Hunter Playtest!

[nofather]

More hunted than hunter? They're a typical member of a 1E Hunter organisation.

Typical members of first edition hunter don't just go around killing people at the bidding of monsters.

I wouldn't compare it to putting an envelope in a mailbox though. There's a middle ground where you consider it to be significant, but not a Breaking Point. I doubt a hunter who gets into a silver bullet gunfight with a werewolf considers it as emotionally signifcant as posting a letter, but it's not a breaking point for them.

Mechanically it's as significant. The end result of what you are proposing is someone who can make any sacrifice, do whatever they want to other people, and never be psychologically affected by it.

Also I didn't say anything about killing. There's plenty of ways the Code could be a Breaking Point because a member of Les Mysterys sided with a spirit over a human, or a member of the Malleus Maleficarum sided with God over a human, not all of them involve killing or even violence.

Yes you were ambiguous enough to say punishing. Well just punishing someone isn't a Breaking Point at all if you egg their car or give them a bad Yelp review. Torturing a person is a Breaking Point at 1-3 Integrity. Murdering someone at 4-6. Causing Significant Harm at 7-10.

So if a character changes their two tenets to allow them to torture and murder humans. And they go around torturing and murdering humans for what the character sees as vile sins (could be anything, having premarital sex to being another religion or drinking and driving). This person, you think, should be the same Integrity (6) as Jane who was once attacked by a vampire? And no amount of torturing or killing other people should have any affect on them? They beg, they plead, but they're just tortured to death because the hunter believes whoever does whatever they did deserves to feel pain and die at their hands, because they're a monster and deserve it and their psyche is perfectly sound, they suffer no emotional qualms over it, they're not affected by it in the least.

[Ruger]

Typical members of first edition hunter don't just go around killing people at the bidding of monsters.



Mechanically it's as significant. The end result of what you are proposing is someone who can make any sacrifice, do whatever they want to other people, and never be psychologically affected by it.



Yes you were ambiguous enough to say punishing. Well just punishing someone isn't a Breaking Point at all if you egg their car or give them a bad Yelp review. Torturing a person is a Breaking Point at 1-3 Integrity. Murdering someone at 4-6. Causing Significant Harm at 7-10.

So if a character changes their two tenets to allow them to torture and murder humans. And they go around torturing and murdering humans for what the character sees as vile sins (could be anything, having premarital sex to being another religion or drinking and driving). This person, you think, should be the same Integrity (6) as Jane who was once attacked by a vampire? And no amount of torturing or killing other people should have any affect on them? They beg, they plead, but they're just tortured to death because the hunter believes whoever does whatever they did deserves to feel pain and die at their hands, because they're a monster and deserve it and their psyche is perfectly sound, they suffer no emotional qualms over it, they're not affected by it in the least.

If I understand it correctly, torturing humans would be an "innate" breaking point (and thus can not be changed by the Code rules). This seems to be the purpose of separating "Code" and "Innate" Breaking Points. Murdering humans is a Code breaking point though, so go nuts with that.

[nofather]

If I understand it correctly, torturing humans would be an "innate" breaking point (and thus can not be changed by the Code rules). This seems to be the purpose of separating "Code" and "Innate" Breaking Points. Murdering humans is a Code breaking point though, so go nuts with that.

You're right, I got that wrong.

The basic point I'm trying to get is in line with ArcaneArts'. Killing people, being in high-stress environments affects people. There's all sorts of psychological disorders that can result and they've got a 'building block effect' where the experiences pile up and up and develop other problems like depression and PTSD. Even if you're surrounded by people who are telling you to do it, that what you're doing is right. Child soldiers, adult soldiers, paramedics and police and murderers. It's not about being badass or hardcore, it's just part of being human. There's nothing in the rules that says it's a morality thing, Integrity has made a big deal about not being morality, these things just affect us, and so they should affect our characters.

