ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: LMage on April 28, 2013, 06:04:27 AM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I suggest that you guys might be overthinking it slightly.
Characters with free will have a Refresh rate. The ones who don't, don't.
At the very least, it means that starting a game with a PC without free will, you start with 0 fate points. Whatever compel the GM first throws at you, you have to take it, because you lack the FP to buy out of it. You will probably also take the next couple compels, so you have them to spend in a big fight, or to buy out of a compel at a more crucial moment so you don't give in to your urge to eat your allies or whatever.
And now you're back to being starved of FP, so you have to take the compel eventually, or even start self-compelling. Rinse and repeat.
Observe how very, very entrapped by your lack of Refresh your character is.
There we go.
It now merely gets into which Aspects the GM will compel to make life difficult for you, and how. If it's agreed at your table to go easy on the Aspects which might encourage back-stabbing allies, then you can totally have a varied party (Blampire, pure mortal, true believer, etc.) working together, sure. Stranger things have happened in real life.
-
That makes total sense to me. Thank you!
-
I suggest that you guys might be overthinking it slightly.
Characters with free will have a Refresh rate. The ones who don't, don't.
At the very least, it means that starting a game with a PC without free will, you start with 0 fate points. Whatever compel the GM first throws at you, you have to take it, because you lack the FP to buy out of it. You will probably also take the next couple compels, so you have them to spend in a big fight, or to buy out of a compel at a more crucial moment so you don't give in to your urge to eat your allies or whatever.
And now you're back to being starved of FP, so you have to take the compel eventually, or even start self-compelling. Rinse and repeat.
Observe how very, very entrapped by your lack of Refresh your character is.
There we go.
It now merely gets into which Aspects the GM will compel to make life difficult for you, and how. If it's agreed at your table to go easy on the Aspects which might encourage back-stabbing allies, then you can totally have a varied party (Blampire, pure mortal, true believer, etc.) working together, sure. Stranger things have happened in real life.
THis
-
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.
Then cite to something demonstrating this. I don't believe my understanding is in error, and it's going to take more than "I think you're wrong" to change my mind.
A character's nature is defined by his Aspects, especially his high concept. Compelling an Aspect is when a character acts in character to his own disadvantage; conversely, buying out of a compel is suppressing your own nature. The canonical definition of a lack of free will is that a character may not act outside his nature. (JB often uses Mab as an example.) Therefore, a character with no free will may not buy out of compels that come from his nature.
At a minimum, there is no way a character lacking free will should be able to buy out of a compel on their high concept. You could make the argument that only the high concept defines a character's nature, and the other Aspects are merely personality/association characteristics, but the high concept is the core of every character.
-
If they have FP, they may buy out of compels. It's just how the system works. Things without free will don't typically have FP's. They can accrue FP's - usually when facing off with the PC's.
There's no double-standard rule about what one NPC can do with FP's that others can't.
-
If they have FP, they may buy out of compels. It's just how the system works. Things without free will don't typically have FP's. They can accrue FP's - usually when facing off with the PC's.
There's no double-standard rule about what one NPC can do with FP's that others can't.
I'd like to back this up with a quote from YS pg. 107
Harry’s player, Jim, wonders if, rather than
going to the dice, he can short-cut all that and
go straight to getting the effect that he wants by
compelling the fetch’s Fear-Eater aspect
The GM agrees that Jim can do this if he
spends a fate point (understanding that this
means the fetch then gets to consider and potentially
refuse a compel). Jim agrees, and thus
uses Fear-Eater to trigger a compel of “this
fetch is drawn to me as its primary target.” The
GM, acting as the fetch, then needs to decide
if the fetch is willing to spend a fate point to
avoid this compel or gain a fate point and come
bee-lining for the wizard. If the fetch buys out
of it, at least Harry has cost it a fate point; if
it doesn’t, he’s drawn the creature to him. It’s a
win/win situation, of a sort…
This is based on the assumption that Fetches don't have free will...
