Discussion: Faeries as Player Characters - Why (and How) or Why Not

[KOFFEYKID]

Aside from the perspective that says that changelings become NPC's when they make the choice, why would you allow or disallow them, and if you do allow them, how do you handle it?

Do you have any specific house rules in place regarding them?

What do you think of the impact regarding free will vs. nature is if they are allowed?

[HumAnnoyd]

In my current game we have a PC who is a Fae who used to be part of the Spring Court but when it fell he joined Summer.  Over the centuries he made many bargains that he eventually cashed in gaining Free Will with the goal of restoring the Spring Court.  Unfortunately for him he lost almost all of his power as a Fae Lord and was exiled to Seattle in the bargain.  He also alienated all of his political allies.  So while he is the Lord of All Things Green and Growing he has very little power political or supernatural.  In fact he is currently sleeping on the couch of an aging Warden.  He has made for a very interesting character in our game.

[benign]

My group allows them, and has had faerie and sidhe characters before. Of course, all those characters had some unspent refresh, so they did have "free will", though they were subject to the normal can't lie, can't break their word type restrictions. Never had a problem with them, they were all fun, interesting characters.

[Katarn]

In straight mechanics, they don't have free will and are merely servitors of a Queen or Court.  I don't see how they could obtain "free will" by any known DF canon, but if a GM wants to give them free will or forego that detail it's their call- they're fun characters to play.  Personally, I'd allow them depending on the context.

However, if you're working for a Court you can ignore the free will issue as long as the character acts in concert with his/her court.

[devonapple]

I don't have any such situation  in any of my games at the moment, but if so, having free Refresh and a supporting back story would be paramount.

One worry is that such a setup would tread into the Winter/Summer Knights' baileywicks. However, since there's only supposed to be ONE of each in the whole world, having alternates to a Winter/Summer Knight would be just as tolerable as having non-sword-wielding Holy Warriors (who serve as Knights of the Cross in everything but weapon and back story).

[KOFFEYKID]

So it appears that some other folks have OK'ed the idea as well.

Mechanically speaking I cant see a reason for a faerie to be difficult to include, no more so than the average wizard as far as mechanical complications go.

Can anybody tell me a tale of a specific incident in which a Faerie's "vulnerabilities" came up and how you handled it? Im just wanting to see how others deal with the no lying and being bound to a promised answered three times etcetera.

[Tedronai]

In straight mechanics, they don't have free will and are merely servitors of a Queen or Court.

(Most) Wyldfae serve no Court, and no Queen.  Canonically, they still retain no free will.

On the practical side, I'd recommend that any Fae PCs that are allowed in to a game have an exceptionally low unspent refresh.

[Silverblaze]

The perils of playing a fae is no lying and being held to one's word...and that whole bargain impulse.

Simply make them have related aspects so they get fate points for it?

[Richard_Chilton]

The perils of playing a fae is no lying and being held to one's word...and that whole bargain impulse.

The Sidhe have that restriction, but I'm not sure if the others do.  For example, the threatens that Toot-Toot made in Storm Front.

Richard

[benign]

I had a character who was basically sidhe (I won't bore you with the details). He had to tell the truth, had to keep his word, was scarred by iron etc. Off the top of my head I recall one incident where he was in a real estate office, trying to distract the realtor while his allies investigated the back of the office. I started by saying that I was in the market to buy a building, etc., but then the GM tossed a compel against my high concept at me: I wasn't actually looking for a building to buy, I was really there as a distraction, and my character couldn't lie.

Chagrined, I thought for a moment, then told the realtor something to the effect of "I have a lot of money available right now (true, my character had 4 resources and the Lush Lifestyle stunt) and my current office space is a little small for my expanding business (also true, though my character didn't care enough to look for a larger one; he liked his current arrangement), do you have any attractive building spaces listed that might suit my needs?"

In this way I didn't tell an untruth, but I left the impression that I was looking to buy without ever coming out and saying so.

Another time I gave my word to an old acquaintance that I would do whatever it took to save her granddaughter's life. Later on we got in a huge fight, and the granddaughter was on her back two zones away, surrounded by ghosts and cultists. Normally my character stuck to the back, sniping, but my GM tossed another compel at me. I needed to fulfill my word, and right now the girl was in danger. With a sigh, I broke away from the rest of my group and struck out alone into the center of the fight, and managed to save her life, though not before more complications ensued and were dealt with.

I also occasionally got compels for avoiding iron and such. Being sidhe introduces complications, but assuming the character knows what they are in for, they are the good kind that add excitement and make good memories.

