Soulfire Sponsor Agenda

[toturi]

Even in the books, redemption from evil is always key... as we've said, Michael has to offer the Denarian's host a chance to give up the coin before he can just slay them.  He's free, however, to just wail on black court vampires, demons and the like... or so it seems. The nature of the Swords of the Cross themselves (destroyed if used to spill innocent blood; having the form of a weapon) implies that they are to defend innocents from evil, even using lethal force.    So while I totally buy that free will is an important component here, I'm not willing to down-play good vs evil.   Remember, Harry got soulfire after giving up hellfire by helping to redeem the shade of a demon from his own mind.  Redemption seems more key than free will.

Not really. In the books, it is not redemption that the KoCs are offering. They are simply obliged to remind the host that he has a choice. Harry did not get Soulfire by giving up Hellfire, he got Soulfire by making the choice not to use the power of the Fallen. The exercise of free will seems to more key than actual good against evil.

[Jaxom Faux]

i remember reading in the books the purpose of the knights of the cross being stated as to redeem the denarians.


EDIT:

so i checked the book and....

according to our world "The knights were founded to counter the Denarians; their purpose is to save the humans who have picked up a denarius. They protect the freedom of the mortal soul.  To that end, they aid any mortals under the oppression of dark forces, trying to help that person to win free of them."

[mostlyawake]

Yup, there's a lot in the books stating that the sponsor wants to enforce free will, and thus cannot act until evil entities have stepped in and are stepping on free will (the angels entry in Our World).  However, I'm still saying that redemption is key, perhaps even a part of that choice... it's necessary to remind people that they still have a choice.  And, should they try to take that choice, you are then obliged to help them do so (if your are a character with soulfire, especially if you owe me compels for it).

[Lanir]

This is a pretty fine distinction given what we've seen in the novels so far. It doesn't really surprise me that everyone isn't on the same page with it. Especially since the symbolism involved is something so many will have pre-existing opinions on. Honestly I think a game is fine going with any of the viewpoints given in this thread. I personally think as new novels get written we'll see more evidence of the free will thing surface as a primary motivator but I doubt it will be a big enough deal to stuff up anyone's game if they go a different path. And vice versa if I happen to be wrong.

For that matter the author is just as likely to add some very heavy shades of good and evil into the mix later on. Since that's the default assumption when talking about angels and such, he may have been concentrating on describing how free will fit in up until now to make sure we noticed that he'd added a new idea into the mix.

[blues.soldier]

I think this debate showcases one of the best things about Butcher's source material as well as the awesome job the Evil Hat guys have done in representing the game world. Simply put: we don't know the answer to this question. It's not "free will or good vs. evil" the truth is somewhere in the middle-- a middle ground each group and/or GM will find for themselves. It really depends on what kind of stories you want to tell, and most especially what kinds of baddies you want to put your PCs up against.

If you want to focus on the redemption angle, pit your group against Denarians, those possessed by demons/ghosts/etc, or even a warlock not so completely gone that they can't choose redemption (Molly Carpenter, anybody?). This is a much more "shades of grey" choice. If you'll notice, all of these baddie types have some kind of interface with mortal humans.

If you want to focus on good vs evil, go with vampires (all four types, depending on how they're portrayed), ghouls, non-Denarian Demons, Outsiders and dragons. All of these are far more "black-and-white" morality, because they don't have as much to do with mortal humans (except as food, in most cases).

Basically, I think the game can support both kinds of stories about the Creator (as the source material tends to name Him), even both kinds of story woven between each other for a more full-spectrum kind of experience. I just believe that the PC isn't the only thing to look at in terms of how the character plays-- just like in real life, it's the actions people take in relation to their environment that define them best.

Just my opinion, and trying to take some of the theory in the earlier debate and make the rubber meet the road.

[caul]

Just got done reading a book called Snake Agent (it was alright, not ground breaking, save for the traditional chinese background) where the main character is on the outs with his patron diety, who's only charge to him for protection and favor was "be immaculate in all of your dealings."

Thought it was interesting.  Tough agenda for a mortal.