Providence

Providence is a LARP game using Trent Yacuk's Kingdom Come system. It is a game of Fallen Angels and their struggle to survive against the forces of Heaven and Hell and some things in between.

Who is online?

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest

None


[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 15 on Sun 19 Jul 2015 - 8:55

Gallery


Blog Posts

Latest topics

» Shutting down the Forums
Tue 3 Aug 2010 - 11:47 by cenobyte

» Magic Creation-Zeal Table
Tue 3 Aug 2010 - 11:28 by cenobyte

» Houses of the Blooded in Regina, August 28th
Wed 14 Jul 2010 - 15:02 by Bal

» The Sentinel's journal
Thu 8 Jul 2010 - 20:13 by Dorian Mason

» Character backgrounds
Tue 6 Jul 2010 - 12:19 by Corral

» The dreams of Edward
Sun 4 Jul 2010 - 0:32 by Edward

» Some of Eliel's secrets
Sat 3 Jul 2010 - 17:35 by Corral

» Question/June Game
Thu 1 Jul 2010 - 22:51 by cenobyte

» "Map" of the Fallen
Thu 1 Jul 2010 - 14:17 by Molior

Navigation

Statistics

Our users have posted a total of 3440 messages in 394 subjects

We have 47 registered users

The newest registered user is Cyurus


    Can of Worms

    Share
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 9:55

    Okay. I've debated and debated about opening this can of worms again, because I know there are people who disagree with the use of Morality and its description in Kingdom Come. That's fine, and that's your prerogative, but after what happened this past month, I really think that people just don't understand how I am using Morality in Providence. This is how Morality is introduced in the BRB:
    Bee Arr Bee, Morality wrote:Morality is an indicator of what types of things (called Acts) a character is willing to do without a second thought, and what may give a character pause - things a character must be committed to do. Not every character is capable of committing questionable acts such as killing or even injuring others. These are acts that are difficult to justify in terms of morality, for those who still care. Sometimes in the course of play, a character may wish to take an action that should really take a lot of consideration. All characters must choose one of the base moralities at character creation: Innocent (requires you purchase a Preeminance), Typical, Hardened, Hardcore, or Immoral (requires the purchase of a Preeminance). Moral characters are either Innocent, Typical, or Hardened. Immoral characters are Hardcore or Irredeemable.
    Morality goes hand in hand with Traumatic Wounds, which are detailed briefly in this section and in more depth in the System section. A character who is subjected to acts beyond their Morality may take Traumatic Wounds. These Traumatic Wounds create Symptoms which affect a characters personality, and thus their role-playing. Traumatic Wounds can be healed over time; this causes the Symptoms to become Dormant. A Dormant Symptom is merely recorded for potential future Trauma.

    I know some of you disagree with this description of what Morality actually is. Something has happened in my family recently that has made me think about this. And I'm going to halt the discussion here about whether things like drug and alcohol abuse are immoral or moral, simply because I don't think that discussion has a huge bearing on Providence.

    The way I see it (and thus the way its done in Providence), Morality is less about how much harm you are willing to commit, or how much pain you are willing to cause, and it is more a measure by which your actions are compared to those of a well-adjusted, well-meaning human being. Therefore, someone with a Typical morality typically (heh) does not like to be the vehicle which causes pain or suffering to another living being. Someone with a Typical morality is likely to help someone in need of help. Those with Typical morality probably lie sometimes, particularly to make themselves appear more capable or less incapable; they may cheat in minor ways, and they may do other things which from time to time will bother their conscience. They feel guilty when they do something "wrong". Some people might consider breaking *any* law "wrong (including speeding, jaywalking, etc.,); some people might not...there is some latitude here, and I'm not about to say something like "if you have a Typical morality, you MUST consider jaywalking to be a Prohibited Act". I may say something like, "considering your character's morality, do you think your character would be overcome with feelings of guilt and regret over what you've just done?"


    Speaking of Acts, this is what the BRB says about Acts.

