Does the DresdenVerse default to Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil?

[Richard_Chilton]

Er, no, there's nothing in there about breaking rules or powers not being meant for PCs. As you...quoted directly...they just note that they find it unlikely. 0 rules implementation. It's just a friendly sidebar. Doesn't even present "optional rule: this list of powers is off-limits to PCs", all it is is developer commentary.

Did we read the same text?
They talk about powers that aren't player focused.  That in their opinion, players shouldn't have these powers.  They directly refer to “typically NPC” power. 

Powers the game designers looked at and said "those are for NPCs".

Your reading is off. Let's talk about that.

1) Domination does not cause Lawbreaker. It is not a Spellcasting Power. The Wardens might cite and behead you, but the universe doesn't care.

You get the Lawbreaker stunt for breaking the laws of magic.  YS 172 "which break the hell out of the Laws of Magic (Domination being a good example)."

Please explain to me how you can make a Renfield without "Fourth: You’ve enthralled or otherwise laid a compulsion upon another being with magic, likely causing long-term psychological trauma to your victim."

Now, Greater Glamours. Only true fae may take the power, yes. True fae don't usually have free will, ehhh...putting aside an Aspect like "Cursed With A Soul" or whatever, which is totally valid, not having free will doesn't make you "not a PC".

Yes it does.  Not having Free Will makes you a monster, not a person.  It eliminates your ability to choose  to do anything except follow your nature.  It is why Mab wasn't a suspect in Summer Knight - Harry saw her nature and knew that she couldn't have acted contrary to it.

And to quote some sources:
YS Page 10: Monsters have Nature, Mortals have Choice - that explains it.

YS Page 14: Monsters are expanded on under the heading "Monsters".

YS: page 20:
PCs are not allowed to let their refresh level drop below one; when a character’s refresh hits zero or less, he crosses over that crucial, invisible line that separates a mortal’s free will from a monster’s compulsion of nature.

YS Page 59: Character Creation
Even a supernatural character has some strong ties to the mortal idea of free will.

YS Page 66:
Important: PCs may not reduce their refresh rate below one. This is the line dividing a mortal’s free will from a monster’s unnatural compulsions. (Even non-supernatural characters cannot cross this line, lest they become the kind of “human monster” that haunts the worst events of our history.)

YS pg 78: Why there are Knights of a Fairy Court:
they have mortal free will—in this, they are able to take action that is flatly impossible for faeriekind, for the fae cannot act in any way other than in accordance with their natures.
----
Notice how it says that "the fae cannot act in any way other than in accordance with their natures" - as in lack freewill?

YS Pg 146: The entire The Philosophy of Limits boxed section which hammers home "monsters have nature, mortals have choice."

In short: as Richard has quoted and the Powers section confirms, nothing is barred from PC use in the rules or by implication,

If you don't see:
"A number of the powers presented in this chapter aren’t really player character focused."
"she might even see a few “typically NPC” powers she’d be entirely happy to let the players get access to."
implying that some powers aren't PC focused or that some powers aren't typically NPC (unless a GM decides otherwise) then we really have nothing to talk about.

Richard

[Viatos]

Did we read the same text?
They talk about powers that aren't player focused.  That in their opinion, players shouldn't have these powers.  They directly refer to “typically NPC” power. 

Powers the game designers looked at and said "those are for NPCs".</quote>

Your line break here is very appropriate because it involves skipping from one thing straight to another. A power typically granted to NPCs is not the same as the developers saying the following two things, for which there is no support other then your own conjuring:

1) Some powers SHOULD NOT be had by PCs.
2) Some powers ARE ONLY MEANT for NPCs.

What they state, instead, is that some of the powers they made, they find (one more time, class) unlikely to be of use to PCs. There are no shoulds or should nots. In fact, what exactly is that entire sidebar about? It's ABOUT "we are not imposing any shoulds or should nots". So there's no hardset rule, AND no author intent. Neither exist in DFRPG.

You get the Lawbreaker stunt for breaking the laws of magic.  YS 172 "which break the hell out of the Laws of Magic (Domination being a good example)."

Please explain to me how you can make a Renfield without "Fourth: You’ve enthralled or otherwise laid a compulsion upon another being with magic, likely causing long-term psychological trauma to your victim."

Super-easily, by not using magic. Domination is not a Spellcasting Power. Domination does not, and cannot, cause Lawbreaker. Or do you think Claws inflicts First Law violation? Does Living Dead mean you're a Fifth Lawbreaker? These are rhetorical, of course. Lawbreaker results from magic caused by mortals. Magic is defined by Spellcasting Powers.

And mortality is optional, which you're conveniently skipping over. You can play a non-mortal, which has its own benefits and drawbacks just as mortality does.

Yes it does.  Not having Free Will makes you a monster, not a person.  It eliminates your ability to choose  to do anything except follow your nature.  It is why Mab wasn't a suspect in Summer Knight - Harry saw her nature and knew that she couldn't have acted contrary to it.

