Playing "Free Will-less" Characters

[LMage]

So, the biggest component of the Dresden Files RPG is the Fate System, which is all about Free Will, you refresh represents your power to control your own fate, power you cede bit by bit as your grant take supernatural powers. The more powerful you become the more you become a device of destiny rather then then a subject of it.

Which is all well and good, but what about those of us who want to play characters that aren't necessarily creatures of free will? Like say, a recently raised Sidhe that was not long ago a lesser Fae, or a random drifter that was turned into a Black Court Vampire against his will, or even a full on manipulative and Hunger embracing White Court vampire? Depending on how you set it up, these are all creatures that could have a positive refresh, and  be theoretically playable.

But yet they are creatures of nature rather then choice, in certain situations they simply have to act as their nature compels them too. But that's an extremely open ended thing. The Sidhe can't lie, but he can stretch the truth with exact words and achieve the end of lieing without actually doing it, the Black Court Vampire has to feed but he doesn't have to kill to do it, the White Court vampire that's fully embraced her hunger has to act on it, maybe even has to kill with it, but she gets to deiced how she uses it.

It's playing a "nature" character, even with a positive refresh, just not something that can be done, or if you do it right can a creature without free will still be dynamic and interesting in play?

[Sanctaphrax]

My reading is that a Black Court Vampire can't choose whether or not to kill. It can't choose who to kill, either. It can't even choose whether to scratch its nose.

No free will means no choices at all. Not even trivial ones.

That being said, I'd probably let you play one. By an astonishing coincidence the things your character would be compelled to do by its nature would be the same as the things you wanted it to do, barring Compels.

I just don't care enough to tell you no, basically.

[LMage]

I'm not so sure. The Short Story that features Black Court Vampires in "Side Jobs" showed that even after death they are still capable of rational thought and motivations- they are by nature malicious, cruel, and monstrous, but they aren't mindless. That one Black Court woman (who had been around for a year or so) spent a huge chunk of time terrifying the people that had been awful to her in real life before getting around to killing them, and one that was with her that was only a few minutes old didn't even want to attack the store in the first place until she punched it in the face and threatened to dismember and drown it. Or something.

Free Will is always a tricky concept to pin down, which is why I bring it up here. Is it still free will if it's essentially Chose Between Bad Option A) and Bad Option B)? This sort of thing happens to Harry himself all the time, if because of circumstance rather then nature.

[Sanctaphrax]

Black Court Vampires aren't mindless. But being mindless and lacking free will are not the same thing.

I mean, you might not have free will. But you're definitely capable of thought.

[toturi]

It really depends on how you choose to answer the following questions.

1) Does a free-will-less character (like a BC or RC vampire) gain FPs from Compels?

2) Can a free-will-less character spend an FP to buy out of a Compel?

[Vairelome]

It really depends on how you choose to answer the following questions.

1) Does a free-will-less character (like a BC or RC vampire) gain FPs from Compels?

2) Can a free-will-less character spend an FP to buy out of a Compel?

1) Yes, that's how NPC monsters get FP.

2) No, that's what not having free will means within the mechanics of the game.

I'd be surprised to see any other answers to those questions, assuming you want to stick with JB's metaphysics.

My reading is that a Black Court Vampire can't choose whether or not to kill. It can't choose who to kill, either. It can't even choose whether to scratch its nose.

No free will means no choices at all. Not even trivial ones.

I don't agree with this interpretation at all.  Lack of free will within JB's metaphysics means that you may not act outside of your nature: given the "choice" between only Option A and Option B, you absolutely must pick Option A if Option B would run counter to your nature (represented by your aspects, especially your high concept).  If both options would be congruent with your nature (i.e. you would not be facing a compel to choose one of the two), then either option is available at your discretion.

[toturi]

1) Yes, that's how NPC monsters get FP.

2) No, that's what not having free will means within the mechanics of the game.

I'd be surprised to see any other answers to those questions, assuming you want to stick with JB's metaphysics.

I suppose this approach may work for simple monsters with straightforward motivations and natures. But I am not sure if this approach can work for the more complex NPCs with (sometimes directly) contradictory Aspects.

[Troy]

This question reminds me of the time I was STing a World of Darkness game and the discussion among the group turned to one of the PCs being a serial killer. I was against the idea precisely because of this issue of Free Will and acting against your nature. I didn't put it in the words of the Dresden Files game, but when I read the game, I immediately understood what they were talking about.