    Bee Arr Bee, Acts wrote:Acts
    There are four types of Acts defined in KC:
    Grace: Charitable work, acts of mercy, encouraging love, giving hope, etc. It should be noted that it is very hard to force another character into performing an Act of Grace. There can be all sorts of secret and selfish motives for pretending to take an Act of Grace.
    Minor: Hurting someone who can take care of themselves, cheating at a game, petty shoplifting, etc.
    Questionable: Killing for a purpose/necessity, maiming, stealing, etc.
    Heinous: Violation (rape), cannibalism, suicide, killing for pleasure, torture, intentionally harming someone who cannot take care of themselves (children and elderly), etc.
    Prohibited
    Each Morality an act which is prohibated. A character who willingly takes those actions is required to take a Trauma test or take a Traumatic wound. Because a player chooses to take this action, committing a Prohibated act is considered a Voluntary Trauma test.

    Now, a couple of you have made the argument that killing demons and hurting demons should not be considered part of the morality scale. I have a HUGE problem with this.

    Demons look like humans, act like humans, talk like humans, smell like humans, and in fact, technically *are* humans (humans with a corrupted soul, more or less). In the Symphony, they resonate as "other than human: demon", and in some cases, they do have special powers/extra strength.

    Someone with a Typical morality will have *serious* issues with beating the crap out of/killing demons. Not because they know they're demons, but because it *feels wrong* to do that. Violence...real violence...fucks you up. If you don't believe me, I'd like to encourage you to walk up to a random stranger and hit them in the face with a 2x4. If you're not willing to do that, try going to a prison, where you KNOW everyone there has done SOMETHING wrong, and be witness to a prison brawl. Watch people beat the crap out of each other. Watch how terrible people can truly be to one another.

    I know there are a couple of people in the game who understand what I'm getting at here, most likely because they have first-hand knowledge of exactly what I'm describing.

    Causing pain and suffering; doing things that are "wrong" causes *most people* damage, and in some cases, life-long damage. The measure by which your character is affected by the wrong things (how much Trauma you've taken, in other words) is your character's Morality. I know we're "just pretending" and this is "just a game", but in order to understand trauma and how it must affect your character, I think it's really important to understand where trauma comes from. It comes from the guilt we feel over doing wrong things, or over having witnessed wrong things, or the intense sadness we feel over knowing how much someone else is suffering. Bad things. When we get into delineations like Aligned Trauma and Infected Trauma, these comparisons begin to break down, and I'm comfortable with using sweeping definitions if it helps you to understand the *concepts* if not the terms themselves.

    Now. All that being said, if your character is out there beating the shit out of people, demons, whatevers, all day every day, you probably should not have a Typical morality. This will be resolved in-game, most likely, by your racking up Trauma pretty damned quickly for the kinds of things you're doing. On the other hand, if your character has a Hardcore morality, you probably don't really give a fiddler's fart whether the person whose face you're smashing in is human, demon, or rock star. You probably don't particularly care if someone's *FEELINGS* get hurt. You probably don't really care if someone kicks a puppy.

    But there are some things that SHOULD intensely bother EVERYONE who isn't Irredeemable (these are Acts I have come up with on the fly and may not match the examples of Acts presented in the BRB):
    Mass murder
    Serial killing
    Rape, serial rape
    Torture
    Cannibalism
    Suicide
    Premeditated murder
    child abuse

    This is not an exhaustive list, of course, and I'm running out of time to post this...but the point I am trying DESPERATELY to make is that EVERYONE IN THE GAME should be *intensely bothered* with the knowledge that, say, Bal EATS PEOPLE. This should not be something to be cavalier about.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 11:11

    Also-too, I want to make it clear that when I ask you to do a Trauma test based on your Morality, more often than not, I am quite forgiving in my understanding of how committing or witnessing an Act might affect your character. Which is to say, *as I understand your character as you are playing him/her*, I am certainly willing to discuss Morality/Trauma tests *to a point*.

    If you have a Hardened Morality, and you've just gone and killed an eight-year-old child because it resonated as a demon, you're TOTALLY going to have to make a Trauma test.
    avatar
    Cole

    Number of posts : 49
    Registration date : 2010-02-08

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Cole on Mon 3 May 2010 - 12:47

    cenobyte wrote:This is not an exhaustive list, of course, and I'm running out of time to post this...but the point I am trying DESPERATELY to make is that EVERYONE IN THE GAME should be *intensely bothered* with the knowledge that, say, Bal EATS PEOPLE. This should not be something to be cavalier about.