[UmbraLux]

Aside from the perspective that says that changelings become NPC's when they make the choice, why would you allow or disallow them, and if you do allow them, how do you handle it?

As long as they maintain positive refresh, I don't have any objections.  It's worth noting that is a house rule - DFRPG rules them out.  I suspect Jim B simply wanted to maintain a human-centric world.

What do you think of the impact regarding free will vs. nature is if they are allowed?

This is based on refresh / fate chips in my game.  That said, a fae character would have his high concept compelled if he tried to lie...which makes lying difficult.  Similar issues with touching / using metal objects for both fae and changeling characters with a standard fae catch.

Can anybody tell me a tale of a specific incident in which a Faerie's "vulnerabilities" came up and how you handled it? Im just wanting to see how others deal with the no lying and being bound to a promised answered three times etcetera.

I've compelled the character to not pick up and use a gun.  So far, the issue of lying hasn't come up.

[Silverblaze]

The Sidhe have that restriction, but I'm not sure if the others do.  For example, the threatens that Toot-Toot made in Storm Front.

Richard

Ah thats true.

Though there is the outside chance Toot was seriously having delusions of grandeur and honestly believed himself capable of such things?  Likely not, so not lying may be a sidhe problem only?


As far as PC sidhe goes: I play alongside one.  It makes for great politics. 
I think sometimes his fae nature is contra productive to group dynamic and his hypocracy knows no bounds... but the same can be said about a great many playable templates.

I think it has a large impact on a game and should be carefully considered.  Ifthe group is ok with it, then the rules shouldn't really be a an obstacle.

[Richard_Chilton]

In this way I didn't tell an untruth, but I left the impression that I was looking to buy without ever coming out and saying so.

There's a wonderful example of this type of dialogue in one of Brust's early Vald books.  When questioned about a murder he did, with them using a "we know if you are lying" bit of magic on him, the result was:

I was asked things like, "When did you last see him alive?" and I'd say, "Oh, I don't know; he was always pretty dead," and they'd rebuke me sternly. They asked my opinion as to who killed him and I said that I believed he had killed himself. The Orb showed that I was telling the truth, and I was; messing with me the way he'd been doing was like asking to die. The only time the Orb caught me lying was when I made some remark about how overwhelmed I was to be speaking before such an august assembly.
---

Which is a great example of deceiving without lying.

Richard

[Becq]

There's a lot to be said for the argument that any creature with a minimum refresh cost less than the refresh level of the game counts as having enough free will to be a player character.  Technically, the Changeling template says that the character becomes an NPC when they accumulate enough powers that they run out of refresh, at which point their 'choice' become irrevocable.  This would imply that, for example, a Pixie Changeling in a submerged game could buy all -5 refresh worth of powers from the basic Pixie poweset and thereby become a full Pixie ... yet still not become an NPC.

There's also this blurb on OW41 abour Fae:

"At some point, a changeling must Choose whether to become totally fae or totally mortal.  If they go fae, they get all the powers of their type, but lose a lot of their free will."

Note that it says "a lot of" and not "all of", which also implies that at least some Fae count as having at least some free will (making them playable in much the same way that WCVs are).

On the other side of things, there are a couple of post-its on the bottom of OW57 (the Spectre entry):

"Does that -4 refresh mean that I could play a spectre with free will or something?"
"Not really. These things are low refresh-cost, but don’ t take that as an ind ication that they have free will. They’re tools, wielded by a binding necromancer."

So not everything that meets the refresh test counts as having free will.  So I guess the bottom line should be this: if you can make a compelling argument to your GM/table that a particular creature type would make for a suitable character template AND your refresh for that character type fits into the campaign budget, then goferit!

[Viatos]

I allow full Fae because the free will issue isn't really an issue. Harry Dresden will, when the chips are down, invariably do the right thing or as close to it as he can get - that he uses his free will to do so doesn't make his behavior any less predictable. A Fae character that acts in accordance with its nature can be played without particular difficulty; the player's free will is intact, after all, and part of the point of the Fae is being enigmatic. It's not like there is a meticulous code anywhere that describes what a Fae will do in any given situation; there are givens, like increasing their own power, laws of hospitality, and being honest, but perhaps not at the expense of powerful allies (IE, the equal-Refresh player characters).

In practical terms, there is almost no difference between a Fae and a sociopath with personal principles. I don't see why this would bar them from playability; they can even be benevolent or righteous, if being so is part of their nature. They just don't have the choice to "break character" and should be compelled accordingly.