It's not about trying to keep as much Integrity as possible, Integrity isn't prohibitively expensive anyways, and the idea of a hunter or someone dealing with the heaviness of their life going to therapy or seeking some sort of anchor is as much a part of this kind of media as someone dealing with it with drinking or drugs or just falling apart. And it's not about being a machine, just endlessly killing without any wear or tear. It's about being a human, making a choice to put humanity over the monsters, and trying to live with the repercussions of that.

Obviously we don't have supernatural stuff in our real world to base these things off of but it stands to reason that exposure to that would be similarly stressful.

[Darinas]

This. The things you do as a Hunter should not be comfortable. They should not be okay. If you are completely numb to it, you're probably a Slasher. Hunters are damaged, and the healthy ones know it and constantly deal with it.

Wasn't that already covered in a much more nuanced aspect in 1E?

Also, yeah, they should not be okay when it makes sense. Killing people diminishing your Integrity makes sense because no human in his right mind is fine with killing in general; but this Code is actually suggesting harming a hunter who is a complete asshole is somehow enough to cause a trauma, and worse, that you won't feel uncomfortable about letting a mundane serial killer continue murdering people because "Well, he's human, that doesn't count."

One other thing: To be a hunter entails committing to harm of monsters. You can be a bleeding heart as much as you want-be the shoulder for a vampire to cry on or dedicate yourself to helping out the poor kid who just doesn't want to lose control again, you might want to do as little harm as possible-but at the end of the day, to be a hunter means you are committed to harm against monsters in some form or fashion. If you don't want that, you don't want to be a hunter, you want to be a mortal investigator.

Me and my players liked this game precisely because it didn't stick to such a narrow-minded point of view and actually covered multiple ways you could "hunt" monsters, as well as taking into account the various shades of grey.

[Ruger]

Wasn't that already covered in a much more nuanced aspect in 1E?

Also, yeah, they should not be okay when it makes sense. Killing people diminishing your Integrity makes sense because no human in his right mind is fine with killing in general; but this Code is actually suggesting harming a hunter who is a complete asshole is somehow enough to cause a trauma, and worse, that you won't feel uncomfortable about letting a mundane serial killer continue murdering people because "Well, he's human, that doesn't count."



Me and my players liked this game precisely because it didn't stick to such a narrow-minded point of view and actually covered multiple ways you could "hunt" monsters, as well as taking into account the various shades of grey.

All the compacts and conspiracies were perfectly fine with killing monsters. Most of the nuance was "We only kill the bad ones!" or "We work as therapists/politicians/scientists to help fight monsters. And occasionally shoot them.". There wasn't really any do-no-harm pacifist type of hunters. If they decide never to harm monsters under any circumstances, then they are just a mortal with an odd career choice. The furthest you got from the current code was "We fight monsters by making them stop being monsters. If that fails, we kill them."

[nofather]

Also, yeah, they should not be okay when it makes sense. Killing people diminishing your Integrity makes sense because no human in his right mind is fine with killing in general; but this Code is actually suggesting harming a hunter who is a complete asshole is somehow enough to cause a trauma,

It would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it? 'Betraying a hunter' is a Low Integrity Code violation. But if you're betrayed by them first it probably doesn't count. 'Refusing to Aid a fellow hunter in need' is a High Integrity Code Violation, which wouldn't be a problem anymore once you hit Integrity 6.

and worse, that you won't feel uncomfortable about letting a mundane serial killer continue murdering people because "Well, he's human, that doesn't count."

A serial killer would be considered a slasher unless you have one of the abilities that lets you determine the difference between a normal human and a paranatural slasher.

'In studying the slasher phenomenon, VASCU has identified two definite classifications. Slashers, unlike mundane serial killers, always have some supernatural involvement. Detecting it can be difficult or even impossible without an agent with the proper skills, but again, a slasher’s need to kill crosses pathology, goes past psychology and winds up in biology. A slasher kills for the same reason that we eat. All of that in mind, some slashers still very much resemble normal human beings; some are even capable of functioning in society. These, VASCU terms “paranatural.”'

That said, while killing another person can be a breaking point, doing it in defense of another person gives you a bonus to the roll.

