Does the DresdenVerse default to Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil?

[Locnil]

NPC does not automatically equate to "boring character that no one in their right mind should ever one to play."

Yes, Lea is a pretty cool character. At the end of the day, she is still a NPC.

Of course, your table, your rules. But it always seemed to me that the fluff reason for Refresh was free will. And while there is also a mechanical reason (game balance), both narrative and rules are important in the DFRPG.

[Richard_Chilton]

True Fae have no free will, yup, check. Not sure how that translates into NPC status. You can

A) play a character without free will and still have a rich, rewarding roleplaying experience.

Not under the RAW.  That's why I keep repeating myself.

No freewill = not available as a PC.

Is not the Leanansidhe an interesting character? Doesn't she achieve her goals, even when they're at odds with her Court, because Faerie is tricksy?

She cannot do anything that is outside of her nature.  Example: Harry is dying.  Lea wants to save him BUT cannot do so unless he enters into a bargain with her.  If he won't, then she has no choice but to stand back and watch him die.

I could copy and paste, but I've done that several times and it hasn't gotten us anywhere.

Let me just say that Freewill is the core of the DV.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,28481.msg1220859.html#msg1220859

Included in Jim's statements is:
There is a rather long discussion as to what constitutes free will as an element in the back end of this book (Ghost Story).  Is what is presented and discussed as a concept, your own philosophy?  How did that come about, the idea that free will is making your choices based upon truth.

Right, and in the Dresden Files universe it's a vital component.  It's what devides mortals, human beings, from everybody else.  Is that we're the ones that have elements of both good and evil inside us, we're the ones who get to chose what to do.  And because that's who we are, we make the world around us through those choices.  The forces of the universe, these cosmic forces are always ballanced against one another, and we're the ones who can tilt that see-saw one way or another with our actions.  I think that is largely true in real life, but it is certainly a very fun, dramatic use of the concept of free will for writing with.  It's very important in general, and that's why Harry, as he's gotten more mature, he's striven so much harder to make sure that other people have a choice, you know, he's not trying to make choices for people any more, he's trying to make sure that they know what's going on, and can make an informed choice.
(from his discussion on if God is the Ultimate Good - back to the OT of this thread.  Listen to the panel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx8lOYZme1Y)

No freewill = no ability to "tilt that see-saw one way or another with our actions".

Richard

[Tedronai]

since Fae are slaves to their natures.

As I keep finding myself pointing out, that's a matter of how you narrate the compel mechanics, including refusals of compels.

[Viatos]

Not under the RAW.  That's why I keep repeating myself.

No freewill = not available as a PC.

You keep repeating yourself, yes. But so far every point you've brought up has been shot down by the game text, and guess what? So is this one. RAW is, when your refresh hits 0, you lose your free will and cannot be played. There is no RAW on playing characters who don't have free will in the first place, due to their inherent nature or some variety of curse. It's not covered, because it's a nebulous metaconcept with no place or purpose in game mechanics.

No freewill = no ability to "tilt that see-saw one way or another with our actions".

Sure. So? Think about the context - the sum total of power in the universe, minus human influence, comes out to 0. That...doesn't invalidate individuals. Mab is still powerful. Just because she's balanced by Titania doesn't mean she never does anything. She kills people, executes schemes, performs rituals, and gets to win if she can convince more of the universe to work with her then Titania, human influence or no. Because neither Court is 50% of the universe by itself. And a player character is much less; at the average level of play, there is no discernible difference between a free-willed PC and a monstrous one.

And, for like the third time, if it's really an issue for you personally, just give yourself free will. Again, it's a metaconcept. You can define things like that with an Aspect.

[Richard_Chilton]

There is no RAW on playing characters who don't have free will in the first place, due to their inherent nature or some variety of curse. It's not covered, because it's a nebulous metaconcept with no place or purpose in game mechanics.

Did you read devonapple's post where he quoted the RAW? Freewill is in the mechanics.

It is also in the setting that Jim Butcher defined (for this world).  Look through any of Jim's writing, his interviews, his post to this board and you will see that freewill is a defining concept of the DV.  The game mechanics are an attempt to bend FATE to the point where it can simulate the world - so why would they need to underline in red something so crucial to the setting?

There are several places where they explicitly talk about "invisible line that separates a mortal’s free will from a monster’s compulsion of nature" - if that is not proof enough for you then nothing will be.

Richard

[Viatos]

Once more:

1) There is no extant rule text barring playing a character without free will.
2) You can play a non-mortal character with free will.

No, vague allusions and the rules for dropping below 0 Refresh are not "enough proof". They're not "proof" of any kind.  Butcher feels that free will is very important, and I agree. That means you can tell awesome stories about its prevalence, and also squeeze extra gravitas out of its absence. You're spiralling farther and farther outside the core of things, searching for ever-more nebulous suggestions to extrapolate from rules you seem to believe set in stone, even though they don't actually exist.