-
Then cite to something demonstrating this. I don't believe my understanding is in error, and it's going to take more than "I think you're wrong" to change my mind.
A character's nature is defined by his Aspects, especially his high concept. Compelling an Aspect is when a character acts in character to his own disadvantage; conversely, buying out of a compel is suppressing your own nature. The canonical definition of a lack of free will is that a character may not act outside his nature. (JB often uses Mab as an example.) Therefore, a character with no free will may not buy out of compels that come from his nature.
At a minimum, there is no way a character lacking free will should be able to buy out of a compel on their high concept. You could make the argument that only the high concept defines a character's nature, and the other Aspects are merely personality/association characteristics, but the high concept is the core of every character.
Nemesis and fallen angels. If character lacking free will cannot buy out of a compel on their high concept, then no fallen angels, because in order for them to fall, they would have to act outside their nature in the first place, which is not possible since they cannot.
-
At a minimum, there is no way a character lacking free will should be able to buy out of a compel on their high concept.
I disagree, actually. Buying out of a compel doesn't always mean an in-character excercise of free will - it just means that, right now, that aspect isn't going to complicate your character's existence.
For example: Say you've got an aspect "A sucker for a pretty face" - and a mysterious lady has just asked you to help - she needs a ride home, say. But you probably don't have time to do that and still be on time to a date with your girlfriend - and she's unlikely to be sympathetic to the excuse... This is fairly obviously a compel, and while you could buy it off and leave this random person standing by the side of the road waiting for someone else... that's not really in character now is it? Instead, you'd buy off the compel - and what do you know, the lights line up just right and you manage to make it to your date just barely on time.
Is buying off that compel an exercise of free will? Of course not. It's a mechanic for narrative control.
So, for the Black Court Vampire PC, of course you can buy off the compel to kill whoever it is - your character has plans, and this person is still useful... until he isn't. And then you eat him. But that's for later.
-
This is based on the assumption that Fetches don't have free will...
This is a compelling argument, and I'd agree that fetches don't have free will (at a minimum, some don't because they are Fae; we aren't shown a counterexample that I recall in the fiction). I still don't think that the player of a non-free-will character can buy out of a compel in order to take an action that violates the character's nature--either option for the fetch would have been consistent with Fear-eater, though only one puts the fetch at a disadvantage.
Nemesis and fallen angels. If character lacking free will cannot buy out of a compel on their high concept, then no fallen angels, because in order for them to fall, they would have to act outside their nature in the first place, which is not possible since they cannot.
My best guess is that Nemesis-infection would edit Aspects something like advanced Lawbreaker, so post-infection actions would have to be consistent with the changed nature. Fallen angels are a bad example for your case, since angels do not lack free will, by WoJ. Exercising that free will has extreme consequences--Falling--so faithful angels functionally act like they don't have free will, but the choice is always there.
-
I think that the difficulty here comes from the fact that "Free Will" is naturally a very had concept to define.
What about when two Aspects that are both within the character's nature, is their a choice there? Say Placeholdersidhe has both the aspects of Indirect Trickster and Faeire Lader Climber- both are perfectly natural parts of a Sidhe's nature, the first because Sidhe are meant to act indirectly and the second because they are also meant to try and amass power and influence.
So, the Placeholdersidhe has hitched his wagon to a Party Member's rising star, using them as a means to gain power, now the Party Member is Taken Out during a fight with Nasty Creature, and the Sidhe is left with two options- directly aid Party Member by fighting Nasty Creature (keeping with his second aspect) or baking off and leaving the Party Member to die or be captured (Keeping with the first). If the GM compels "Indirect Trickster" to force Placeholdersidhe to back off, should Placeholdersidhe be allowed to spend a Fate Point in order to intervene anyways?
-
My best guess is that Nemesis-infection would edit Aspects something like advanced Lawbreaker, so post-infection actions would have to be consistent with the changed nature. Fallen angels are a bad example for your case, since angels do not lack free will, by WoJ. Exercising that free will has extreme consequences--Falling--so faithful angels functionally act like they don't have free will, but the choice is always there.
