Archived from groups: alt.games.whitewolf (
More info?)
"Kellendros" <cox911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4KoPe.80016$Ph4.2515942@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
x-no-archive: yes
> >
> [big snip]
> There is of course one major flaw in a situational vs. objective morality
> system such as you suggested: The Humanity 10 Child Serial Killer.
>
> If the ST can indeed fully set aside his own morality (not likely, but
> still) and judge a character's actions completely based on what their
> actions are motivated by within their personal moral context, then
> inevitably there will be someone out there performing classically
> immoral/evil acts who, due to the strength and purity of their belief in
> what they are doing being "right", will have a incongruously high Morality
> score.
Firstly, to quote from my reply to Bradd...
"...The reason I adopted the system I currently use was exactly because
of what you've just described - my own moral code is different to everybody
else's. Because of that understanding, I needed a mechanic that gave the
players a chance to explain their actions according to their own moral code.
Because it's situational, and because the character's descent into darkness
(or climb to glory - had that happen once) is entirely self-fuelled, it's
next to impossible for me to say "You killed a paragon of virtue, so now you
need to lose morality" - instead, the player gets a chance to explain their
character's moral code. Because it's discussed in an open forum (at the end
of each session) the other players also get a chance to offer their own
opinion and consequently the whole group has a say in whether a character
should lose or gain moral ground based on their motives and actions, and by
extension, help to shape the moral compass for the entire game. The hardest
part, believe it or not, is deciding whether or not the motive is in-keeping
with the way the player has portrayed their character..."
>
> Posit: I believe the soul to be eternal & will carry on to a final
judgment
> upon death. I believe that we are born into the world free of any and all
> sin, in a state of pure innocence. I believe that as we live in this world
> of sin, our pure souls are corrupted by it, and the longer we exist here,
> the more likely that corruption will send us to hell upon death. Thus, I
> believe that despite the brief moments of fear and pain I cause killing
> their moral coil, the young children I kill are truly being saved from an
> eternity of greater pain and torment, for I free their souls far before
the
> corrupting influence of the world can taint them, keeping them pure to
> travel on to heaven.
>
> Thus we have the Humanity 10 child serial killer. He feels guilty about
the
> pain he causes, but within the context of his belief that he is truly
> performing good works, he is easily able to "justify" the actual killing
in
> such a way that it is not only not evil, but in actuality, an act which
> anyone would perform if they only understood the "truth" of the world
around
> them.
And now, onto the rest... I don't know about NWoD yet, because I haven't
played it, but in the older versions of Vampire, they did introduce
alternative Paths, of which Humanity was just one. The way that the paths
worked meant that the Humanity 10 Child Serial Killer you discussed would
have followed one of the alternate paths, one in keeping with the character.
From the way you describe it, it almost sounds like the character would fit
the Path of Damnation, though again I will ask for correction on this if I'm
wrong.
As I said above, the act as well as the motive determines when a roll is
made. The fact that your example feels guilt suggests that he is performing
an act he is uncomfortable with or knows to be wrong. This will ultimately
lead to a corruption of his soul and therefore (in game terms) a loss of
Humanity. It all boils down to the old question of right and wrong, but how
do you determine what is or isn't right? How do you define right? It's a
topic that's probably going to be raging for years. Is it right to kill? It
depends on the circumstances. For example, how do you react if a loved one
tells you they have a terminal illness that will lead to a long, drawn out
death, and then they ask for your help for a painless end? If you say no,
you have to live with the pain and guilt of watching them die slowly; if you
say yes, do you feel guilt for ending their suffering?
To be honest, I've never had to deal with a player who's wanted to go for
anything like the Humanity 10 Killer example you give, but it is an
interesting one to think about. The whole moral debate will reign for many,
many years to come.
>
> Now mind you, this is not necessarily a bad thing, if the morality system
in
> the game has nothing to do with traditional ethics & morality, but rather
is
> simply a measure of a character's personal moral character *within their
own
> system of beliefs*-a moral "willpower" if you will. It's strange and would
> require every character to write out a moral code for themselves, but it
> would work. The only thing is that it requires a bit free thinking in
order
> to accept that the "evil overlord" can have as much "moral character" as
the
> "holy paladin" trying to stop him, simply of an entirely different nature.
>
> Most game systems with a morality system in them tend to use "traditional"
> morality as a baseline and an absolute judgment of it in order to keep
> things... neat, for lack of a better word. Do "bad" and you become "bad",
do
> "good" and you become "good", as dictated by the universal constants the
> game system determines is "good" and "bad".
>
> The other reason most game systems use traditional objective morality is
to
> prevent players going on Sociopathic slaughter-fests with their characters
> with impunity. Your example of the high Humanity vampire trying to stop
the
> mage is an excellent example; he has to *struggle* with his decisions, and
> taking the easy way out (just kill the guy) might cause him harm (Humanity
> loss), whereas trying the harder rout (holding back his full abilities,
thus
> reducing the chance of defeating the mage/trying to talk him out of it and
> risking him still pulling the switch anyway) will keep him morally pure,
but
> has other ways to hurt him in the end. Obviously a group of low Humanity
> vampires would just go; "hose down the sacrifices with our machine guns,
> there, machine sabotaged. Now, let's deal with this mage." See how much
> "easier" that was?
Hmm, you know, the system you describe for individual moral ethics for each
character does have merits, but not from a moral standpoint. Maybe a
combination of systems, with a framework for the world's moral compass
(thereby offering guidelines for what is a 'dark' act and what is a 'light'
act), but also a 'moral integrity' attribute for the characters themselves,
to signify how in-line with the world's moral compass they are. I think I
need to think about this...
Thanks Kellendros. You've given me some ideas to play with.
>
>