    I don't disagree, but I would like a clarification, please.

    Do you agree that there is a difference in hearing that Bal eats people and *knowing* that Bal eats people? I mean, really, anyone can say that they do something and that doesn't mean that I believe it happens. If I see something, on the other hand, it becomes real.

    The reason I ask is because I know that Cole, for one, will, upon hearing of Bal's people eating, applaud Bal's skills in creating a bad-ass persona without actually believing that he consumes people. Why should lying disturb me?
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 12:52

    Good point.
    Upon discovering that it is actually, in fact, true, that Bal does eat people (or bits of people), you should be substantially appalled/disgusted/intensely bothered.

    If in fact, you WITNESS Bal eating people (or bits of people, or angels), you should do a trauma test.

    If Bal eats you, you should probably voluntarily take trauma.

    Not just Bal, for the record. ANYONE.

    If you choose to believe, upon hearing that someone is a cannibal, that they have created for themselves a badass persona, that's understandable. The psyche is a delicate thing, and considering that Fallen are FAR more susceptible to mental and emotional trauma than are humans, who knows what kind of coping mechanisms they may have developed?
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 12:55

    I am not used to agreeing with other folks' opinions on Trauma and Morality, but this pretty much all makes sense here and is how I view it. (I do have all sorts of wonderful problems with the Trauma system, but they are happily not ones mentioned here)

    The whole "Killing demons shouldn't be a Questionable act because they aren't really human" particularly gets me as a Storyteller. I've seen the same type of thing in many other games I've run(from the somewhat understandable "He's Sabbat", to the far more wonky "He is a Technocrat" to the totally WTF of "He's a security guard working for the bad guys"). Yeah, killing a demon might be for the greater good, but morality isn't about the greater good. It is about empathy. There definitely can be Irredeemable Divine who do everything they do out of a great sense of the importance of the greater well-being of humanity - but it doesn't change the fact that he'll torture you to death for the 'greater good' without feeling bad about it on any level other than the intellectual. Good intentions and good principles do not necessarily mean a person is "Moral" in Kingdom Come terms(okay, maybe I do have a problem with some of what is being discussed here, and that is the correlating of Hardness/Callousness with Good/Evil, but it is really just sort of definitional so a minor issue).

    I guess, the thing is, although saying "It is okay to kill him, he's not human, he's a demon" may be more technically correct than "It is okay to kill him, he's not human, he's a German" or "It is okay to kill him, he's not human, he does cocaine" I think it certainly has very similar emotional content. Once you start allowing yourself to divide folks up into human and not human, no matter what the criteria, you start down a path that has a strange endpoint. This isn't to say normal people don't travel that path all the time - I vividly remember seeing last year a bunch of kids back form Afghanistan laughing and joking about blowing up shit that belonged to Afghani farmers - I don't think they were bad people, but I do think they were getting a little bit too hardened.

    That does also sort of remind me of something I've said before - none of this means you can't go killing people, especially if you feel you need to. I don't know how Jill does things, but I'd certainly accept an argument for the challenge for killing a demon being less difficult than for killing a random dude. And, pointedly, you aren't guaranteed to fail the challenge. And even if you fail, you still have an option rather than eventually slipping down in Morality - you can take the trauma, and then spend time healing it. As I've said before, the real life pattern for people who do that type of thing for a living seems to be "Go into the shit for a couple of weeks, maybe kill some people, and then spend several months off the line in part to recover mental stability". If you want to both kill people AND stay mentally balanced, it just means you are spending large amounts of your time with your priest or mental councilor, or off on your own meditating, praying, or just doing shit to try and forget. That seems balanced to me.

    I would also think that for killing things that clearly aren't, well, killed, challenge might be easier or nonexistant. Demons bleed, gurgle, die sobbing, and then leave a corpse. An Angel or Devil discorporates as its flesh loses coherency and it is no longer held in this world - Fallen talk about killing demons, but about banishing angels and devils. I think it is understandable with all-out Angels and Devils for it to be much less traumatic, because there is no corpse, and everyone is in the full understanding that they can come back in three days, unless they are Banished, which just prevents them from returning. Now, hacking at someone and injuring them is still traumatic I'm sure for Typical types, but I'd think it at least wouldn't feel like murder. Demons, on the other hand, appear to die like humans and even if you have an alternate explanation for what happens to them upon death, it sure looks like they die like a human.