After I was able to establish that Dexter is absolutely utter fiction, I was able to get them to listen to my points. I wasn't claiming any special knowledge as a psychiatrist or anything, but I am sort of a serial killer-phile. I explained to them that serial killers kill people. It's what they fantasize about, it's what they think about, all their goals revolve around get hold of a victim so they can kill them in whichever manner they prefer. While you plan to take vacation from work or school, they plan how to kill someone. While you have aspirations of growing up and being an astronaut, they have aspirations of killing someone. While you adopt a pet for affection and companionship, they adopt a pet to practice killing. Sharks swim, bees buzz, serial killers kill. It's a compulsion.

They argued with me for a long time, too. In retrospect, I'm grateful for their attempt to empathize with the likes of a serial killer. I blame Dexter for that sort of thing. They would counter me with things like "Serial killers has life goals and aspirations outside of killing people. Look at Ted Bundy -- he was in college! That's proof that he wanted something more out of life." And I was like, "Yeah. Who were Ted Bundy's victims?"

It's like saying, "Look at Gacy! He was a part-time children's entertainer. That's proof that he aspired to bring joy to the world!" And I would be saying, "Yeah. Who were Gacy's victims?"

If that's the kind of character you want to play, then go ahead and play. I'm more libertarian when it comes to letting people play what they want to play then I was back when I had that debate. Also, the FATE system is built to accommodate playing a character with no soul, a character with no Free Will, a creature of their nature, a creature of compulsion.

Say that I was your GM and I wanted to prove a point to you about playing a "monster" with no Free Will. Every time you tried to do something to help the group or to further your goals, I Compelled your Aspect BLACK COURT VAMPIRE so that you killed your contact, your ally, your friend. If not kill them, at least attack them and attempt to eat them. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...

What would you do?

[toturi]

Say that I was your GM and I wanted to prove a point to you about playing a "monster" with no Free Will. Every time you tried to do something to help the group or to further your goals, I Compelled your Aspect BLACK COURT VAMPIRE so that you killed your contact, your ally, your friend. If not kill them, at least attack them and attempt to eat them. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...

What would you do?

Say everytime you Compelled the Aspect BLACK COURT VAMPIRE, another Aspect is also applies to the situation and may be Compelled. Will you as the GM Compel that other Aspect?

[Vairelome]

I suppose this approach may work for simple monsters with straightforward motivations and natures. But I am not sure if this approach can work for the more complex NPCs with (sometimes directly) contradictory Aspects.

Well, I didn't make the metaphysics or the system, but that's my understanding of the design presented.  NPC monsters should be played thoroughly to their Aspects (for multiple reasons, one of which is that players ought to be able to guess those Aspects and take advantage of that knowledge).  Contradictory Aspects makes that process more complicated, but if you can convey that complexity without confusing your players, by all means, do so.

[toturi]

Well, I didn't make the metaphysics or the system, but that's my understanding of the design presented.  NPC monsters should be played thoroughly to their Aspects (for multiple reasons, one of which is that players ought to be able to guess those Aspects and take advantage of that knowledge).  Contradictory Aspects makes that process more complicated, but if you can convey that complexity without confusing your players, by all means, do so.

Which is why I think your understanding of the metaphysic and the system are incorrect. I think that every once in a while, the monster may act in a manner that is essentially paying off the Compels with previously accumulated FPs.

[Troy]

Say everytime you Compelled the Aspect BLACK COURT VAMPIRE, another Aspect is also applies to the situation and may be Compelled. Will you as the GM Compel that other Aspect?

Can you elaborate, please?

[toturi]

Can you elaborate, please?

It is along the same lines as I suggested earlier - contradictory Aspects. Say that the character has a contradictory Aspect that when Compelled forces the character to act in a manner completely opposite his other Aspect. For the sake of argument, the GM Compels one Aspect to compel the character to feed, but another Aspect contradicts the first and could be Compelled for the character to not feed. Technically both Aspects are applicable but will the GM Compel both?

[Gilitine_Memitim]

I don't think it's a good idea as long as the other PC's are Mortals with their free will intact. It's just that Mortals are treated too much as food/prey for most monsters to have a true partnership/ working relationship. Your going to try and kill each other the first chance you get if your role playing it right. However if it was a game where all PC's where non-freewill monsters I could see it working, for the simple reasons most monsters won't just outright attack each other thanks to the relations between the different species.

[Troy]

It is along the same lines as I suggested earlier - contradictory Aspects. Say that the character has a contradictory Aspect that when Compelled forces the character to act in a manner completely opposite his other Aspect. For the sake of argument, the GM Compels one Aspect to compel the character to feed, but another Aspect contradicts the first and could be Compelled for the character to not feed. Technically both Aspects are applicable but will the GM Compel both?

If the case were that reasonable, I wouldn't have Compelled the prior Aspect at all.