[Darinas]

A serial killer would be considered a slasher unless you have one of the abilities that lets you determine the difference between a normal human and a paranatural slasher.

Would agree if not for the fact "Calling a Spades a Spades" explicitly says what I just said regarding the serial killer example. So clearly there IS a difference between a slasher and a mundane serial killer.

[The Kings Raven]

This. The things you do as a Hunter should not be comfortable. They should not be okay. If you are completely numb to it, you're probably a Slasher. Hunters are damaged, and the healthy ones know it and constantly deal with it.

That isn't a justifaction for The Code resulting in a Hunter who regularly kills monsters left right and center never risking Integrity no matter how often they kill, while one has true faith in God and personal guidance from an angel risk lasting psychological damage every time they're asked to do something innocent like pursuade somebody to convert to Catholicism.

Besides, Breaking Points should be rare and significant events. If a charachter is regularly suffering breaking points just by acting like a typical member of their Compact/Conspiracy it cheapens the entire Integrity system.

What makes a hunter is a lie that let's them be comfortable with their monstrosity-that they are anything other than killers, torturers, fighters, harmers.

This is a shallow and innacurate reading of Hunter. There's enormous amounts of room for Hunters who aren't killers, aren't fighters, or who don't harm anyone.

For the most part VASCU behave like normal FBI agents, and nobody ever calls FBI agents monsterous. The Sisterhood of St Wisdom are responsible for healing monster's victims while other MM hunters worry about the monsters. There are plenty of members in Network 0 and Null Mysteriis who don't fight. The Keepers of the Weave speak to other hunters to learn and preserve their lore, and nothing else. In 1E Hunters were one of the most diverse splats there was, they were fare more than just harmers.

[ElvesofZion]

Anyone else notice that Cassidy's endowment uses a subsystem the playtest encourages you NOT to use?

[ArcaneArts]

Anyone else notice that Cassidy's endowment uses a subsystem the playtest encourages you NOT to use?

Raw playtest documents can be messy sometimes. It happens.

[Second Chances]

Anyone else notice that Cassidy's endowment uses a subsystem the playtest encourages you NOT to use?

Yeah. Likely because that is the current form of the endowment, and the endowment is not being playtested right now. Personally, I'm going to use it to grant the Informed condition unless we hear from the Dev team otherwise.

[Ruger]

That isn't a justifaction for The Code resulting in a Hunter who regularly kills monsters left right and center never risking Integrity no matter how often they kill, while one has true faith in God and personal guidance from an angel risk lasting psychological damage every time they're asked to do something innocent like pursuade somebody to convert to Catholicism.

Besides, Breaking Points should be rare and significant events. If a charachter is regularly suffering breaking points just by acting like a typical member of their Compact/Conspiracy it cheapens the entire Integrity system.

This is a shallow and innacurate reading of Hunter. There's enormous amounts of room for Hunters who aren't killers, aren't fighters, or who don't harm anyone.

For the most part VASCU behave like normal FBI agents, and nobody ever calls FBI agents monsterous. The Sisterhood of St Wisdom are responsible for healing monster's victims while other MM hunters worry about the monsters. There are plenty of members in Network 0 and Null Mysteriis who don't fight. The Keepers of the Weave speak to other hunters to learn and preserve their lore, and nothing else. In 1E Hunters were one of the most diverse splats there was, they were fare more than just harmers.

Not every Hunter is a fighter. But all must be willing to fight (in their own way). Not ever hunter is a killer-but most are willing to kill if the situation comes to it. The New Code doesn't compel your character to kill anyone (or anything), it just means that killing monsters is less of a mental blow to Monster Hunters than it is to other people. FBI agents arrest criminals, and are willing to kill them in self defence. Both are certainly types of harm. Harming someone doesn't make you a monster, especially not if that person "had it coming". The Sisters of St. Wisdom are specifically noted to "protect victims from further attack" in the one paragraph they get. Network Zero and Null Mysteriies both have a policy of self-defence-with the former having a faction dedicated to fighting. Both have dangerous jobs, and are liable to defend themselves often in this kind of setting. Never read about the Keepers of the Weave.

