Hunter Playtest!

[The Kings Raven]

nofather, you're specifically looking for best-case scenarios for this code and ignoring the real question of whether the code works for all cases, or even the deeper question about whether Hunters who as a community are usually very weird (often in regular different ways) should have a universal code of morality when regular humans do not have anything like a common code of morality.

Take your example of Vlad the Vegan Vampire. What if he only killed in self defence because some other hunters wanted to kill him for the crime of being a vampire? The problem with The Code isn't that it says someone you trusted killing people is a Breaking Point. The problem is that the code enforces a very specific morality where Hunters always look through a lens of human/not-human. And a very specific role on Hunters as that of protector.

That's what you need to address. Hunter 1E placed groups who didn't focus on protecting (E.G: Null Mysteriis, Network Zero) and groups who didn't judge by specicies (E.G: Lucifuge, Yuri's Group) on an even level with groups who did both. This new Code puts groups who deviate from the speciesist protector mould at a mechanical disadvantage and states that they're somehow fringe and unusual. Why is that not a step backwards?

[nofather]

nofather, you're specifically looking for best-case scenarios for this code and ignoring the real question of whether the code works for all cases, or even the deeper question about whether Hunters who as a community are usually very weird (often in regular different ways) should have a universal code of morality when regular humans do not have anything like a common code of morality.

I'm sorry but so far with this thread there would be a member of the Talbot group with a pack of entirely willing werewolves who lost his girlfriend and is now obsessed with ripping monsters to pieces. There's a need for clarity in these situations.

Take your example of Vlad the Vegan Vampire. What if he only killed in self defence because some other hunters wanted to kill him for the crime of being a vampire? The problem with The Code isn't that it says someone you trusted killing people is a Breaking Point. The problem is that the code enforces a very specific morality where Hunters always look through a lens of human/not-human. And a very specific role on Hunters as that of protector.

That's what you need to address. Hunter 1E placed groups who didn't focus on protecting (E.G: Null Mysteriis, Network Zero) and groups who didn't judge by specicies (E.G: Lucifuge, Yuri's Group) on an even level with groups who did both. This new Code puts groups who deviate from the speciesist protector mould at a mechanical disadvantage and states that they're somehow fringe and unusual. Why is that not a step backwards?

As noted, you can change out that one Tenet so that if a monster under your protection harms a human and you did nothing to stop it (and didn't want to stop it) you are absolved of further Breaking Points, giving you an adaptable (but in a limited fashion) Code with conspiracy and compact-specific alternatives. But it's also possible to just deal with it. If you trusted Vlad and he killed people anyways, it should have an affect on you as the person who trusted him. Maybe it turns you against vampires, but maybe it turns you against other hunters, like the ones who did it.

And to further clarify. The Code doesn't seem to be about morality. It's about the rules you work by that keep the world making sense. When those rules are broken (you do something you swore you wouldn't do), or things fly in the face of them (something you didn't believe was possible happens) then you suffer a Breaking Point.

[Elfive]

Also it makes perfect sense that people who just go about killing monsters are gonna have better integrity than those who try to study or understand them.

I mean seriously, did you suddenly forget what integrity represents? It ain't morality.

[Leliel]

Also it makes perfect sense that people who just go about killing monsters are gonna have better integrity than those who try to study or understand them.

I mean seriously, did you suddenly forget what integrity represents? It ain't morality.

Yes, and the initial break between normal person and hunter is deciding conventional morals and ideas of sanity are bogus. To think everyone immediately defaults to a specific morality, or even that they have the same broad view of what a monster is, is simplistic and naive.

Could be that those same people understanding and negotiating with the supernatural set is precisely how they retain sanity, since to them, what makes them different from a slasher-the platonic idea of a monster-is that they go for the peaceful, kind solution first.

(Also, you seem to have missed that even this Code says studying monsters = fine, no breaking points, just making deals with the devil).

[nofather]

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.

If, like vampire, you had three parts of the Code you could change, instead of one. Which three would you pick so your game experience would not be like Warhammer 40000?'

[Darinas]

Again, the issue is that Hunter are way too diversified in their approach of the Vigil for a common Code to apply to all of them. I mean, Christ, they don't even have the same motivations for hunting monsters. Plenty of Compacts of Conspiracies such as the Cheiron Group, or the previously mentioned Promethean Brotherhood, don't give a crap about humanity as a whole and are only in it for their own selfish reasons. And that's not even getting in the Faithful of Schulpae, who actually worship supernaturals (albeit in a way that harms them), so them following a "humanity matters monsters don't" code doesn't remotely make sense; meanwhile, you have the Union who explicitly doesn't discriminate between hunting regular criminals and supernatural murderers, or all the previously mentioned moderated factions. For me, this diversity kinda was part of what made Hunter the Vigil great; the fact it didn't summed up hunters to "people who protect humans from the supernaturals" or "xenophobic people who hate monsters", instead exploring every possible variant of the hunter archetype. You kinda lose that with this Code.

If, like vampire, you had three parts of the Code you could change, instead of one. Which three would you pick so your game experience would not be like Warhammer 40000?'

Good question. But I admit that having the ability to change three parts instead of one would at least equilibrate things a bit. The problem of a common code not working would still be there, but at least there would be more room for customization.

