Why is the white court catch worth +0?

[Sh33p]

+1 would be reasonable if it were something easily obtainable. But Tsunami has a point. You don't just make it.  It's the time part that reduces the value of it.  

True Love *is* exceptionally rare. And it takes a good deal of time for the feelings required for it to actually develop. Not to mention, a certain amount of maturity is required for it. Those teenagers, yeah, that's not love. 99.9999% sure that it's not, despite what said teenagers say/feel.  Though in a few years it *might* be.

Because it can take *years* to develop the connection that would be counted as true love, and that it takes a relationship to build up to it, The Catch is +0.  If you're character starts a session completely single, (s)he is not going to fall deeply in love with another character and that said character isn't going to fall deeply in love with the PC. Not immediately. Love at first sight? That's called Lust at first sight. I wouldn't say it's unobtainable, but its certainly not easily obtainable.

As for the other clans of the White Court: Hope and Faith. I'd say those are even more exceptionally rare than Love.

I'd argue the opposite. Hope is probably the most abundant thing on the planet. Without hope, plenty of people would lose any and all will just to open their eyes each morning. Faith is entirely arguable but it's definately in between Hope and Love in terms of abundance.

[Blackblade]

I'm fairly certain that Fear is opposed by Courage, not Faith. 

[babel2uk]

I'd argue the opposite. Hope is probably the most abundant thing on the planet. Without hope, plenty of people would lose any and all will just to open their eyes each morning. Faith is entirely arguable but it's definately in between Hope and Love in terms of abundance.

Yes and no. Hope might be abundant. But True Hope at the same intensity as True Love would probably only occur where there is absolutely the worst despair. Anything less than soul destroying despair would probably not be enough to generate hope at a pure enough level to satisfy the catch. Arguably the same with courage. It's not enough that someone is courageous or hopeful. They arguably have to be prepared to sacrifice everything based on their hope or courage.

In the end I think everyone is going to handle this one slightly differently. But personally I fall on the side of the posters who are arguing that this catch isn't reliably weaponiseable, isn't particularly well known and is an absolute nightmare to research.

[Becq]

I, on the other hand, think that emotions might be written over.  That if a psychopath wears a wedding ring that was imprinted with True Love that his hate would overwrite the other emotion.

This.

I think that in the case of items, the item will bear some sort of 'metaphysical imprint' based on significant uses it was put to.  If a wedding ring symbolized the true love of a couple for many years, it would bear a reflection of that love.  If the woman had no choice but to sell the ring at a pawn shop to pay for a life-saving operation for her husband, it would retain that imprint, and if a WCV touched it, they'd get zapped.  But if a con man then dropped a few bucks to buy the ring, then used it to swindle an elderly woman out of her life savings, that imprint would be overwritten almost overnight.  Basically, the ring had an apect of "Symbol of Love" and now it has the aspect "Tool of the Trade" instead.

Similarly, if I wanted to avenge the death of my friend at the hands of a WCV, I might go looking for some item that satisfies the Catch.  Lets say I found that "Bat of Lurve" mentioned earlier.  I snitch it from them, and go out and whack the WCV vampire with it.  *Poof*  The "Bat of Lurve" is now the "Bat of Vengefulness", as the intent by which I wield it changes its imprint.  Could it become the "Bat of Lurve" again if I returned it?  Possibly.  Or possibly not.  For example, if it was slipped back into its place with no evidence of anything untoward having happened to it, I imagine it would regain it's imprint pretty quickly -- perhaps all in would take is the husband pulling it out and remembering how he got it.  But if it was returned, stained with oddly pale bloodstains ... well, I imagine that might taint the owner's image of it.

Note that I'm not suggestion that there need be actual aspects attached to items, I'm just using the terminology to aid in explanation.

[Wolfwood2]

For me, the fundamental question is:

Do we want people playing White Court vampires for 1 less refresh cost?  My answer is that I don't think we want that.  I like that they come in at the power level they do.  Compared to this, the rest of the argument is irrelevant.

Truth be told, I think that's the reason the designers erred on the side of pricing the Catch at +0.  Yeah you can argue for the other side, but it's all about keeping that WC power out of PC hands too early.

[Drashna]

I agree with Wolfwood2, playing a NPC WCV.... wow can they be powerful. No reason to make them more so.

But back to the "True Love" thing, I think that the "imprint" idea mentioned is a very valid one. Intent and believe is everything, and stealing something from somebody to kill is absolutely not an act of True Love in any way. It would devalue the item in any meaningful way.

