Hunter Playtest!

[Leliel]

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.

Except there's another clause you're missing-a Code change can only be done in the context of the Vigil. Which is actually a good thing in my view (it emphasizes that the hunter is honestly deciding his compact/conspiracy has a better idea of morality than he did), so the question is "how would that person be the subject of a hunt that would enable a Code change?" It's very likely that a criminal that alerts the local hunters to begin with has supernatural traits, and thus a moot point.

Let me ask another question: Is it weird for someone to allow a cop to remain a cop if people know his dad is a con man? Because that's closer to what would happen if said cop happened to be a witch; hypothetically, by allowing someone who has that level of power and occult interests access to legitimate power structure, one is putting his welfare above the people he arrests. By definition, by doing his job and indulging his occult interests, he's exploiting those he arrests-but if he's a perfectly honest cop who treats his job with respect rather than a way to get reagents, well...

[The Kings Raven]

In answer to your second question. It is putting his welfare above the poeple he arrests. But it's also putting the welfare of the victims of the people he arrests above the welfare of the people he arrests.

I could easily see a Tier 1 Cell formed of cops saying they'd rather have the crime busting magic on the force than worry about a bunch of criminal's rights.

[nofather]

Let me ask another question: Is it weird for someone to allow a cop to remain a cop if people know his dad is a con man? Because that's closer to what would happen if said cop happened to be a witch; hypothetically, by allowing someone who has that level of power and occult interests access to legitimate power structure, one is putting his welfare above the people he arrests. By definition, by doing his job and indulging his occult interests, he's exploiting those he arrests-but if he's a perfectly honest cop who treats his job with respect rather than a way to get reagents, well...

You don't get to pick or choose who your parents are. And there's members of the police and military with religious affiliations that would probably be frowned upon or get them fired by more conservative-thinkers. But the big question would be if they're using their witchcraft to get arrests.

I don't see what that has to do with being psychologically free to kill people, though.

[Leliel]

You don't get to pick or choose who your parents are. And there's members of the police and military with religious affiliations that would probably be frowned upon or get them fired by more conservative-thinkers. But the big question would be if they're using their witchcraft to get arrests.

I don't see what that has to do with being psychologically free to kill people, though.

And that's a good point. However, under the default Code, it's a risk for anyone Vigilant or stable, because it's putting someone who qualifies as a monster above normal humans. He could be the most honest cop on the force, but by default, all hunters either must hunt him or risk a Code break. If they change the Code, they are no longer accepted by other hunters, including those who would agree that he gets to stay.

And therein lies the problem. Does he qualify as a monster if he just uses magic to help with legitimate police work, like making damn sure he's after the right guy or not wasting the department's resources? That's a valid question, but by RAW as it currently is, it doesn't matter.

[nofather]

And that's a good point. However, under the default Code, it's a risk for anyone Vigilant or stable, because it's putting someone who qualifies as a monster above normal humans. He could be the most honest cop on the force, but by default, all hunters either must hunt him or risk a Code break.

Emphasis mine. Where are you getting these two things from? Even with the Vigilant Condition you only have to follow up if it is a danger to another human. The only tacit Breaking Point would be if you found out they were a witch, decided they were an 'okay' witch, then they harmed a person.

If they change the Code, they are no longer accepted by other hunters, including those who would agree that he gets to stay.

Okay this is sliding into overexaggeration territory again.

It's a -3 penalty to social rolls with hunters outside the conspiracy or compact. It's not being 'no longer accepted by other hunters.'

And therein lies the problem. Does he qualify as a monster if he just uses magic to help with legitimate police work, like making damn sure he's after the right guy or not wasting the department's resources? That's a valid question, but by RAW as it currently is, it doesn't matter.

I knew I should have posted the whole paragraph.

'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. For anyone who falls between the cracks, individual characters must decide for themselves where they draw the line.'

[ArcaneArts]

One thing that should be kept in mind is that the first purpose(Not the whole purpose, obviously, because it specifically begins to then revolve around the hunter's, well, hunt) is to draw a clear and distinct line between 'humanity' and 'monstrosity'. You may have all the compassion in the world for monsters, but they are not you. They may be very you-like, but they are not you, and the ways you would approach compassion for humanity does not apply to them. If nothing else, they bite, even if they don't want to.

The other thing I feel worth noting in this conversation, with that in mind, is that altruism towards monsters does not obviate violence towards monsters. The Talbot Group are out to cure and help werewolves, but that does not stop them from occasionally seeing if you can't electrocute the wolf out of them. Yuri's Group may be there to help monsters find their humanity, but they readily write Beasts off as a lost cause and are willing to exploits Heroes as a weapon against them(much as I love Yuri's Group and even give credit to Raven for sparking the idea for them, they are pretty damn heinous in how they damage both sides of that argument). The clauses in The Code as pertaining to organizations is sufficient enough to manage the clear obviations from both Code and Integrity.