Interesting. I can't seem to find the WoJ on angels not lacking free will. Can you link?
In the context of DFRPG, I suppose it depends on how the GM and the player wishes to portray having "free will". Is having a positive Refresh free will? Is it possible to simulate free will with a change in nature?
If the GM compels "Indirect Trickster" to force Placeholdersidhe to back off, should Placeholdersidhe be allowed to spend a Fate Point in order to intervene anyways?
Or should the GM be compelling both Aspects? One to back off and the other to intervene, since both seem to be equally applicable.
-
Or should the GM be compelling both Aspects? One to back off and the other to intervene, since both seem to be equally applicable.
Both, of course; the fae should intervene, but do so in an indirect and trickster-ish manner.
As for free will... I just had a thought. What if we're looking at this wrong? What if "Free Will" translates, not to buying off compels, but to the ability to change your aspects? (Without restriction, that is; a "Fae Ladder Climber" who managed to maneuver to get herself promoted to the position of Mother Summer would... well, there's nowhere further to go from there, so that aspect would have to change. Essentially, she could only change an aspect when picking up - or discarding - some sort of metaphysical mantle of power.)
-
I think we need to differentiate between "Impulse Control" on one hand, which is something even the most monstrous of monsters can have, and "deciding to act against/ changing one's nature" on the other, which is something that monsters can not do.
A monster being a random no-free-will creature.
A Mortal, i.e. a creature with free will, can decide to act against his nature, and therefor refuse a compel simply BECAUSE... add whatever reason here. And his or her actions can literally be against his or her nature. Or rather a Mortal has no "nature" that defines his/her actions, free will does.
A No-Free will creature can refuse a compel as well, but from a narrative point of view it would not be acting against it's nature. There was the fetch example earlier in the thread... the fetch might refuse the compel to eat the one scared target, and instead decide to create more fear in others to enrich it's food source. He could not refuse to eat the scared target because he just decided to be nice all of a sudden. It's actions would always be in keeping with it's nature.
Just my random thoughts...
-
I think that the difficulty here comes from the fact that "Free Will" is naturally a very had concept to define.
What about when two Aspects that are both within the character's nature, is their a choice there? Say Placeholdersidhe has both the aspects of Indirect Trickster and Faeire Lader Climber- both are perfectly natural parts of a Sidhe's nature, the first because Sidhe are meant to act indirectly and the second because they are also meant to try and amass power and influence.
So, the Placeholdersidhe has hitched his wagon to a Party Member's rising star, using them as a means to gain power, now the Party Member is Taken Out during a fight with Nasty Creature, and the Sidhe is left with two options- directly aid Party Member by fighting Nasty Creature (keeping with his second aspect) or baking off and leaving the Party Member to die or be captured (Keeping with the first). If the GM compels "Indirect Trickster" to force Placeholdersidhe to back off, should Placeholdersidhe be allowed to spend a Fate Point in order to intervene anyways?
Then technically what you have is described in the Your Story Rulebook as a 'double compel." Example: Michael Carpenter's family is held by cultists on one side of town, demon-summoner is on other side of town. Compels are "Family Man" (to go save his family) and I think either his "Knight" Aspect of "Man of God" (to fight the evil wizard. It's a character-defining moment and the player is justified in taking two Fate Points for the decision he makes (Example had him going to fight evil wizard and then saving family moment he was finished).
-
the fetch might refuse the compel to eat the one scared target, and instead decide to create more fear in others to enrich it's food source. He could not refuse to eat the scared target because he just decided to be nice all of a sudden. It's actions would always be in keeping with it's nature.
Bingo! This is the oft-made mistake made with "evil" characters; that is, the old D&D story of the thief PC who steals from other party members because "that's what he would do."
It's in a monster's nature to kill, but it's up the monster when and how they do it.
