Monsters and Free Will

[newtinmpls]

NON specific SPOILER warning - can't recall what book



Interesting scenario: "joe the black court vamp may feel something for humans he cared about in life but if hes hungry hes not going to be motivated by said feeling to not eat them, a bc vamp may be eating his/her own child and think ah i reconize this one, interesting. This should probably be upsetting me but it tastes so /good/."

I'll start with "of course YMMV", and say that I see more a continuum than an either/or. Vamps (to run with that example) are so driven by their hunger that "er... who was that?" is and can only easily be an afterthought. Human beings are driven as well by various things, only 1-relatively less forcefully and 2-they are really good at denial.

Isn't there a point in one of the books where a powerful goodie comments that while humans certainly do have the power of choice, they don't use it very much at all. So in my world monsters do have choice, perhaps less so than humans, but they have it, few of them use it.

[polkaneverdies]

"the warrior" spoilers: I believe you are referencing what uriel says in the warrior.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Here, I'll settle the issue as far as the DFRPG goes... It's exactly as hard for a <=0 refresh being to exercise free will as it is to convince the GM.

That said, mechanically monsters cannot act against compels against one of their aspects. Unless someone tags/invokes one of their other aspects for a different result.  Anything not covered by one of their aspects isn't so much free will as it is inconsequential to who they fundamentally are.

Free will means a character can, with enough effort towards that goal, defy or even change any aspect up to and including their High Concept.  Those without it, can't;  though outside circumstances can alter them.

[Masurao]

I know that mechanically/technically the line between Free Will and Monster lies at about 0 Refresh, simply put. But would you say that the Merlin, as powerful as he is, perhaps is also more a 'creature' bound by what he is, as opposed to who? I am not taking into account that he is very old and is set in his ways or something, but more as a musing.

Another example: is Ebenezer McCoy, at his age, more defined by his free will or by his role in the White Council? I know it isn't the same as a negative refresh 'monster' like Mab or a vampire, but I was just wondering how you figure this one

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I know that mechanically/technically the line between Free Will and Monster lies at about 0 Refresh, simply put. But would you say that the Merlin, as powerful as he is, perhaps is also more a 'creature' bound by what he is, as opposed to who? I am not taking into account that he is very old and is set in his ways or something, but more as a musing.

Another example: is Ebenezer McCoy, at his age, more defined by his free will or by his role in the White Council? I know it isn't the same as a negative refresh 'monster' like Mab or a vampire, but I was just wondering how you figure this one

As many Major Milestones as those two have had, they probably have a base refresh of at least 30.  The Merlin is likely skirting around as close to 0 as he can get without crossing it.  I say that based on his supreme lack of doing anything out of character unless absolutely forced.  McCoy probably has at least 4 to spare.

[polkaneverdies]

Their respective aspects would also help to account for their actions and demeanor.

[Sanctaphrax]

Negative refresh characters are philosophical zombies*.

Or maybe not. But I find the idea interesting.

*Wikipedia explains this term rather well.

[Silverblaze]

First: I need to find a copy of the book "Even Hand" is from and cannot do so.  What is the title?

Second: Free Will is easy.  All it requires is positive refresh. By that same token, if you let a player pick up the role of a fae or black court vampire...for game purposes (cannon notwithstanding) you just gave it free will.  We can wax philosophical about it all day, but in the end...according to the system it is as easy as that. 

[The Mighty Buzzard]

First: I need to find a copy of the book "Even Hand" is from and cannot do so.  What is the title?

Second: Free Will is easy.  All it requires is positive refresh. By that same token, if you let a player pick up the role of a fae or black court vampire...for game purposes (cannon notwithstanding) you just gave it free will.  We can wax philosophical about it all day, but in the end...according to the system it is as easy as that.

Yeah, "because I said so and I'm the GM" works for pretty much everything but snaking someone's beer.

[Lanir]

"Even Hand", published in Dark and Stormy Knights (July 20, 2010, ISBN 0312598343)

[Richard_Chilton]

Another example: is Ebenezer McCoy, at his age, more defined by his free will or by his role in the White Council? I know it isn't the same as a negative refresh 'monster' like Mab or a vampire, but I was just wondering how you figure this one

I think I know the answer for this one - McCoy has freewill.

