Frustrated Question on Morality and denied characater concepts in Dresden RPG

[Nyogtha]

First of all my first language is Farzi so forgive any bad english grammar.

Hi everyone, I am a avid reader of Jim Butchers work and I am also a extreme fan of his Wizard Novels, The Harry Dresden Files. I have been reading the posts on the Dresden RPG webpage with great interest, however the latest post about the Characters: Red Court Infected inflammed my opinoin somewhat. I have interesting approach to gaming in that I do NOT restrict character class's based on morality or if a character is "evil", in many many roleplayng games as soon as some one is evil then they are no longer a substantiated character and can not be portrayed. To make specific my reference, here is the passage to which I refer  "if at any point the character kills another human and drinks its blood, she must immediately “upgrade” the character to a full Red Court Vampire. This invariably results in turning the character into an NPC, and an evil one at that". Why is it turned into a NPC? The first Red Court Vampire we encounter is in the first novel and she is emotionally upset and damaged just because Harry saw her true form, clearly they are not 2 dimensional characters, they have complex thought patterns, feelings and goals and WERE human once so they have a reference point so you CAN roleplay one. In the first time we run into a Vampire, its a Red Court Vampire in the first book Storm Front, Book one of the Harry Dresden Files. and of course Harry Biance are able to come to a detente, again indicating they are not 2-dimensional creatures, I like this qoute from the book "She (been refering to Bianaca) didnt move quick enough for me to miss seeing a tear streak down one cheek, Id made the vampire cry, Great I felt like a real superhero, Harry Dresden Breaker of Monsters Hearts.

In addition to this and with even more conviction about the ludicrous nature of this statement that vampires are npcs, is Harry's Brother Raith a FULL BLOWN white court vampire, who constantly helps harry out and also FEEDS his demion as well, again not a 2 dimensional badguy but a fully in depth character (see a novel focusing soloing on a Raith called "backup"). This brings me to what I see is the reason, the reason you cant play a vampire (red court or any court) is that they are Evil.....becuase its still the same person I see no GOOD reason at all for a player not been able to play a vampie, Because this defintion of evil is westernized and if I were to follow my own cultures definition of Evil (we do have Farzi Role play games btw) only devout holy men are allowed to cast magic (they would bind and entreat with Jinn who were also created by Allah) on behalf of muslim society and any practioner of magic that isnt a holy man would be totally evil, so from that point of view every character in the Dresden RPG is a NPC only. I am assured there might be a question of Power, but tbh clearly Vampies arent not more powerful then wizards, infact based on the novel it seems Wizards are more powerful then vampires.

So why are you making a decision in your game over what can be a NPC and what cant be a NPC espicially as we can see that non human creatures like vampies (Raith from the white court and Bianca from the Red court) are clearly viable characters with real personalitys, feelings and thoughts that you can portyary. Now having had this discussion with people in conventions in the USA I am aware that many saw go play World of Darkness if oyu want monsters...the problem their is I despire the World of Darkness games and anyway 99% of the time I am running games for my extended gaming group. Again why not include character rules for all the wonderful things in teh Dresden universe, why restrict us? Please to be remembering this is not my first (or even second) language and our RPG group tends to want to follow canon of theese games at conventions so if you say in the book these can not be PC's then the same is applied to a whole convention resulting in no playment for me or my group.

Frustarted and Confused

Ahazil

PS-Please remember my english is not fantastically and I am not wanting a argument but a peaceful discussion.

PPS-I am aware after posting there is some posting invovled with allowing white court vampires, but my argument and consternation still stands why dont you allow Red Court? Black Court? Demon Worshippers? Bearers of the Black Denari? Why do you make this decision for your fan base on what PCs are allowed and what isnt? Red court vampres, Black Court Vampies, Necromancers all seemed viable players with real roles and personalitys (again I repeat myself but I am frustrated with the large number of RPGs that do this).

[iago]

Ahazil,

First and foremost, you're reacting to a small part without seeing the entire whole.  So keep that in mind: without the full picture, you're not seeing certain things which are true -- such as White Court Vampires, at least at some levels, being fully playable in the game.  Thomas (at least in games of certain power levels) is definitely a playable PC!

Here's a short version of the answer: Ultimately this is not a question about MORALITY in the sense of GOOD vs. EVIL.  It's a question about POWER vs. FREEDOM.  In the DFRPG, the more powerful you are, the less freedom of will you have. This is canonically true in the novels, and doesn't just apply to the bad guys!  Angels have a lot of power, but no freedom.  Well-intentioned folks like the Summer Lady, Lily, have a lot of power, but no freedom.

In the stuff we write in the game, we sum up the effect of this as: "Monsters have Power; Mortals have Free Will".  So when we say that a Red Court Vampire becomes an NPC when its powers are fully manifested, we're not saying that it's because they're evil.  It's because they've manifested so much power (supernatural or natural) that they've lost their freedom of will -- the essential thing that makes a player character.

From a system standpoint this is a simple case of saying "if you don't have the points to take the powers, and you buy the powers anyway, you stop being a PC".  The fact that this is sympatico with the notion of POWER vs. FREE WILL from the novels is an extra benefit for us, and ties the system together with the story, which we like.

That's not to say there aren't elements of morality that are in the books, baked right in.  Breaking the Laws of Magic -- which has SOME elements of morality in it -- does actually mentally corrupt someone, just the way an increase in power can.  So we've got that baked into the system.

But there's no baked-in specific-religion morality in the game. If anything, the game is highly friendly to the perspectives of all religions.

If that's not your cup of tea, I can understand that, but it's not out of line with the books at all. 