    To finally finish my ramble...on the topic of folks' occasionally blaseness about Bal's actions... I won't say I haven't often been struck with the surrealness of folks' reactions to Bal. BUT, I will say in their defense that I think many characters just might not really believe folks like Bal do what they do. Like, they might intellectually know it is true, but there is a big gap between hearing that someone is a murderous cannibal, and actually viscerally knowing it to be true. Now, characters who have seen or experienced such first hand are a different matter. But for some it might be (GODWIN TIME) like the German civilians who certainly knew the camps existed, but never really allowed themselves to realize what that meant. Probably in part as a mental coping mechanism. And, like, fair enough.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 13:02

    Good points, Wade.

    And, point well taken about nomenclature. If it makes it easier to call Morality "Desensitization", fair enough. We won't, but if that's how folks choose to think about it in their own heads, then who am I to argue?

    Again, I think it's important that depending on what happens and how things are done, the tests for Trauma are mutable, not static. I often base my decision on what's happened, on what people's Morality already is, and on how they've told me they've dealt with things in the past. The ease with which you level a two-by-four at a stranger, or a pointed stick at a demon, or a kick at a puppy...that *should* be dictated by the Morality you are playing. A Hardcore character should have FAR less reserve in shoving his sword through a demon's heart than would a Typical character, but that doesn't mean "none".
    avatar
    Cole

    Number of posts : 49
    Registration date : 2010-02-08

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Cole on Mon 3 May 2010 - 13:38

    This might be a little tangential and I don't want anyone to think that they shouldn't role-play being bothered by things that other characters do, but there is also the matter of appearances. Since Gabe is gone I'll give an example of what I mean with something he went through; there are other events in the game that have happened that could be used as examples ::cough::crazyjustices::cough:: but it's easier to continue talking about Bal. :)

    Gabe was about community and children. At the events Gabe, after discovering that children weren't on the eating list, resigned himself to publicly ignoring or in one case standing up for Bal's right to eat people. It didn't mean that he wasn't appalled by human eating, and often after the event he went home and told Arc that he wanted Bal out of the city, but for the sake of the Infernal community he lied in public.

    What I am saying is that there are reasons to pretend not be bothered by *specific things*. If Bal hadn't told Gabe that children were exempt then there would have been infighting despite the need for community -- some reactions are so strong as to make facades impossible.

    That said, I think that another character should know the truth about how your character feels -- the most important part of the story isn't what happens, in my opinion, but how the characters live through it. While it can be satisfying to know of your internalized reactions, you enrich the stories of others by sharing your true reactions in character, even if it is just with your own choir/murder/coterie.
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 14:14

    Well said, Alan. Play that happens only in your own head isn't really play at all. It becomes real when it is witnessed, and becomes alive when it is is part of interaction.

    I do think it is true that many characters' public personas are going to be fairly different from their interior emotional life. I'm sure in real life there are all sorts of people who are all like "Yeah, I'm a badass, none of this bothers me", and then go home to spend four hours crying in the shower. And that is cool. People have layers, ideally. Someone who never lets anything affect them is no more interesting than someone who always plays everything out in the open and doesn't have any texture to how they roleplay.

    I am also amused that Alan managed to make my pertinent cannibalism-related points in about 1/4 of the text length as my burbling spiel I posted after him.
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 16:41

    I don't have my BRB with me(at work, tee-hee), but... As far as witnessing, isn't there some graduation based on your own Morality? How I would be tempted to do it would be generally to treat an act as one step "less worse" if you are only witnessing or dealing with something indirectly. So Hardcore characters wouldn't be able to do Heinous acts without a trauma test(though they may do them anyway and make that test), but they'd probably be a lot better with witnessing them than someone who is Hardened or Typical.

    I guess in my mind, the Hardcore character is the evil villain, and the Irredeemable is the executioner torturer henchman. The Villain probably doesn't have the guts to torture someone themselves(though they could if they wanted to risk it), but probably wouldn't have so many qalms about saying "Brutus, dispose of him. Painfully." and then listening to the screams while cackling in a villainous manner, even if actually doing the deed themselves would be too close to home.