On a whole, the hunters are willing to kill. Even the most peaceful and merciful groups have a sentence that goes "And they are perfectly willing to slay monsters who need slaying". Not every hunter kills. The new Code doesn't change that. As a group, hunters have always been willing to kill. The new Code doesn't change that.

[ArcaneArts]

"Nobody ever calls FBI agents monstrous"

That would be amazingly funny if it weren't for the fact that Raven clearly believes it.

Anyways, I assume the rest of that is somehow aimed at my commentary, so let's dive in.

First off, the obvious question: what then is the difference between a mortal investigator and hunter? What is even the point of using the word Hunter to describe this particular part of humanity, as regards that?

This kind of becomes doubly important to the game, because a lot of what made Hunter distinct got incorporated into the idea of the core's mortal investigator-even less loaded, just into being a plain old human, or even a minor supernaturally human. One of the problems Hunter has always had is that it needs to justify itself as separate outside of the core and blue book supplements, and with the way Second Edition developed, those lines have to made even clearer. And this leads in the next obvious question:

How are hunters monsters, then?

Like it or not, it's basically the defining rule of the individual gamelines within Chronicles-that they are about monsters, with lots of commentary reaffirming the idea. And since not every Hunter is physiologically or metaphysically altered such as to have drastically different needs from the average mortal (Debates will rage about the Lucifuge and heavily Thaumateched-but-non-Deviant Cheiron agents, and fair), that leaves the second common definition of monstrosity, which is heinous behavior and mindsets, heinous actions, and the possible marriage of the two. If that's the case, then that means every hunter, down to Joe who has nothing more than his fear, is willing to commit to harm.

There's a reason I placed my stakes on the word harm, by the way. A Network Zero op may never shoot a werewolf, but they out their secrets and invite harm through all that that can detail, the violation of privacy, the open target that puts on individuals. The Sisterhood is responsible for the monster's victims, but they still believe that they have a mandate to counteract monster's action with no appreciation or regard for why their victims were chosen in the first place(because, you know, sometimes there's a good reason a werewolf took down that guy), compassion for circumstances that led to that moment(because, you know, maybe it was an accident of frenzy), and just because they are hospitallers doesn't mean they still wouldn't put a bullet in a changeling's head because it's God's monstrous will that they do so. The Keepers of the Weave worked to develop their lore so they could fucking drop anything they come across(or at least harm them enough to get them to back the fuck off if they won't play nice), and fore-arm tribes they encountered similarly. And-ha ha ha, "Nobody ever calls FBI agents monstrous." Even if VASCU didn't willingly resolve plenty of cases with illegal lethality because the law has limits, which is open text, just. Wow. You don't get the FBI. Like, at all. From tons of individual cases to lots of communities (particularly minority communities), The FBI are one of our best trained monsters. That they ostensibly have a strong leash doesn't change that.

Yuri's Group, for fuck's sake, is a god damned support network for victims and monsters (in regards to their humanity) alike, and yet they still both readily just write off Beasts as unsalvageable and exacerbate many of the problems most Heroes have that make them anything other than The Good Hero AND openly exploit them as an weapon against Beasts. They willingly do what they can to put Heroes in more danger than they already put themselves in, just to take down another type of person they have chosen to demonize rather than extend their infamous empathy towards. I love Yuri's Group as the most fucking compassionate thing period in Chronicles, and that is still really fucked up.

Harm exists in several forms, and one of the key points for Hunter, particularly in the very old conception of them as the Power splat, is that Hunters have to rely on harm because they have no power otherwise. When you are the weak and the fleshy, when the nightmares will always get you, when they are always faster, stronger, and tougher than you, when they are in your dreams, in your shadows, in your soul, the only power you can have is harm. You have to escalate. You have to be more willing to hurt them somehow than they are you because mercy is for the strong, and you, as a human, are not strong. Your kindness means nothing unless you can keep the results of those actions, and the only way you are powerful enough to keep the monsters from tearing that apart is by equally embracing the will to harm. And in order to do that, you have to turn something off, or at least change the setting on the knob. For hunters, the line is that they no longer think of everyone as people-unique people with their own needs that we may not be able to personally comprehend, but people all the same-and drop those lines with all of it's terrible consequences:

I am human and you are not. I am a person who belongs, and you...don't. Not really.

