Losing True Believer Powers

[Drachasor]

The character was true believer who had his family killed by Vampires and so permanently linked his faith to the destruction of monsters as its primary goal (though his definition of monsters is not defined very well) he is a character ruthlessly seeking vengeance and using his faith as an excuse. As a character though he is moving further and further away from a faith based justification and is now pretty much at the level of he is this because he wants too which was why the change in his powers came up, as at the moment the only thing his character seems to believe in is himself and his revenge. 

Maybe Nemisis (Greek Goddess of Vengeance) should show up and offer to make him her champion.

[sinker]

This seems like a situation that could be resolved with an actual crisis of faith. Talk to the player and ask him if he would mind if you presented a session that was primarily about his faith and where it may lead in the future. If he agrees then present him with a situation where his faith and his personal agenda diverge. If he picks his faith then an occasional gentle reminder in the form of compels would probably be enough to keep him at least close to where he should be (seems to me that what he's doing right now is only a little outside of the realm of reason). If he chooses his own personal agenda then I'd say go for it, strip his powers, but give him something else. Perhaps a darker sponsor.

Looking at other literacy examples, Jim Butcher mentions that he reads Simon R Green, and Simon R Green recently had a book where the Walking Man (the wrath of God among men) arrived in the Nightside, bringing death to the wicked.  He's called the Walking Man because when he comes for you he walks in a straight line - nothing can stop him and he can kill practically anything while nothing can harm him.  When various targets talk about repenting and God's forgiveness, the Walking Man calmly says "Not my department" and kills them.   When other representatives of God try to talk to him the Walking Man basically ignores them - because they aren't his department.  Narrow vision and armed with the Wrath of God - that's interesting take on a soldier of God.  I'm thinking maybe Morgan as a Knight of the Cross.

Of note I didn't like the nightside books when I first gave them a try but this sounds awesome.

[noclue]

I really didn't have a problem with how the character actually acting is providing all sorts of fallout for later in the game and as he is not picking fights with the rest of the party so they are ok with him acting chaotic neutral rather than lawful good. The only reason I had a problem with his true faith abilities is because I am not sure a character who being roleplayed as venal self-serving and just a little bit sadistic should have a power called righteousness.   

Well, if it's not a player problem than you could just ask the player that question. Or offer him a Compel on the True Sword of God aspect to say that God has removed his favor.

[Richard_Chilton]

Eh, altruism, self-sacrifice, kindness and such is only human as well.

That does describe human, but not (at least in my mind) "Only Human".  "Only Human" (to me) implies all the frailties and flaws of the human condition.  Listing it as a trouble implies negative bits of being human - especially if his high concept is linked to the divine.

Then again, I don't know what sparked the Aspect.
"When called upon to do god's work he pushed himself, time after time, hour after hour, always know that there was more that needed to be done.  After falling asleep on the 43rd hour of staking out a warlock's house, he accepted that he was Only Human, and that while god's will needed to be done he couldn't surpass his human limitations to do it." - Only Human here is about the limitation of a mortal body.

"While following a suspect warlock, a hot girl approached him and started talking to him.  He answered her back and they started talking and he is Only Human he lost sight of the warlock." - Only Human here is tied to temptation (and inspired by a scene in Dr. Horrible).

"He knew he should kill the demon, but the demon was in the body of a six year old girl who was cute as a button.  True, the angel had said that the girl was already dead, that demon had possessed her dead body, but he was Only Human and could bring himself to shoot." - Only Human here is tied to personal morality overriding divine commands.

That's the same aspect with three very different meanings.

Richard

[Praeceps]

The character was true believer who had his family killed by Vampires and so permanently linked his faith to the destruction of monsters as its primary goal (though his definition of monsters is not defined very well) he is a character ruthlessly seeking vengeance and using his faith as an excuse. As a character though he is moving further and further away from a faith based justification and is now pretty much at the level of he is this because he wants too which was why the change in his powers came up, as at the moment the only thing his character seems to believe in is himself and his revenge. 

If he believes the purpose of his faith is the destruction of monsters, no matter what, then he sounds like he's still pretty in character (and ignoring the death of hostages is a very appropriate thing to do). Just ask him to indicate in character that what he is doing is part of his faith (he only really needs to do simple things like shouting about how the enemy will see the fury of the White God or peppering his speech with religious lines like "As God wills").