And again, True Love is very rare.  Of six married couples that I know personally, and fairly well, I'd say that none of them are in "True Love".  EG: one couple basically only got married because it means less taxes to pay, and still bring that up years after being married, another ... is absolutely in a master/slave type relationship (if only emotionally), another would be fairly close, but they tend to not really value each others opinions on a good number of topics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to demain or belittle them, but just trying to point out that while they may definitely love each other, it's not True Love. It's not that all consuming, all caring, unconditional love of an equal. 

Oh, and I'd say if it isn't permanent, it isn't True Love. A relationship like that is built, and worked at, and firmly established. And yes, while it very difficult, it's difficult because you *must* except the other as your equal.  How many people do that in general, let alone AT ALL.  To be that strong, and get that far, it's already endured a lot, and would not fade. Not without a huge, live changing event (and no, cheating just means you weren't really in love).

[Amelia Crane]

Do we want people playing White Court vampires for 1 less refresh cost?  My answer is that I don't think we want that.  I like that they come in at the power level they do.  Compared to this, the rest of the argument is irrelevant.

That is putting the entire argument backwards.  If the powers they have are strong enough to be worth -7, then the powers on their own merits ought to be worth -7.  It shouldn't be "We're not going to give you credit for powers that we overpriced to make up for the powers we underpriced".

I have no problem with WCV not being available below chest deep, but if the prices are wrong, the proper thing to do is alter the powers of the template, not lie about the worth of a catch.  You could very easily increase the value of a catch and include Lasting Emotion or Incite at Range in the template to make it still worth +7.

As for anecdotal evidence of love not being common, I had still never claimed true love was common.  My own assessment is that True Love is literally one in a million.  But even that is a "Rare" class of people, which is worth +1 (according to the Catch pricing guidelines as written).  Nobody has even attempted to argue that the number of people truely in love on this planet is 2.  And that's what would be necessary to qualify it as +0.  Heck, nobody has even claimed True Love is possessed by fewer than 50 people on Earth.

There has been less debate on the researchability of True Love as a Catch.  But then again, we don't have much information on it either.  But just the fact that the rest of the White Court knows is enough for me to assume that it would be researchable.  All you really have to do is find the WCV that would stand to gain from your enemy WCV dying.  You'd get the information.

[babel2uk]

As for anecdotal evidence of love not being common, I had still never claimed true love was common.  My own assessment is that True Love is literally one in a million.  But even that is a "Rare" class of people, which is worth +1 (according to the Catch pricing guidelines as written).  Nobody has even attempted to argue that the number of people truely in love on this planet is 2.  And that's what would be necessary to qualify it as +0.  Heck, nobody has even claimed True Love is possessed by fewer than 50 people on Earth.

Actually I have no problem whatsoever believing that there are far less people in the world who have true love than who have access to true magic. There's quite a large number of people comparitively that can use True Magic - which is what classes as a "Rare" group.

[Wolfwood2]

That is putting the entire argument backwards.  If the powers they have are strong enough to be worth -7, then the powers on their own merits ought to be worth -7.  It shouldn't be "We're not going to give you credit for powers that we overpriced to make up for the powers we underpriced".

I have no problem with WCV not being available below chest deep, but if the prices are wrong, the proper thing to do is alter the powers of the template, not lie about the worth of a catch.  You could very easily increase the value of a catch and include Lasting Emotion or Incite at Range in the template to make it still worth +7.

Words like "underpriced" and "overpriced" and "lie" are pretty provocative.  Costing powers isn't an exact science, you know.  The guidelines laid down are only guidelines, not anything locked in stone.  I think there's a "letter of the law" case to be made that the White Court catch should be +1 instead of +0.  However there's a "spirit of the law" case that when you weigh a lot of intangible factors we've been discussing here such as rarity value, difficulty of convenient weaponization, etc., one could reasonably say it's not worth a point of refresh back.

Definitely an edge case, but I think the game designers made a reasonable call.  Basically, it's simply not expected that you'll use the Catch much in dealing with the White Court.  They're mortal enough to just stab and shoot and Evoke.

[Nyarlathotep5150]

   And again, True Love is very rare.  Of six married couples that I know personally, and fairly well, I'd say that none of them are in "True Love".  EG: one couple basically only got married because it means less taxes to pay, and still bring that up years after being married, another ... is absolutely in a master/slave type relationship (if only emotionally), another would be fairly close, but they tend to not really value each others opinions on a good number of topics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to demain or belittle them, but just trying to point out that while they may definitely love each other, it's not True Love. It's not that all consuming, all caring, unconditional love of an equal. 