You can have all the compassion in the world, all the love in your heart, but if you are a hunter, you drew a line, and you are willing to bleed a person for it. You may do it emotionally, socially, psychologically, metaphysically, or even physically, but you will hurt a person, and you will do it because you decided they can't be a person the same way you are, that there is that opening in what they are that allows for it. You want to burn away the darkness, you had better prepare to make kindling out of yourself. You might be a hero, and I hope lots of people are when they play this game-but you are a monster first. If you are not a monster, you are not a hunter. You are a mortal investigator. If you are a hunter and in denial of how you're a monster, then you are setting yourself up to be more of a monster than anyone you hunt, and no amount of saving people on the side can save you from that. In your denial, you will be an atrocity to someone, rather a mere monster. Probably several someones.

This is what it means to carry a torch out into the night. This is the reality of Hunter: The Vigil.

PS: And just to double down on clarity, being a monster does not stop you from being a hero, though that's a harder line to toe in Hunter.

[Darinas]

First off, the obvious question: what then is the difference between a mortal investigator and hunter? What is even the point of using the word Hunter to describe this particular part of humanity, as regards that?

Simple: there is no point; a mortal occult investigator is ONE type of hunter, it's not ALL hunters. Again, one of the main appeals of Hunters is its diversity; the only real thing that connected hunters was that they all were humans aware of the supernatural and trying to do something about it. Aside from that, you were free to play everything, from internet users and hackers trying to break the Masquerade (Network Zero) to Church Militant fighting monster for the Lord (the Long Night and the Malleus Maleficarum), from Government agents (VASCU and TFV) to psychos rich people who hunt monsters for the thrill (the Ashwood), from half-demon trying to atone for their blood (the Lucifuge) to support group trying to protect victims of the Supernatural (Yuri's Group). If you insist on creating a narrower definition, you lose this appeal.

This kind of becomes doubly important to the game, because a lot of what made Hunter distinct got incorporated into the idea of the core's mortal investigator-even less loaded, just into being a plain old human, or even a minor supernaturally human. One of the problems Hunter has always had is that it needs to justify itself as separate outside of the core and blue book supplements, and with the way Second Edition developed, those lines have to made even clearer.

Never was a problem for me; to me, the core book and blue book supplements were meant to represent standard humans, the ones who either didn't know anything about the supernatural or weren't particularly dedicated to confront it (either serving as cattle, pawns or willing servants in the case of cult members). Hunters are just humans who decide to do something about it and dedicate themselves to handling it. Which they can do in many ways.

How are hunters monsters, then?

... they are not? I mean seriously, there is a reason they are the only template that can be turned into other supernaturals.

Like it or not, it's basically the defining rule of the individual gamelines within Chronicles-that they are about monsters, with lots of commentary reaffirming the idea. And since not every Hunter is physiologically or metaphysically altered such as to have drastically different needs from the average mortal (Debates will rage about the Lucifuge and heavily Thaumateched-but-non-Deviant Cheiron agents, and fair), that leaves the second common definition of monstrosity, which is heinous behavior and mindsets, heinous actions, and the possible marriage of the two. If that's the case, then that means every hunter, down to Joe who has nothing more than his fear, is willing to commit to harm.

Or, you know, the fact they are metaphorically monstrous because they are outcast, due to the fact they are aware of a supernatural world others don't realize exist, and can never come back. That in itself marks them as outsiders, and make them monstrous in their own right.