A Black Court vampire might work with a group of more heroic characters for its own ends, perhaps revenge or to protect its own territory. It's still an evil monster that eats people, but it can choose who to eat and to keep the other characters around so long as they remain useful, resisting compels to feed on them when they're injured, etc.
Once those characters have served their purpose, or someone comes along who is more useful, that's when the vampire's nature should kick in and lead them to turn on the rest of the group.
-
It's in a monster's nature to kill, but it's up the monster when and how they do it.
A Black Court vampire might work with a group of more heroic characters for its own ends, perhaps revenge or to protect its own territory. It's still an evil monster that eats people, but it can choose who to eat and to keep the other characters around so long as they remain useful, resisting compels to feed on them when they're injured, etc.
Once those characters have served their purpose, or someone comes along who is more useful, that's when the vampire's nature should kick in and lead them to turn on the rest of the group.
And I would consider the being spending their limited fate points to resist compels to be it making those choices on when and how they want their urges to manifest. Even animals get to make such choices - decide human is not a threat and ignore it, attack human, flee.
-
Absolutely. They can choose how to obey their nature, but they still have to obey it. Eventually, they'll run out of Fate Points.
It all ties back to High Concept. I wouldn't compel a wizard or a Pure Mortal's High Concept to urge them to kill a random person who's just bled all over the floor. But a Black Court vampire? You bet I would. Especially if they were out of Fate Points. Because you're not just dealing with "is this a threat?" You're also dealing with a drive to kill that is unlike anything in the natural world.
-
Let's also remember that BCV doesn't want to be found out. They still have a survival instinct and want to live...(un)-live. Sure it wants to kill the person bleeding on the ground, but if killing that person allows the local warden will find out where its lair is and come to hunt it down, It'll turns down the compel and decide to find another target instead.
In any case, any creature that has FP's can turn down compels. That's just how the game works.
Regarding the fallen Angel. An angel who falls, changes its high concept From Angel to Fallen Angel. Actually falling has more involved than turning down compels...I think there's a concious decision to fall. But that's my PoV.
Another thing is a Take-Out situation where the condition of the Take out is a change a creatures High Concept. Like a Denarian convincing an Angel to join it through a battle of wills.
-
Definitely, I would never suggest that an angel falling was caused by something as simple as buying off a compel.
And that's another good point to raise. Survival. Just because a creature must follow its nature, doesn't mean it must do so in such a way as to destroy itself.
I think what it comes down to is how well your GM knows their players, how well they can justify compels and how well the player can justify buying them off. A lot of it is just flavour.
For example: A Red Court Infected buys off a compel to feed. That can be described as fighting off the hunger and holding on to their humanity.
A full Red Court vampire buying off a compel to feed, on the other hand, is more appropriately described as knowing that feeding at this point is going to make them vulnerable to attack, or sour the deal they're desperately trying to make with the gang of vampire hunters. The full vampire doesn't care about whether it's wrong or right to feed on a human, but they do understand that it might not be prudent to do at a particular time.
-
I think that's why Fate forbids Will-less charactors (e.g. characters with negative refresh) - these are characters that can rarely buy off compels and therefore might as well be run by the GM. They're more of a storytelling tool than a PC.
That said, I would allow my players to play a BCV or RCV in a high enough refresh game - provided they could provide a narrative excuse as to why they have some shred of Will left. Otherwise you're talking about playing what's essentially a smart wolf - yeah, it might be clever and might even talk, but it's controlled by its base instincts and not much good as a PC.
-
Like Spike from Buffy the Vampire slayer...when he gets his soul back...
-
Interesting. I can't seem to find the WoJ on angels not lacking free will. Can you link?
It takes a bit of synthesis, but here (emphasis added):
Mortals are the ones who have free will, the ability to choose what they're doing, to choose between right and wrong. Without getting too thickly into the underlying philosophy, that's the thing that separates, for example, mankind from the angels--the angels didn't get the same kind of choice about their existance, and what they would do with it. Mortals get the chance to make all kinds of decisions, and can change their minds, well, at will. Other creatures, though they may look like people, don't get the same range of choices about who and what they will be.