[Nyogtha]

Allow me to make most certain that the game is too my endearing (is that what "your cup of tea means?"), is it then possible within this sytem to have the points to pay for a Red Court Vampire's powers and thus retain your free will? I am not understanding this point prehaps my inability to understand english properly is halting me, can you please explain this concept of losing ones will when one gets too powerful I read the books in english and I didnt see this as been focused to havng power but as a effect of owning certain powerful skills, one for example could be a awesome power and have free willl or one could be like a Denari and be awesome power without free will. this is to be explaining thank you.

[iago]

"not your cup of tea" = "not to your taste"

It's as simple as this: powers cost Refresh points, and for most Refresh budgets, full Red Court Vampire is too expensive.  When you have zero or negative refresh points left, you're an NPC.

[Nyogtha]

Forgive the double post, but I feel somthing must explained about how my culture views a work of art like the Dresden game, it is a "spirtual thing" and its hard to explain in english but the best word I can find is Sacred but its not actually holy...The words of a highly vauled witer like the writers of this game are taken as TRUTH for the story and tale that must be imparted, as theese thigns like vampires are inteillgent beings that I would want to be able to portray just as much as the mages and so is so we can experince and inlovle ourself in the telling of the WHOLE story, its very important for the players to be able to play these roles and for US to be true to the TRUTHS of the authors, becuase the way my people have handed down experiences even before Mohammed was thourgh story telling and acting the stories which is VERY VERY like roleplaying games and so you understand why I am so feeling with your game as its a important thing for me and how I view my world through my upbringing.

[Nyogtha]

"not your cup of tea" = "not to your taste"

It's as simple as this: powers cost Refresh points, and for most Refresh budgets, full Red Court Vampire is too expensive.  When you have zero or negative refresh points left, you're an NPC.

I think I understand, these refersh points are important in determination of free will, I am not angering you am I with my questions? forgiveness if I am.

[iago]

Nope, no anger at all.

Yeah -- basically we made the decision to give the system statistic of Refresh an "in-character" equivalence in the form of free will.  Helps tie the system together with the theme.  It's not *perfect*, but no game is, and this hits a lot of what we want to see in how the game plays out.

[Shecky]

Interesting. One important truth about Thomas and Bianca and their respective Courts is that those two are unusual among vampires. Most are effectively enslaved to their hungers, which motivates their every action. As a result, they have practically no free will and are thus not PC material (given that most players would wish to play characters that would ALLOW them to make decisions). But with enough will (refresh points in the RPG), those particular vampires are able to move beyond the stereotype of the hunger-driven vampire. That's what makes them highly unusual.

[Nyogtha]

I looked up a word I hope its right, Thematically? Themitcally speaking if you lose your refersh points the supernaural power (in the in game terms) you have aquired overwhelms you and makes you adhere to a "archtype" (looked up that word too) and you no longer have a choice but must play out that archtype that the supernatural power you have absconded with gave you?

[iago]

Personally I don't think that Bianca's tear is any evidence of free will on her part.  It's evidence that she has feelings which can get hurt -- but that's not an indication of free will (nor is it an indication of a moral stance -- even villains can have emotions).

She's got a ton of power, and basically no choice about whether or not to follow her monstrous inclinations.

[iago]

I looked up a word I hope its right, Thematically? Themitcally speaking if you lose your refersh points the supernaural power (in the in game terms) you have aquired overwhelms you and makes you adhere to a "archtype" (looked up that word too) and you no longer have a choice but must play out that archtype that the supernatural power you have absconded with gave you?

Yes! That's *perfect*. You've got it absolutely right.

[Nyogtha]

Understanding is very pleasing I thank you for enlightnement in this and I wish to thank you deeply I understand how the spirtual side of your rules work with the spirtual side of the game, it is pleaseing , so you would see Bianca while she has feelings cant help but be a hungerer for monstrosities? Would you think she aware of her lack of choice or is that somthing she does not know?

[iago]

Understanding is very pleasing I thank you for enlightnement in this and I wish to thank you deeply I understand how the spirtual side of your rules work with the spirtual side of the game, it is pleaseing , so you would see Bianca while she has feelings cant help but be a hungerer for monstrosities? Would you think she aware of her lack of choice or is that somthing she does not know?

Hard to say.  At that point it might just not enter into the possibility of thought.  Does Queen Mab have an idea that she can't help but be Queen Mab?  Probably not: she is who she is, so fully and innately, that being otherwise just doesn't manifest as an option. 

But the closer someone is to "humanity", maybe the more evident the strictures of nature are.  But that's not something I'd want to paint with a broad brush -- I'd prefer that to be a decision about how a character's lack of free will manifests on a character-by-character basis.

[Dan from Chicago]

Well-intentioned folks like the Summer Lady, Lily, have a lot of power, but no freedom.

I can see not wanting to allow someone to play the Summer Lady from a gaming perspective, and perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen anything in the books to indicate that Lily is more constrained by her power or nature then Fix is, and the Summer Knight is playable.

The only time where Fix acted and Lily didn't that I can think of is when she didn't attack Winter's forces in Proven Guilty when Fix did, and the explanation was that if she acted it would be a major provocation. I interpreted that as having the ability to attack, but not being willing to accept the consequences, i.e. making a choice.

It seems like Eldest Brother Gruff would be a good example of someone unable to make a choice. He didn't want to attack Dresden, but was unable to do anything else until he was presented with a situation which reordered his priorities.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs.

[iago]

It's a broadsword more than a scalpel when it comes to applying the perspective.

Lily has a LOT of stuff she CAN'T do, because she's now constrained by the pacts of Summer.

As a Summer Knight, Fix is actually still mortal, and technically retains some freedom of choice.  There being SOME free will available to the Knights is part of the point of why they exist -- it enables them to act OUTSIDE their nature, in the Courts' interests, in theory.