There's a reason I placed my stakes on the word harm, by the way. A Network Zero op may never shoot a werewolf, but they out their secrets and invite harm through all that that can detail, the violation of privacy, the open target that puts on individuals. The Sisterhood is responsible for the monster's victims, but they still believe that they have a mandate to counteract monster's action with no appreciation or regard for why their victims were chosen in the first place(because, you know, sometimes there's a good reason a werewolf took down that guy), compassion for circumstances that led to that moment(because, you know, maybe it was an accident of frenzy), and just because they are hospitallers doesn't mean they still wouldn't put a bullet in a changeling's head because it's God's monstrous will that they do so. The Keepers of the Weave worked to develop their lore so they could fucking drop anything they come across(or at least harm them enough to get them to back the fuck off if they won't play nice), and fore-arm tribes they encountered similarly. And-ha ha ha, "Nobody ever calls FBI agents monstrous." Even if VASCU didn't willingly resolve plenty of cases with illegal lethality because the law has limits, which is open text, just. Wow. You don't get the FBI. Like, at all. From tons of individual cases to lots of communities (particularly minority communities), The FBI are one of our best trained monsters. That they ostensibly have a strong leash doesn't change that.

Yuri's Group, for fuck's sake, is a god damned support network for victims and monsters (in regards to their humanity) alike, and yet they still both readily just write off Beasts as unsalvageable and exacerbate many of the problems most Heroes have that make them anything other than The Good Hero AND openly exploit them as an weapon against Beasts. They willingly do what they can to put Heroes in more danger than they already put themselves in, just to take down another type of person they have chosen to demonize rather than extend their infamous empathy towards. I love Yuri's Group as the most fucking compassionate thing period in Chronicles, and that is still really fucked up.

Harm exists in several forms, and one of the key points for Hunter, particularly in the very old conception of them as the Power splat, is that Hunters have to rely on harm because they have no power otherwise. When you are the weak and the fleshy, when the nightmares will always get you, when they are always faster, stronger, and tougher than you, when they are in your dreams, in your shadows, in your soul, the only power you can have is harm. You have to escalate. You have to be more willing to hurt them somehow than they are you because mercy is for the strong, and you, as a human, are not strong. Your kindness means nothing unless you can keep the results of those actions, and the only way you are powerful enough to keep the monsters from tearing that apart is by equally embracing the will to harm. And in order to do that, you have to turn something off, or at least change the setting on the knob. For hunters, the line is that they no longer think of everyone as people-unique people with their own needs that we may not be able to personally comprehend, but people all the same-and drop those lines with all of it's terrible consequences:

I am human and you are not. I am a person who belongs, and you...don't. Not really.

You can have all the compassion in the world, all the love in your heart, but if you are a hunter, you drew a line, and you are willing to bleed a person for it. You may do it emotionally, socially, psychologically, metaphysically, or even physically, but you will hurt a person, and you will do it because you decided they can't be a person the same way you are, that there is that opening in what they are that allows for it. You want to burn away the darkness, you had better prepare to make kindling out of yourself. You might be a hero, and I hope lots of people are when they play this game-but you are a monster first. If you are not a monster, you are not a hunter. You are a mortal investigator. If you are a hunter and in denial of how you're a monster, then you are setting yourself up to be more of a monster than anyone you hunt, and no amount of saving people on the side can save you from that. In your denial, you will be an atrocity to someone, rather a mere monster. Probably several someones.

I can't help but feel you are willingly showing all the Compacts and Conspiracies on their darkest side to make a point, but I digress. Just to point out: by your logic, how is a VASCU agent more monstrous than a regular FBI agent? Or how is a Hunter different from a regular soldier, who ALSO has to cause harm by definition in his job?

But regardless, even if you do have a point, I still fail to see how that solves the issue. There is STILL the problem that not all hunter groups see monsters the same way, not all of them care about Humanity or believe humans matter more than monsters, and so on.

[ArcaneArts]

... they are not? I mean seriously, there is a reason they are the only template that can be turned into other supernaturals.

Tonight is loaded with jokes ruined by sincerity.

I'm about to start diving down a slide made of alcohol and hot sauce, so a proper rebuttal will have to wait, but in the main time, if that's your hangup, I would argue you're not paying close enough attention to the way the thematics of this entire franchise work. You're also probably too hung up on the word "monster", though, for once, that would be a more understandable problem.