[Richard_Chilton]

Hmm, does the PLAYER understand that not giving a dang about people's lives and such is not very ethical?  (Ethics and faith are two separate things, remember).  It does seem like a problem if the character doesn't actually have any beliefs.  Maybe you should sit down and try to figure that part out.  If his faith tells him it is ok to be venal and a total jerk, then that can potentially be alright.  Kind of odd for the Abrahamic Religions (at the very least they've been big proponents of their own communities).

Actually, it's not that out of place.

When talking ethics you have to consider the source.  Ethics gleamed from divine teachings can be different than those gleamed from humanitarianism research.

Fire and Brimstone type judgment is the cornerstone of some sects.  Some sects believe in something called "unforgivable sin" (they don't agree on the definition of that) and then you have Kalvin's "everyone who is destined to be save will be saved; everyone who destined to be damned will be damned".

He killed a fairy that might or might not have been evil? Another way of looking at it is that he killed this thing from another world who was plaguing God's Children, interfering with their freewill, and had to be dealt with.  As an aside, I could easily picture Micheal (in his prime) going toe to toe with Harry's Godmother over what she does with mortals.

He ignored the fact that there was a hostage? Another way: he trusted in God to protect the innocence while he dealt with the evil doer.  If the hostage dies then it's all part of God's plan and that evil doer had to be dealt with before he harmed others.

Knowing that someone is on a mission from God makes them scary.  They believe they have divine permission to do whatever needs to be done, trusting in God to protect them from Illinois Nazis, country singers, and state police as they rush to pay the tax money on that orphanage.  Yes, I'm saying that (in Dresden terms) Jake from the Blues Brothers was the vessel of Faith powers that he could tap to get that money and get it to the court house on time.

Seems like he'd make a lot more sense as a worshiper of some god of battle that believed you had to test yourself in conflict and you could only find any inkling of true meaning that way -- guys like that can be real psychopaths.

Just pointing out that every religion has victory prayers.  One of the reasons for the great shift away from religion that followed WWI was that all sides were praying to the same god for victory (the one was "what sort of god would allow this"?).  A true holy warrior is very scary and virtually all faiths have had them.

Richard

[Richard_Chilton]

Of note I didn't like the nightside books when I first gave them a try but this sounds awesome.

The book it's from is called Just Another Judgment Day, and it's an interesting one.  All of the power of the Nightside (including things that call themselves gods) can't do anything to stop The Walking Man or defend themselves from him.  One of the people trying to solve things is a holy warrior from another religion who wants to know who's god is bigger, and then there's Razor Eddie - punk god of the straight razor who's on the side of good and good doesn't get a choice about it.

It's a bit like Simon R Green was DMing and said "Okay, this week we're dealing with something that you can't fight so you'll have to reason things out" - and it works.

Richard

[Drachasor]

He killed a fairy that might or might not have been evil? Another way of looking at it is that he killed this thing from another world who was plaguing God's Children, interfering with their freewill, and had to be dealt with.  As an aside, I could easily picture Micheal (in his prime) going toe to toe with Harry's Godmother over what she does with mortals.

It was a job he got from another faerie.  He seems to blindly accept whatever offers he gets and completely ignore any and all consequences of his actions.  As far as his sense of ethics go, they suck.  As far as his sense of responsibility goes, it sucks as well.  It's one thing to claim he has faith that stuff will work out (the problems with that we can't really get into on this forum), but it's another to not use the slightest ounce of brainpower worrying about traps, tricks, or other the like.  The latter he's definitely doing.  A Fae goes "you could say he's evil" (or the equivalent of that) well, that means zip, zero, nada, you can say anyone is evil.  You could say Ghandi was evil.  You could say Martin Luther King Jr. was evil.  You'd be completely wrong, but you could say that.

From what the OP says, he's not bothering to do the least bit of fact checking or care regarding what he does.  I actually take back the Nemesis idea, because that wouldn't fit him either.  At best he's a mercenary that cares very little what sort of job he gets.  That's how it is looking.  Here's a question for the OP:  If a fae offered him a job to kill a pure mortal, and that fae said "you could say they are evil" would he do the job?  Let's say it pays really well.