Mab, for example, is Mab. She /can't/ show up and suddenly be merciful, generous, patient and kind. It would never so much as occur to her to do so, because it isn't a fundamental part of her nature, and she /can't/ choose to change it. She simply isn't capable. She doesn't have free will in the same way that people do. It's related to the difference between having a soul and not having a soul, as well. Without a soul, you aren't free to choose how you will shape that soul. You just stay what you are.
On a casual read, it looks like JB is saying that angels lack free will, but that's not the case; he's saying that angels have a very constrained form of free will. Mab is presented as a alternate example by contrast to both angels and humans.
2010 Bitten by Books Q&A: (http://bittenbybooks.com/22804/jim-butcher-qa-and-contest-live-here/)
#180 “Could Uriel have chosen to help Harry if he had wanted to, or is there actually some universal limit that prevents him from directly influencing the world in such overt fashion?”
A little of both. Technically, it was /possible/ for Uriel to act directly, but the consequences would have been extreme, both for him and for the mortal world–to the point where you’d have to be moderately insane to do it. Or else, really, really committed to some kind of personal moral compass that was 90 degrees off true.
The last angel to do that is a little notorious.
In other words, helping Harry in this instance would have been against God's will, and therefore against Uriel's nature as an angel. Uriel could have chosen to do so regardless, but he would have Fallen as a result; the "notorious angel" was Lucifer/Satan.
-
On a casual read, it looks like JB is saying that angels lack free will, but that's not the case; he's saying that angels have a very constrained form of free will. Mab is presented as a alternate example by contrast to both angels and humans.
In other words, helping Harry in this instance would have been against God's will, and therefore against Uriel's nature as an angel. Uriel could have chosen to do so regardless, but he would have Fallen as a result; the "notorious angel" was Lucifer/Satan.
I actually read your comments first before the quotes. So I tried to read it more as a case of very constrained free will. I failed. I keep coming back to the point that the "constrained free will" is simply part of their Nature and is not really free will.
The part about helping Harry, falling and the Devil I have already read. But I had read it as acting against God's Will is not necessarily acting against their Nature but an external someone else (God) will make it so that they take the extreme Consequence (social/mental) of Falling.
-
Keep in mind JBs idea of free will =/= Fate's version of free will. they're a little bit different.
JBs version of free will is the difference of having a choice or not. Angels have a choice, albeit a limited one compared to humans. Angels can choose to fall - and sometimes do, although it's not much of a choice as far as angels are concerned. Mab on the other hand literally doesn't have a comparable choice - she and other Fae cannot simply choose to fall, or to lie, or to cheat, or to stop being. It's not that they wont, they simply cant, even though I think in some cases they might like to.
FATEs version of free will on the other hand is the ability to act outside of your nature, which is similar, but not the same thing. The idea is that your power slowly pushes you to make certain decisions and, if you don't have enough will to overcome your power, you become a slave to that power. It's both a balancing factor and narrative. Theoretically, a character with negative refresh could occasionally override their nature, but it gets more and more rare as they go along.
So, to answer your original ops question: JBs version of Will-less? Playable. Fates version is unplayable both for balance reasons and because in the long run not being able to control your own character would be boring.
-
Not to mention that, depending on your campaign's Power Level, becoming a Wizard or a Knight of the Cross could leave you with zero or negative Refresh. Those character types certainly have free will, but as far as the system is concerned, are bound by their nature if they're not in a high enough Power Level.
-
Not to mention that, depending on your campaign's Power Level, becoming a Wizard or a Knight of the Cross could leave you with zero or negative Refresh. Those character types certainly have free will, but as far as the system is concerned, are bound by their nature if they're not in a high enough Power Level.
To be fair, even early in the series Dresden talks about not taking on too much power because he's afraid it'll take him over, so wizard power might not be a good example. But yeah, JBs idea of free will and FATE free will are not mutually exclusive, they're just not 100% the same thing.