    Similarly, I'd think that although a Hardened character would be bothered by killing someone in battle(though they may well do such, suck up with the trauma, and move on like a soldier should), just being around combat where people are hurt and dying shouldn't cause trauma. Though seeing someone murdered in a premeditated fashion or tortured still would(as that goes from Questionable to Heinous).

    That is MY view of how it SHOULD be...I do not know what the BRB actually says on this topic though.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 16:51

    You know, I'm looking through the Bee Arr Bee at the moment, and I can't actually find where it says that you must make a Trauma Test if you witness a particularly nasty thing. It says you should voluntarily take trauma for committing prohibited acts:
    Bee Arr Bee, Trauma section wrote:Prohibited
    A character who willingly takes Prohibited actions is required to make a Trauma test or take a Traumatic
    wound. Committing a Prohibited Act draws a Voluntary Trauma or a Trauma test because the player chooses to take the action. Unless the Storyguide says otherwise, a player is free to choose whether Trauma taken will be Psychological or Emotional.A Prohibited Act prompts a Trauma Test at Medium (5) Fixed Difficulty level. If the Act is particularly inhumane the Storyguide may make it a Hard (8) Fixed Difficulty. Failure of this test results in Aligned Trauma. Acts of Grace cause Moral Aligned Trauma; all other acts cause Immoral Aligned Trauma.

    But it doesn't say anything about *witnessing* Acts beyond your Morality. Certain events that happened on Saturday night drew a Trauma Test for those who witnessed it because it *was* incredibly inhumane. And things like crucifixion, wanton murder, suicide, etc., may draw a Trauma test for witnessing it as well. On Saturday, I based the difficulty of that Trauma test on peoples' Morality, and the tests were either Moderate or High Difficulty.

    I think, for witnessing horrible things, I should like to, for the most part, encourage players to decide whether they wish to voluntarily take Trauma or to make a Trauma test (I may mention it, such as: "for those of you with X Morality, you may wish to take a Trauma or make a Trauma test"). In some cases, though, I will ask players to make the Test (which may sound like: "for those of you with X Morality, please make a Trauma test at Y Difficulty").

    Again, I've always been a fan of letting the story and/or the situation decide whether a test should be made.

    Also-too, if you can find where in the Bee Arr Bee it mentions trauma tests for witnessing crap, please let me know.


    Last edited by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 16:56; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 16:55

    Oh. Wait.
    It says this:
    Bee Arr Bee, Trauma section wrote:Degree of Separation
    The target of an unspeakable act is not the only victim. When something happens to a friend and
    it becomes known, these indirect victims can take wounds and symptoms as well. In game terms, if you
    feel your character would be affected, you should volunteer to take a wound or to make a test, often at a
    Low (2) or Medium (5) Difficulty.

    And this:
    Bee Arr Bee, Trauma section wrote:Forced to commit/witness acts beyond
    ones Morality (All)
    Although it rarely comes up, you can be forced/pressured to commit an act that is beyond your
    Morality (such as the undercover officer who takes drugs to fool a drug dealer). As well, you may bear
    witness to acts beyond your Morality. A character who bears witness to a Prohibited Act (ie. a Typical
    character who witnesses a Heinous act) will take a Traumatic wound without a test.

    I'm not entirely comfortable with forcing people to take Trauma for witnessing a Prohibited Act, but it really depends on the Prohibited Act. Maybe in some cases I would. I don't know. I should think I would choose instead to get people to make a Trauma Test at higher Difficulties. In fact, I think these two paragraphs should be parallel, in that they should say that you should volunteer to make a Trauma Test (in the latter case) at a High or Epic (15) Difficulty (or choose to take a Trauma).
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 16:59

    I'd also like to take this opportunity to mention the following, also from the BRB:

    Bee Arr Bee, Trauma section wrote:Security Attack (All, except
    Irredeemable)

    Its not always evident how much importance we place on security - our own and that of our loved
    ones - until that security is lost. Ask a victim of fire or burglary and theyll explain how difficult it is to
    lose their home and/or possessions. Your affections, friends, home or Domus, and possessions are your
    security. It is presumed that most of these things are out of game, often secular abilities. If your security
    is attacked, such as your Domus burning down or a friend or Affection is murdered, you will have to make
    a Trauma test.
    Combat Injury (Innocent/Typical)
    Normal people do not get into fights on a regular basis. Innocent and Typical Morality characters
    injured with a Severe (physical) wound must make a Trauma test at Medium (5) Difficulty).
    Near Death (All)
    Near-death experiences affect everyone. Characters who are brought to the edge by taking their last Mortal
    wound, yet survive, are forced to make a Hard (8) Trauma test. This can be linked to Combat Injury, so
    an Innocent or Typical person driven to Near Death will have to make two tests (one at Medium (5) for
    Combat Injury and one at Hard (8) for Near Death).