And no, a Union rep not getting The Code's protection against human criminals is not somehow a failure of the system. While the justification that calcifies into The Code is kind of bullshit, the simple matter of the fact is that there's enough meat on the bones of those ideas and feelings that it does become the different approach to Integrity. Murdering a human, even a criminal, is an act that has no hooks into that meat-if a Union rep wants to justify that to themselves, they have to do it the same way anyone in these sort of ordinary situations has to-and given their proximity to the darkness, they'll have to deal with the fact that they are setting themselves up to become Slashers. This has always been the burden of the Union, and to try and mollify that misses the point of how damaging their xenophobia is, to them and their communities.

Unrelated, I love how this answers the question of "How are Hunters different from Werewolves?", namely in that Werewolves are designed to handle the hunt in all their aspects....and the Vigilant are not. To be a Hunter is to be damaged.

[The Kings Raven]

And no, a Union rep not getting The Code's protection against human criminals is not somehow a failure of the system.

If that's what you got out of it then you misunderstood the problem.

A union police officer shooting a criminal in justified self defence and having a breaking point is not a problem. That's how it works in real life.

A union police officer who sees protecting their community from mundane criminals and supernatural threats as two parts of the same whole and divides the world into honest citizen/criminal rather than human/monster being seen as a weird and creepy guy with strange uncomfortable views by other hunters (the -3 social penalty) is a problem.

Remember it doesn't have to involve killing people. If the Union rep knew a respected and law abiding member of their community was a witch, and said witch called them up and said "I've been burgled", and the cop arrested the thief and locked him up. That's a Breaking Point. (Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person).

For anyone who falls between the cracks, individual characters must decide for themselves where they draw the line.'

An Awakened Mage does not "fall between the cracks".

[The Kings Raven]

Oops. Double post.

[nofather]

A union police officer who sees protecting their community from mundane criminals and supernatural threats as two parts of the same whole and divides the world into honest citizen/criminal rather than human/monster being seen as a weird and creepy guy with strange uncomfortable views by other hunters (the -3 social penalty) is a problem.

The hunter can label people all they want. It's changing the Code so that hurting or killing those people is perfectly fine that causes problems with other hunters.

Remember it doesn't have to involve killing people. If the Union rep knew a respected and law abiding member of their community was a witch, and said witch called them up and said "I've been burgled", and the cop arrested the thief and locked him up. That's a Breaking Point. (Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person).

That's a good tenet of the Code to switch out for a Union replacement if you're a police officer. But that Breaking Point doesn't say you have to overlook any misdeeds of humanity, either. If the criminal is a burglar, then they made their own choice to commit a crime. You're not putting the witch's autonomy over them, you're just punishing them for doing a misdeed.

If you just arrested them on a made up charge because they were another hunter and were going to kill the witch, then you have a Breaking Point.

An Awakened Mage does not "fall between the cracks".

The example was witch. Considering the havoc Supernal magic causes to the minds of any who witness it it's not unreasonable to label Mages monsters, but identifying them would be more difficult.

[Gallus]

Remember it doesn't have to involve killing people. If the Union rep knew a respected and law abiding member of their community was a witch, and said witch called them up and said "I've been burgled", and the cop arrested the thief and locked him up. That's a Breaking Point. (Putting the well-being or autonomy of a monster over that of a person).

You are not putting a monster over a human, your putting other potential human victims over a criminal. The fact that a monster told you about it is irrelevant.

Now, if it turned out that the "thief" was a hunter trying to gather info on a hunt, then you'd run into a problem.

[Leliel]

Actually, before this devours any more pages in its entirety-

What about them slasher rules? On the one hand, I can see why scourges lose their ripper talents and weaknesses, but on the other hand, that also makes them less terrifying in some ways (after all, the Maniac can no longer develop a good picture of you simply by observing you, but also makes her a lot more easygoing about failure).

[Darinas]

Scourges no longer have their Ripper talents and weaknesses? I didn't notice.

Still, I'll give you that, it DOES make way more sense in the case of the Psycho, because the original book described them as less capable of maintaining a facade than Charmers, yet they still had the same skill, so that always confused me. Not sure for the other undertakings, though. I feel Mutants and Masks would work better with their Ripper undertaking at least, but that's just me.

[ElvesofZion]

An Awakened Mage does not "fall between the cracks".

Why not? They don't use Dread Powers, nor are they obviously inhuman. Depending on what spells they use and if the Hunter ever saw them cause Quiessence there is no reason they wouldn't be a gray area that different hunters would approach differently.

[Diggs]

Why not? They don't use Dread Powers, nor are they obviously inhuman. Depending on what spells they use and if the Hunter ever saw them cause Quiessence there is no reason they wouldn't be a gray area that different hunters would approach differently.

Mages also are not slashers, hunters, or ordinary humans. I'm with you they are between the cracks. Some groups put them as monsters, some say they are human, some hunters will base their judgment on the Mage's actions.

[nofather]

It's possible that, like first edition, the powers of the various game lines will be represented in Hunter by Dread Powers.

Whatever they do with it, it's too early to say now, and it is irrelevant in regards to the playtest.