Oh, and I'd say if it isn't permanent, it isn't True Love. A relationship like that is built, and worked at, and firmly established. And yes, while it very difficult, it's difficult because you *must* except the other as your equal.  How many people do that in general, let alone AT ALL.  To be that strong, and get that far, it's already endured a lot, and would not fade. Not without a huge, live changing event (and no, cheating just means you weren't really in love).

    I agree with the basis of the first argument. True love is exceedingly. People seem to be mistaking love with True Love. I've loved many people, but wouldn't take a bullet for any of them, so it wasn't true love by the implied distinction.
    However, of you're examples, the first one (and in some cases the second, but I assume you weren't talking about BDSM) could still be true love. Maybe they do truly love eachother, but think marriage is a silly, nonfunctional institution.
   The second argument is just demonstrably wrong though. In Blood Rights

(click to show/hide)

they flat out say that true love doesn't last. That it fades over time. Thomas was awestruck that it had lasted so long on Harry with no contact from Susan.

 
   Its the emotions that matter, not the relationship. It doesn't have to be some, "We're going to be together forever and get married and have babies and die of old age together", thing (and if it did then I'd revise my argument of rarity to say it doesn't exist). You just have to be truly, passionately, uninhibitedly in love at the time. And even that is so exceedingly rare as to be almost nonexistent.

[Drashna]

I wasn't targeting any one particular person, I was just try to put out examples.

As for the +0 catch, I'd say +1 if it wasn't so hard to just weaponize these "tokens of True Love" without erasing the emotional significance of them.  I think it's +0 for a good reason, and that is a) True Love is hard to find, and b) it really only is only useful by those in the "grasp" (not the right word I'm looking for though) of it and that's mainly as a defensive/protective measure.  If you look at the item as something with a temp aspect on it, (such as "token of true love"), I'd say that in game, that the practical value of weaponizing it is NILL.

nyarlathotep, neither is a bdsm relationship. And from what I've observed of them (I am a good observer, I've been "on the fringes" of every group I've ever been a part of, for the most part, and generally enjoy watching people and how the interact. yes, I'm weird , like each other, yeah sure, but love.... not as much. Especially for that second couple... (he seeks out emotionally abusive relationships, much like the one he has with his parents, and is too afraid of being alone to leave any relationship *unless* it turns physically abusive).

And I'd agree with you about blood rights, but at that point, harry hadn't had another relationship. And I'd absolutely interpret that as the effects/protection provided by it fades without re-affirmation of that love. And I do remember comments to the like that it does require acts of love to "keep it going".

[Becq]

The second argument is just demonstrably wrong though. In Blood Rights

(click to show/hide)

they flat out say that true love doesn't last. That it fades over time. Thomas was awestruck that it had lasted so long on Harry with no contact from Susan.

You missed a very key point, which I've put in bold:

Oh, and I'd say if it isn't permanent, it isn't True Love. A relationship like that is built, and worked at, and firmly established. And yes, while it very difficult, it's difficult because you *must* except the other as your equal.  How many people do that in general, let alone AT ALL.  To be that strong, and get that far, it's already endured a lot, and would not fade. Not without a huge, live changing event (and no, cheating just means you weren't really in love).

I think that if you can't come up with a "huge, life-changing event" that occured with regards to Harry and Susan's relationship, then you aren't really reading the books.    The surprise was that Harry still experienced true love despite the very, very significant event that occured, especially given Harry's past history with such subjects.

[Amelia Crane]

My real point is that there is a discrepancy between the cost as written and the guidelines.  People seem to say "It's worth zero because love is so rare."  But ignore that rare isn't +0 by the guidelines.  I just want people to recognize that there is a difference between the guidelines and the implementation.  My solution will be to revisit and redefine the guidelines.

As for magic being more common than love:
Chicagoans who have True Magic:

(click to show/hide)

(4) Molly, Harry, Victor Sells, Kravos

Chicagoans who have True Love:

(click to show/hide)

(10) Harry, Susan, Arturo Genosa, Joan Dallas, Thomas, Justine, Billy, Georgia, Michael, Charity

[deathwombat]

I thought True Magic could also be any practitioner of any skill or power level?

[Becq]

Yup.  You need to add all of those minor talents, like whats-his-name the Ectomancer, and many other members of the Paranet.