    I think at least one person involved in the Demon hunting on Saturday will have to make Trauma tests.
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:02

    Aight, so that actually does sort of back up what I'm saying if I remember the definitions properly, right? For a Hardened, they can do minor acts, Questionable acts are uhhh...I forget the term, but where you can spend zeal or make a test to do it, so you can do it but it cause trauma, and Heinous are Prohibited. Hardcore should be fine for just witnessing both Acts of Grace and Heinous acts, I believe? Just so long as they do not do them?

    I want to draw up a table, but forums suck for that. Smile
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:04

    The spending Zeal/Devotion thing has changed. I'll post the table/list here as soon as I track it down.

    Now it's just "you can't perform an Act that is prohibited to you without taking Trauma or making a Trauma test". Ish.


    Last edited by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:21; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:07

    Is it wrong that I just want my simple single number Humanity system with my Heirarchy of Sins back?
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:10

    Here is the list of Moralities and which Acts they can "willingly perform" (ie. what sorts of things they can do without suffering because of it). Again, these lists are not exhaustive, and may in some instances have more, or fewer things on them.

    Bee Arr Bee, Trauma Section wrote:Innocent
    Innocent characters are Moral and possess a strength of hope and confidence that can be unnerving. They
    may only perform acts of Grace freely. Minor Acts are Prohibited to them while Questionable and Heinous
    acts cannot be performed willingly, however they can be forced to perform such acts. Innocence can only be
    acquired by purchasing the Potent Preeminence of the same name. Fallen who attack an Innocent character
    requires its own forced Trauma test, dealt with later. Innocent characters must take an Upkeep action
    during the downtime.
    Typical
    Typical characters are Moral. They may perform Acts of Grace or Minor acts without benefit or penalty.
    Questionable Acts are Prohibited to them while Heinous acts cannot be performed willingly.
    Hardened
    Hardened characters are Moral. They may perform Acts of Grace and Minor and Questionable acts without benefit or penalty. Heinous acts are Prohibited and cannot be performed willingly.
    Hardcore
    Hardcore characters are Immoral. This type of character falls into two categories: those who try to
    be good but know they are capable of taking horrible actions, often to spare others around them, and
    those who are evil but have some limits or principles that prevent them from sliding into something as
    inhuman as Irredeemable. A Hardcore character can perform Minor and Questionable acts without
    benefit or penalty. Acts of Grace and Heinous acts are Prohibited to them, however, the Difficulty of all acts
    is lowered by 1 rank (so the default is Low (2) to avoid taking a Traumatic wound when performing such an
    act). The Storyguide may raise or lower the Difficulty from there, as they see fit.
    Irredeemable
    Irredeemable characters are Immoral, and there are two types of Irredeemable characters: Controlled and
    Uncontrolled. A Controlled Irredeemable is the result of a player purchasing the Preemience: Irredeemable.
    Uncontrolled Irredeemable happens when a Hardcore character suffers enough Immoral Aligned Trauma to
    have a Breakdown. Either way, the potential Morality tests are the same. Irredeemable characters are able
    to perform Minor, Questionable, and even Heinous acts without Trauma tests. Although its unliked to
    happen, if an Irredeemable character is forced into an Act of Grace, they make a Hard (8) Trauma test to
    avoid taking a Moral Aligned Trauma. Irredeemable characters must take an Upkeep action during the
    downtime.

