

Not true. They have around six werewolves under their care and they genuinely do work with them.

That's a generous viewpoint to take regarding someone who's been brainwashed and lives constantly under 'a haze of extremely powerful pharmaceuticals.' Though it seems like beyond Patient Zero, they're talking about wolf-blooded, not werewolves.

Though Les Mysteries is a much clearer example of a group who this universal code does not fit, since their relationship to the Spirits is the opposite of hostile. The Malleus Maleficarum and the Long Night would naturally consider God and his angels to be very different from other monsters. So would the Knights of St Arden.

Fair enough, but given that the playtest doesn't have those groups, or really any outlook of groups at all, it might be jumping to conclusions to say they're not recognized in it. The base of the Code is humans over monsters, but it's possible these more monster-sympathetic groups will have allowances to their code. That said it's entirely possible they don't, and that by making deals with spirits for power or killing humans for the benefit of 'Angels' you'll be hitting those Code breaks.

Yeah, no. There's an entire and growing faction that is increasingly asking itself if spirits are really demons and wondering if they're doing the right thing, and their explicit goal is based in "exorcising the spirits that we think cause lycanthropy without death." Their whole thing is trying to find a way to stop death of their prey (a doomed effort, because lycanthropy is genetic, but their real enemy-their monsters-are malevolent spirits, who can and do cause symptoms similar to shapeshifting). To the Talbot Group, the werewolf is explicitly a person, just a victim of a malign spirit, until shown otherwise. King's Raven has specific examples.

It doesn't say anywhere that they're a 'growing' faction, it says some say they're radical. The Redactors seem to be the ones growing in influence, 'So far, Courtland hasn't been able to put his theories into practice, but they are increasingly gaining support among other redactors.' And these are the ones who don't believe it's spirit-influence, instead that it's 'some flaw within the possessed' and are 'much more likely to use violence when dealing with possessed individuals, believing that no amount of exorcism or site rehabilitation is going to help.' Just like the other faction, the Exorcists, who believe 'Victims of possession are sick and deserve compassionate treatment, but sometimes the cancer runs so deep the only cure is death itself.'

Also Lycanthropy isn't just genetic, it's entirely possible to just be picked at random by Luna or some vestige of Father Wolf, just like you can contract it through Lunacy.

This isn't even getting into Yuri's Group (who has "monsters can be people" as part of its core philosophy), the Merrick Institute (who hunt Beasts incidentally, their real targets are other humans) the Promethean Brotherhood (who want to be mages), hell, most of the Lucifuge (their desire to show the ultimate rebellion via embracing mercy and forgiveness) and VASCU (who don't care about monsters, just murderers who may also be monsters).

For the VASCU, I believe it calls out Slashers as acceptable targets. In system terms, the Code considers any creature that wields Dread Powers a monster — as long as the hunters know it is such a creature — as well as slashers and obviously inhuman beings.'

It lacks nuance and cancels out more plot hooks than it sets, is what we are saying. I am not saying the Code being xenophobic is bad, I'm saying it should be more customizable, to show hunters with different definitions of human or monster (see: Buffy, where "has a soul"=person, and it torments people when facing a souled antagonist, such as in Angel with Jasmine).

It does seem like you can be sympathetic, the Code just doesn't have an affect on it within the playtest (and possibly the final copy). 'Learning that a monster harmed a person when you could have done something to stop it but didn't' seems like the specific point that Breaks. You can be sympathetic to Vlad the Vegan Vampire, but if he frenzies and kills someone who came over to sell magazines, it should hit the Hunter who trusted him. Like Buffy trusted Angel, who then turned back evil and killed assorted schoolmates and Miss Calendar.

The Code (through its Breaking Points) allows for you to befriend or be nice to monsters. The big emphasis is on keeping humans safe from said monsters. Gaining power from them is a Breaking Point, as is 'letting' them kill a person or putting their well-being over that of people. These allow for things like the Promethean Brotherhood or the mummy monster-eater folks, they would just be more likely to end up lower Integrity Hunters (which seems to fit, given their depictions).

[Elfive]

Plus I think a lot of the other conspiracies would consider what the promethean brotherhood gets up to a bit dodgy, so they fit the "replace code tenet with covenant specific one and get -3 dealing with any others" thing perfectly.

[nofather]

Plus I think a lot of the other conspiracies would consider what the promethean brotherhood gets up to a bit dodgy, so they fit the "replace code tenet with covenant specific one and get -3 dealing with any others" thing perfectly.

'So why do you guys do it?'
'A vampire...took my daughter. Made her into a monster.'
'Great beasts destroyed my village. I was the lone survivor when I found the Ascending Ones.'
'I have the blood of demons in my veins, but I won't become one. I can't.'
'Jeez, you guys are so sad. I want to sacrifice them to the Goddess of Witchcraft and be granted their magic so I can become all-powerful.'

Their sidebar reminded them, 'human sacrifice for the purposes of gaining occult power is a Morality 2 sin, akin to serial murder.' I think Elfive's got it right.

[Elfive]

I could see an argument for altering the penalty to only affecting covenants/conspiracies that couldn't have made a similar replacement for similar reasons.

Like, some of them will get it, y'know?

[nofather]

I could see an argument for altering the penalty to only affecting covenants/conspiracies that couldn't have made a similar replacement for similar reasons.

Like, some of them will get it, y'know?

That seems fair, like the mummy-eaters.

I could see it standing based on 'you're not doing it the right way,' though. Like the Mysteres and bounty hunter angel guys get their powers from different sources but might not approve of the others source.

[Darinas]

I gotta agree with Milo, Leliel and Raven here. And it's especially bad for factions like the Lucifuge or Yuri's Group, who actually do try to reason with supernaturals. Personally, my hunter players were absolutely pissed by this new version of the Code, because they overall prefer to make sure the monsters they fight are evil rather than shooting them on sight. To quote them: "Sooo basically we gotta go full for Humanity and treat all supernaturals as monsters to shoot on sight. What's this, Warhammer 40000?"

I think I get the point here, you probably were trying to make the Code more relevant, kinda like Blood and Smoke made Humanity more important with vampires. Problem is, hunters are way more diverse than most supernaturals when it comes to morality; they all have very different approach when it comes to handling supernaturals. I don't really think an unifying moral system works for them.

Not that this system cannot work, I just feel it's too restrictive; by definition, humans cannot have a unifying morality system. I'd suggest giving more liberty to alter the Code. At the very least, you should allow players to alter it more than once, with more social penalties against other groups if truly necessary.