Wow, that's racist! But seriously, it's not a helpful distinction. PCs tend to follow their nature anyway. Since you, as a player, define that nature - and how it expresses itself - all you have to do is play the character like any other. If you can play a Paladin in DnD, you can manage a true fae in DFRPG. It just involves less IC deliberation - your character knows their path, even before you've decided whether they go through door A or door B.

Your quotes are just echoing me, which seems like a pattern now. You lose your PC status when your Refresh drops to 0 or below. Not because your PC does or doesn't have free will. If it bothers you so much, take it as an Aspect: "So You're, Like, That Guy From Buffy?" on a Black Court Vampire, for instance.

"A number of the powers presented in this chapter aren’t really player character focused."
"she might even see a few “typically NPC” powers she’d be entirely happy to let the players get access to."
implying that some powers aren't PC focused or that some powers aren't typically NPC (unless a GM decides otherwise) then we really have nothing to talk about.

Okay, then we have nothing to talk about? You're making up nonsense about the authors wanting to control the powers they explicitly do not put any restrictions on, and you're basing it off the sidebar where the authors talk about how you're free to play as you like. It's like me saying Dresden is a book series about Harry Potter, and then referencing a Jim Butcher quote that Dresden is nothing like Harry Potter.

You're unsupported. Quoting my side of the argument and then extrapolating new ideas from it is not impressing me that you have a view worth considering. In fact, prior to this, I would have said "it's up for debate" in regards to players taking some of the weirder powers, but upon reading that sidebar and re-examining the system I can say with utter confidence "there is no debate; you are intended by the designers to play freely and without restriction on template or power selection. I know this, because they say so."

[Richard_Chilton]

It's ABOUT "we are not imposing any shoulds or should nots".

You still do not see that they implying that there are "shoulds".  Ones that they are not imposing, but ones that they have pointed out,

Super-easily, by not using magic. Domination is not a Spellcasting Power. Domination does not, and cannot, cause Lawbreaker.

The text of the book says that it breaks the law.

Where (for that law) does it say that magic must be used?

Or do you think Claws inflicts First Law violation? Does Living Dead mean you're a Fifth Lawbreaker? These are rhetorical, of course. Lawbreaker results from magic caused by mortals. Magic is defined by Spellcasting Powers.

Wow, that's racist!

Maybe, but it's the setting.

In the world that Jim has made there are those who have free will and those who don't.  Those who don't follow their natures and are monsters.  Creatures like Mab.  Creatures like Uriel.  Yes, Uriel - I didn't say that all monsters are bad and since Uriel lacks free will he qualifies.

But seriously, it's not a helpful distinction. PCs tend to follow their nature anyway. Since you, as a player, define that nature - and how it expresses itself - all you have to do is play the character like any other. If you can play a Paladin in DnD, you can manage a true fae in DFRPG. It just involves less IC deliberation - your character knows their path, even before you've decided whether they go through door A or door B.

You miss the point - a monster MUST follow his nature.  A Paladin could decide to go on a murder spree, killing countless innocents and becoming a Blackguard, but a True Fae cannot do anything except follow its nature.

For example, there are times that Lea wants to help Harry but she can't unless he bargains for her help OR Mab gives her an order to help him.  Why? Because she lacks freewill and thus must follow her nature.  As a True Fae she could no more help Harry for free than she can lie.

Your quotes are just echoing me, which seems like a pattern now. You lose your PC status when your Refresh drops to 0 or below. Not because your PC does or doesn't have free will.

You are ignoring the link to Freewill. 

Okay, then we have nothing to talk about?

Apparently - since you maintain that there is no implication there while ignoring everything that isn't a hard rule mechanic.

The core of the DFRPG is that it apes the setting.  Ignore the setting and you're playing Urban Fantasy FATE 2.0 - which is fine, but I prefer the DFRPG.

Richard

[ways and means]

Your Story Page 241

Non-Spellcasting Enthrallment
As enforced, the Laws of Magic are applied
where human victims are involved, but similarly,
they’re primarily applied where human
spellcasters are the ones doing the deeds. This
means that a White Court vampire laying her
sex mojo on a tasty little morsel is not technically
breaking the Fourth Law. This doesn’t mean that
the White Council has to like it, but usually this
is a case where the Accords trump the Laws, at
least as far as the politics and legal maneuverings
are involved.
For the purposes of game rules, such powers
are already assumed to have assessed the costs
for holding such sway over another’s mind. No
Red Court vampire is going to get slapped with
a Lawbreaker stunt for addicting someone to his
narcotic saliva.

[devonapple]

Hrm. An editing oversight it appears. We've got a passing comment in "Your Story" about how Domination is Lawbreaking, and a full paragraph in "Our World" about how it is not.