    Aaaaand, some examples of Acts:
    Bee Arr Bee, Trauma section wrote:Acts
    • Grace: Charitable work, acts of mercy,
      encouraging love, giving hope, etc. It should be
      noted that it is very hard to force another character
      into performing an Act of Grace. There can be all
      sorts of secret and selfish motives for pretending to
      take an Act of Grace.
    • Minor: Hurting someone who can take care
      of themselves, cheating at a game, petty shoplifting,
      etc.
    • Questionable: Killing for a purpose/necessity,
      maiming, stealing, etc.
    • Heinous: Violation (rape), cannibalism,
      suicide, killing for pleasure, torture, intentionally
      harming someone who cannot take care of
      themselves (children and elderly), etc.

    Again, note that the list of Acts is not exhaustive.


    Last edited by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:19; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:11

    Heh. No, it's not wrong.

    FTR, I hated the Humanity system and the Hierarchy of Sins. In fact, I usually just ignored it and went on a morality system kind of like this one, based on a character's number of beast traits (in the day) or humanity rating.
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:24

    Hrm, combining with above, it means that Innocent, Typical, Hardened, and Hardcore all take automatic trauma the same way from seeing a Heinous Act. That seems bizarre. It actually means a Hardcore character is far less likely to take trauma from torturing someone than by seeing someone tortured.

    There also seems to be a distinction in the text between "Prohibited" and "Cannot be performed willingly" - they sound like two different classifications in the Typical write-up, even if that isn't borne out elsewhere.

    If that is the case, I have a feeling that for the witnessing thing, what is intended is you take trauma if you witness an act "You cannot perform willingly", instead of just "Probited". That'd mean autotrauma for witnessing Questionable and Heinous for Innocents, and for witnessing Heinous for Typicals.

    If I were redoing this, I'd use the Acceptable, Prohibitied, and Cannot Perform Willingly perhaps, and do it like this:
    Innocent: Acts of Grace Acceptable, Minor Prohibited, everything else Cannot Perform Willingly.
    Typical: Acts of Grace and Minor Acceptable, Questionable Prohibited, Heinous Cannot Perform Willingly.
    Hardened: Acts of Grace, Minor and Questionable Acceptable. Heinous Prohibited. Nothing they cannot perform willingly.
    Hardcore: Minor and Questionable Acceptable. Heinous and Acts of Grace Prohibited, but have easy tests for them. Nothing they cannot perform willingly.
    Irredeemable: Acts of Grace Prohibited. Everything else Acceptable.

    And then I'd say you only have to make challenges for witnessing acts that you Cannot Perform Willingly, and are good if they are just Prohibited. That's how I'd clean it up. Obviously, the section is in need of much clarification.
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:26

    cenobyte wrote:Heh. No, it's not wrong.

    FTR, I hated the Humanity system and the Hierarchy of Sins. In fact, I usually just ignored it and went on a morality system kind of like this one, based on a character's number of beast traits (in the day) or humanity rating.

    I thought Humanity was very good for Vampires, I just wouldn't necessarily port it anywhere else.

    Cause for everything else, I'd use Unknown Armies' Madness Meters. 'nough said.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:27

    Hey Wade, what do you think about an Unknown Armies LARP?

    <GRIN>
    avatar
    Bal

    Number of posts : 102
    Registration date : 2009-07-28

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Bal on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:28

    cenobyte wrote:Hey Wade, what do you think about an Unknown Armies LARP?


    I think many things about such. Have looked over a couple of alternate rules systems. Have at least two concrete one-shot ideas sitting on the burner, and some vague concepts of how one would do an acceptable UA campaign. Also: Too Many Games, Not Enough Time.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 17:30

    We'll talk.
    avatar
    Tara

    Number of posts : 14
    Registration date : 2009-07-30

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Tara on Mon 3 May 2010 - 18:24

    Guys, if you do an Unknown Armies LARP I'm going to pee myself.
    avatar
    Shamus

    Number of posts : 141
    Age : 39
    Location : Regina
    Registration date : 2009-07-27

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Shamus on Mon 3 May 2010 - 18:33

    Me too. i totally want in btw. i have heard its awesome.
    avatar
    cenobyte
    Admin

    Number of posts : 860
    Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
    Registration date : 2008-06-24

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by cenobyte on Mon 3 May 2010 - 18:34

    I dunno. UA is not for the faint of heart. It's a lot like KC in the whole 'story trumps all' department. Prolly you'd all just hate it.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Can of Worms

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun 18 Feb 2018 - 23:17