[nofather]

Again, the issue is that Hunter are way too diversified in their approach of the Vigil for a common Code to apply to all of them. I mean, Christ, they don't even have the same motivations for hunting monsters. Plenty of Compacts of Conspiracies such as the Cheiron Group, or the previously mentioned Promethean Brotherhood, don't give a crap about humanity as a whole and are only in it for their own selfish reasons. And that's not even getting in the Faithful of Schulpae, who actually worship supernaturals (albeit in a way that harms them), so them following a "humanity matters monsters don't" code doesn't remotely make sense; meanwhile, you have the Union who explicitly doesn't discriminate between hunting regular criminals and supernatural murderers, or all the previously mentioned moderated factions. For me, this diversity kinda was part of what made Hunter the Vigil great; the fact it didn't summed up hunters to "people who protect humans from the supernaturals" or "xenophobic people who hate monsters", instead exploring every possible variant of the hunter archetype. You kinda lose that with this Code.

For the Promethean Brotherhood, Cheiron, and the Faithful of Shulpae you can get sacrifice 'Gaining or bestowing a power from an obviously monstrous source.'

For the Union you can trade out, 'Killing a person,' if you're just going to kill criminals. Or 'Causing significant harm to a person,' if you're the type of hunter who just maims criminals.

Wouldn't this solve your issues?

For the Abbey you could have 'First time torturing a specific monster.' For Network Zero 'Causing a person to suffer a breaking point from exposure to the supernatural,' or just ride at 6 Integrity.

[The Kings Raven]

No. Because the issue isn't that you can't get a code that fits a Union Hunter who kills criminals.

The issue is that the very idea of some universal morality source for hunters makes no sense. And neither does the idea that a police officer who hunts with The Union and occasionally kills or gets into a serious fight with a criminal on the day job would be seen as weird and creepy by other Hunters who don't understand the Unions internal culture.

[nofather]

No. Because the issue isn't that you can't get a code that fits a Union Hunter who kills criminals.

'Killing a person.' It's not even at Low Integrity, it's at Middling.

The issue is that the very idea of some universal morality source for hunters makes no sense. And neither does the idea that a police officer who hunts with The Union and occasionally kills or gets into a serious fight with a criminal on the day job would be seen as weird and creepy by other Hunters who don't understand the Unions internal culture.

You don't find anything weird about a police officer who kills people in his off hours?

[The Kings Raven]

That's irrelevant.

[nofather]

That's irrelevant.

It's the whole point. You can trade it out for a specific Union code and be free to kill people all you want. I imagine the Union alternative if you want to really play up the 'criminal killing' one would be 'Killing a person who hasn't commit a major crime.'

But if you're going around killing people over traffic citations you're basically a slasher already.

[Teatime]

There's also the current definition of Monster, as an entity with Dread Powers. It seems clear-cut, but how many Hunters will consider a Castigation Endowment any different from an infernal Dread Power? It kind of encourages a clash between in-character and out-of-character knowledge.

[nofather]

There's also the current definition of Monster, as an entity with Dread Powers. It seems clear-cut, but how many Hunters will consider a Castigation Endowment any different from an infernal Dread Power? It kind of encourages a clash between in-character and out-of-character knowledge.

Now I just don't think you've read it.

'The Code’s fundaments may be universal, but no two hunters interpret them exactly the same way. They argue over what constitutes a “monster” or a “person” all the time, although the Code draws a few indelible lines that, deep down, no hunter can deny. 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 never counts ordinary humans or other hunters as monsters, no matter what kind of terrible deeds they perform.'

[Darinas]

For the Promethean Brotherhood, Cheiron, and the Faithful of Shulpae you can get sacrifice 'Gaining or bestowing a power from an obviously monstrous source.'

For the Union you can trade out, 'Killing a person,' if you're just going to kill criminals. Or 'Causing significant harm to a person,' if you're the type of hunter who just maims criminals.

Wouldn't this solve your issues?

Gameplay-wise, yeah, kinda. But in practice, and from a story point of view, that still raises the question of why they are even getting covered by this Code to begin with when they don't even adhere to the values it represents.

Humanity for vampires, it makes sense all of them to have it because it represents how much Vampires still identify to humans and how they are at risk of forgetting this to become more and more alien/undead-> something all vampires, good or bad, would go through starting with the moment they get Embraced.

Harmony for Werewolves represents how they are either closer to their flesh or spirit side, or in-between-> again, all of them are half-flesh half-spirit, so it'd make sense they would all have this dilemna regardless of their moral values.

Clarity for Changeling (in 2E) represents how much they can differenciate the mundane from the fantastic -> once again, something they all go through since they are between Arcadia and the physical world due to what they went through.

Each time, it's something (at least in 2E) that feels like it can be universal regardless of their opinions. But for Hunters? Again, not all of them are motivated by protecting humanity against monsters. At least half of the Compacts and Conspiracies would probably laugh to the face of anyone who'd try to argue they are all following some kind of common code with only a few variations.

I think that's what bothering people like Leliel, Raven and myself.

But with that said, I will admit that gameplay-wise, giving the ability to change more than one part of the Code would at least partially solve the issue.

[The Kings Raven]

It's the whole point. You can trade it out for a specific Union code and be free to kill people all you want.

Which marks you as someone who's weird and creepy to Hunters outside The Union.

That makes zero sense.

It's also impossible to do as a Tier 1 Hunter because they don't have the reinforcement of a group to bend the universal code common to all hunters. That also makes zero sense, it makes no sense that there could be such a thing as a universal code common to all hunters.

But if you're going around killing people over traffic citations you're basically a slasher already.

I was thinking of self defence, the criminal had a gun.