This is the issue: I believe, and am supported by the game text, the developer commentary, and the author commentary upon whose work this game is based, that Dresdenverse is an urban fantasy kitchen sink setting and that DFRPG is an open, permissive toolkit.

You don't like that, for reasons you've outlined clearly. Balance, cohesion, et cetera. That's fine. Houserule the game as you like, lock templates, segregate powers, whatever. Alter the setting and rules however much you need to for your home game. But presenting your opinion as rules text in an online discussion isn't a great way to further that discussion. An extrapolated guess about developer intent is not the same as sidebar text, sidebar text is not the same as RAW, and RAW is mostly about enabling the player - the restrictions you're championing just aren't in there.

[Sanctaphrax]

I've lost track of this conversation.

But I guess that's okay.

I agree with what Silverblaze just said, for the record. I'd expect any fae PC to get hit with a lot of compels.

Which, I'd like to point out, is not some kind of crazy punishment for playing a faerie. It's just a restrictive concept, and compels come with that.

[Locnil]

Except, like you pointed out, that would mean the fae could buy out of their compels. meaning that they actually have a choice, thus, free will. Meaning that then they would be no difference between a fae PC and any other kind of PC.

[Sanctaphrax]

There are a few problems with what you just said.

1. You apparently didn't read or chose to disregard the sixth sentence of Silverblaze's post.
2. Negative refresh characters can still refuse compels if they get FP somehow.
3. Compels don't work that way. See Tedronai's posting history for an explanation.
4. Refresh is an out-of-game thing and free will is an in-game thing. The way they connect is malleable.

[Mr. Death]

Ooh boy, I step away for a little while and y'all add a whole page of discussion.

You're not alone, Silverblaze. I still agree with pretty much all you're saying.

Fae can certainly be PCs. I have to agree with Sanctaphrax, while Refresh is analogous to Free Will, buying out of a compel doesn't mean the Fae suddenly has the choice to defy its nature. It means that its nature isn't getting in the way. It doesn't mean that Mab has suddenly chosen to be nice and kind and fluffy, it means that Mab's nature as a cold, calculating, scheming Faerie Queen isn't hampering her.

[Silverblaze]

The book does say dropping to ZERO or less refresh makes your chracter unplayable.  It is now an NPC.

Viatos?  Do you just ignore this rule?  How do you limit refresh in your game? I'm genuinely curious.  Also, just genuinely cuirous.  Are you the type of person who likes to argue for the sake of it?  I'm also fine with that.  Just curious.

You don't have to believe 0 refresh means 0 Free-Will.  I can't make you.  No one can.  I do think that it is implied in the text.  That is all the proof anyone can attempt to give you.  It doesn't change the fact that zero refresh is no longer playable.  (like a Vampire in WW with zero humanity or path rating)  it is a balance factor or a game rule.  You can give it any narrative in game reason you like.

If this rule is ignored; it is no different than - not using fate points - not using social combat- not having wizards exist.  A house rule of your choosing, likely not a common one.

[Viatos]

The book does say dropping to ZERO or less refresh makes your chracter unplayable.  It is now an NPC.

I'm getting a little sick of repeating myself, and then someone circles back around to a point that's been dealt with. I've answered this several times now.

TL;DR Yes, having 0 Refresh makes a character unplayable. However, you can play a character without free will without instantly dropping to 0 Refresh. Say, a mortal whose soul has been stolen, or a golem who has been commanded to live freely, or a young sidhe, or a half-BCV (Reds have Infected, Whites have Virgins, let's say Blacks have Brides).

[Silverblaze]

We can possibly agree on that fact that not having Free-Will may not = Zero Refresh.

Prety sure halfs; "half-BCV (Reds have Infected, Whites have Virgins, let's say Blacks have Brides)." have Free-Will anyway.

[Locnil]

There are a few problems with what you just said.

1. You apparently didn't read or chose to disregard the sixth sentence of Silverblaze's post.
2. Negative refresh characters can still refuse compels if they get FP somehow.
3. Compels don't work that way. See Tedronai's posting history for an explanation.
4. Refresh is an out-of-game thing and free will is an in-game thing. The way they connect is malleable.

Ah. Well, my bad, then.

Hmm. Come to think of it, has these boards come to a conclusion on how negative refresh characters can get FP? Compels, yes, but then there is the matter of negative refresh..

[Silverblaze]

Ah. Well, my bad, then.

Hmm. Come to think of it, has these boards come to a conclusion on how negative refresh characters can get FP? Compels, yes, but then there is the matter of negative refresh..

I'd say on an event that allows you to refresh fate points they would lose fate points equal to their negative rating.  They could still gain them due to compels yes.

This board hasn't reached a consensus ever ( forums arely do), howver we used to come far closer than what we do lately.  We as a community rarely agree on much lately.  As can be evidenced by the latest threads and posts over the last month.