There are many things that Blackstaff wouldn't or shouldn't do that McCoy does.  Most of his relationship with Harry is made up of awkward "I shouldn't really be doing this" things he does that the Blackstaff should - from taking him as an apprentice onward.  Yes, the Blackstaff was the ideal person to put down the Harry down if he goes rogue, but why would the Blackstaff intervene? No, there's no reason for "McCoy as defined by his role in the White Council" to do anything to help Harry but there's plenty of reasons for "McCoy the human being" to decide to shrug off his responsibility to White Council and help Harry.

Richard

[Richard_Chilton]

First: I need to find a copy of the book "Even Hand" is from and cannot do so.  What is the title?

Second: Free Will is easy.  All it requires is positive refresh. By that same token, if you let a player pick up the role of a fae or black court vampire...for game purposes (cannon notwithstanding) you just gave it free will.  We can wax philosophical about it all day, but in the end...according to the system it is as easy as that.

I don't think that's a good answer as it would deny the vast, vast majority of humanity (i.e. all the NPCs) freewill and that's something that the setting doesn't support.  For PCs the dividing line is positive refresh, but for NPCs there are "monsters" and beings with freewill.

McCoy can decide to duck his responsibilities as the Blackstaff to take care of something else, but Mab is Mab.

Now here's a spoiler for GS:

(click to show/hide)

Harry encounters someone/something he can communicate with that doesn't have freewill.  He tells it to do something other than what it's meant to do and the response is that is can't.  Harry says it's easy, just decide to do X, and it says something like 'It's easy for a human to do that, but I lack freewill'.

It's not some kind of robot - it can make decisions, decide what is the best way of doing something, react to changes in its environment, talk and reason, but it can't say "take this job and shove it".  It will intelligently complete its task but it can't decide if should complete its task.

Second, Even Hand was in the book Dark and Stormy Knights - a collection of stories about dark 'heroes'.  Several of the stories (well, at least 2) were done from the points of view of secondary (and dark) characters from on going series.  It's one of three stories (Even Hand, the story from Our World, and Curses) that wasn't collected in Side Jobs.

Richard
(who still has to track down Curses)

[newtinmpls]

Comment: Free Will is easy.  All it requires is positive refresh. By that same token, if you let a player pick up the role of a fae or black court vampire...for game purposes (cannon notwithstanding) you just gave it free will.  We can wax philosophical about it all day, but in the end...according to the system it is as easy as that.

Reply: I don't think that's a good answer as it would deny the vast, vast majority of humanity (i.e. all the NPCs) freewill and that's something that the setting doesn't support.  For PCs the dividing line is positive refresh, but for NPCs there are "monsters" and beings with freewill.

Say what? I'm not following how allowing a player a monster character and granting it free will does much of anything to the "vast vast majority of humanity?"

Did I miss something (just home from a night shift, so that's certainly plausable)

[Richard_Chilton]

Comment: Free Will is easy.  All it requires is positive refresh. By that same token, if you let a player pick up the role of a fae or black court vampire...for game purposes (cannon notwithstanding) you just gave it free will.  We can wax philosophical about it all day, but in the end...according to the system it is as easy as that.

Reply: I don't think that's a good answer as it would deny the vast, vast majority of humanity (i.e. all the NPCs) freewill and that's something that the setting doesn't support.  For PCs the dividing line is positive refresh, but for NPCs there are "monsters" and beings with freewill.

Say what? I'm not following how allowing a player a monster character and granting it free will does much of anything to the "vast vast majority of humanity?"

Did I miss something (just home from a night shift, so that's certainly plausable)

Maybe I missed something.  What I read in the "make it a PC and it has freewill" is that PCs (and only PCs) have freewill - and since the vast majority of beings out there won't be PCs...

Otherwise, the RAW say that certain things don't have freewill and aren't available as PCs.  If a group agrees that they're fine with someone playing X with a freewill then that's great for that group but that's not the RAW.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think that's what Silverblaze meant.

I think he was saying that

A) Anything with positive refresh has free will.
B) A PC must have positive refresh.
C) Therefore, a PC must have free will.