Oh, and Fae technically don't interfere with Free Will much at all.  A Fae has zero power over you except the power you choose to give it.  That's why Michael said he couldn't do anything in the 3rd book, because Harry chose to give his Godmother power over him.  The exception would be if you gave away your first born or something, but that seems to be pretty darn rare.

[Katarn]

I agree, Fae can't take free will.  To quote Ebeneezer in Changes,

(click to show/hide)

She (Mab) might lean on you pretty hard.  Try to put you in a box you don't want to be in.  But don't let her.  She can't take away your free will.  Even if she can make it seem that way.  That's the one things all these dark beings and powers can't do.  Take away your ability to choose.  They can kill you.  They can make you do things- but they can't make you choose to do 'em.  They almost always try to lie to you about that.  Don't fall for it.

(Evil is a relative term, often defined by "universal" standards.  I think that this person should do their research before offing someone, shy of getting divine inspiration.)

While I don't think aspects have to come in, a GM should discuss this with the player before going ahead- it makes great plot.  There's also a Christian theory that God is sometimes silent so that we can grow spiritually- the same idea could apply here.

[devonapple]

My objective opinion is that this character needs to be rebuilt, and is in direct violation of most of its purported morality.

I can come up with any number of ideas on how to discourage the player from playing as you are reporting. Most of these methods have already been suggested, effectively and eloquently, almost to the point of needing to stretch out into some very sensitive ground to further expand understanding.

However, if this character - as played - is working in your game, then please take what I/we think with a grain of salt. Ultimately, you, your fellow players, and your GM are the best arbiters of what will work for your game.

[Drachasor]

However, if this character - as played - is working in your game, then please take what I/we think with a grain of salt. Ultimately, you, your fellow players, and your GM are the best arbiters of what will work for your game.

Agreed.  Sounds like the main problem people in the game are having is "character incoherency."  So reworking the character so that the aspects and powers make sense with his behavior so everyone in the group is happy with it seems like a good goal.  If the OP wants help with that, a list of his aspects powers, and some more detail on the sort of stuff he's done that's very mercenary or disregards consequences or sense would be nice.

[bitterpill]

You know that Fae i mentioned who was asking the pc to kill a pixie as well as giving the character information as to where the red court nests were in the area also offered the character a rather powerful sword (Caladbolg) in exchange for a large favour the PC refused at the time but the offer remains open, so if I persuade the PC that offer was a good he will replace his Angel Blade (Asrael) and his True Believer powers for a sword with recovery and strength powers.   

[sinker]

Knowing that someone is on a mission from God makes them scary.

John Brown was on a mission from god.

Anyway, sounds like you could very easily present him with the choice to renounce his faith. I'd say go for it.

[Drachasor]

You know that Fae i mentioned who was asking the pc to kill a pixie as well as giving the character information as to where the red court nests were in the area also offered the character a rather powerful sword (Caladbolg) in exchange for a large favour the PC refused at the time but the offer remains open, so if I persuade the PC that offer was a good he will replace his Angel Blade (Asrael) and his True Believer powers for a sword with recovery and strength powers.  

I am just wondering if he has many aspects relating to his faith.  Is his faith clearly defined?  Did he take the Fae job just because he doesn't consider non-humans as having any moral worth?  Under what circumstances would he not take a job?  Why'd the PC refuse Caladbolg?  Was it because he wanted to stick to a holy sword or because he didn't want to do the big favor?

Edit:  Clearly I am just going to have to bug Bitterpill's computer and gaming sessions.  *sigh*  That's always a lot of tedious work.

[bitterpill]

Why'd the PC refuse Caladbolg?  Was it because he wanted to stick to a holy sword or because he didn't want to do the big favor?

The PC refused Caladbolg I think because it involved owing a Winter/ Autumn Fae a large favour which is a very good reason not to do anything, my idea when offering up the fae sword was to get the PC to change from a not 'knight of the cross' to a not 'fairy knight' as to aspects on  his belief other than 'supreme over confididence' and 'no mercy for the wicked' I told him to pick things I would compel a lot.