We have a few ways to resolve this:
1) Oops. Editing error. Ummm, go with "Our World." It's a whole paragraph.
2) Oops. Editing error. Ummm, go with "Your Story." It's the primary rulesbook.
3) Well, go with "Your Story" for player characters and "Our World" for NPCs. That's what "Our World" is: a compendium of NPCs.

I'm inclined to choose 1, albeit with the provision that I'm not inclined to let a PC have the Domination power.

Folks, it seems sometimes people want to pick and choose which parts of the book to hold up as "the rules" and which parts to dismiss as "noise."

All things being equal (that is, barring an editing oversight or other actual error), this game isn't a list of combat rules attached to a bunch of noise that you can safely ignore (except insofar as "Your Table, Your Rules" applies). It is a deliberate attempt to marry a game system (FATE) with a setting (Dresden Files), and I feel that the recommendations, guidelines, marginal comments, and suggestions are all placed there with care and intent, to inform how you play the game.

If the book explains that some powers aren't appropriate for PCs, trust that there *is* a line, and while they didn't explicitly draw one in the sand, they did put that there so that player and GM both know that there should be one, and that the GM is going to exercise some control over what characters a player can make.

People are going to make custom powers.
People are going to make custom templates.
The DFRPG setting has a whole suite of playable templates which can, on their own, provide a variety of fun roleplaying opportunities.
And the DFRPG setting implies a whole secret world of unknown perils that lurk just beyond sight, waiting until the PCs start poking into the shadows to find out what happened to some poor innocent human.

Embrace the power of "and". But don't pretend that there isn't a line.

Because if you take nothing else from the Dresden Files, you should take this: it is about looking good and hard at that line, blood dripping into your eyes, as you stand up one more time against the darkness, knowing that just one step over that line - so simple to do: just a breath, a promise, a whispered name, a quiet surrender to an inhuman agency, or answering the call of the blood - would be to escape all your present troubles, provide succor for your friends or loved ones, or deliver on that promise you made, but in so doing, bringing a heap of new troubles on your head. What kind of a person are you going to be?

[ways and means]

Hrm. An editing oversight it appears. We've got a passing comment in "Your Story" about how Domination is Lawbreaking, and a full paragraph in "Our World" about how it is not.

We have a few ways to resolve this:
1) Oops. Editing error. Ummm, go with "Our World." It's a whole paragraph.
2) Oops. Editing error. Ummm, go with "Your Story." It's the primary rulesbook.
3) Well, go with "Your Story" for player characters and "Our World" for NPCs. That's what "Our World" is: a compendium of NPCs.

I'm inclined to choose 1, albeit with the provision that I'm not inclined to let a PC have the Domination power.

Folks, it seems sometimes people want to pick and choose which parts of the book to hold up as "the rules" and which parts to dismiss as "noise."

All things being equal (that is, barring an editing oversight or other actual error), this game isn't a list of combat rules attached to a bunch of noise that you can safely ignore (except insofar as "Your Table, Your Rules" applies). It is a deliberate attempt to marry a game system (FATE) with a setting (Dresden Files), and I feel that the recommendations, guidelines, marginal comments, and suggestions are all placed there with care and intent, to inform how you play the game.

If the book explains that some powers aren't appropriate for PCs, trust that there *is* a line, and while they didn't explicitly draw one in the sand, they did put that there so that player and GM both know that there should be one, and that the GM is going to exercise some control over what characters a player can make.

People are going to make custom powers.
People are going to make custom templates.
The DFRPG setting has a whole suite of playable templates which can, on their own, provide a variety of fun roleplaying opportunities.
And the DFRPG setting implies a whole secret world of unknown perils that lurk just beyond sight, waiting until the PCs start poking into the shadows to find out what happened to some poor innocent human.

Embrace the power of "and". But don't pretend that there isn't a line.

Because if you take nothing else from the Dresden Files, you should take this: it is about looking good and hard at that line, blood dripping into your eyes, as you stand up one more time against the darkness, knowing that just one step over that line - so simple to do: just a breath, a promise, a whispered name, a quiet surrender to an inhuman agency, or answering the call of the blood - would be to escape all your present troubles, provide succor for your friends or loved ones, or deliver on that promise you made, but in so doing, bringing a heap of new troubles on your head. What kind of a person are you going to be?

Actually its a miss quote from me the section was in "your story" in the Lawbreaker section sorry all.

[Viatos]

You still do not see that they implying that there are "shoulds".  Ones that they are not imposing, but ones that they have pointed out,

There is no text anywhere in the books supportive of your conjured "shoulds". You're taking what was said, and then running off with it to invent reasons why you're right. But your points are not dependent on the game text, they're dependent on your opinions. I respect your opinions! But they have no place being presented as fact in a discussion about the nature of DFRPG, RAW and RAI.

You think there are shoulds. The developers do not; they reference only likelihood.

The text of the book says that it breaks the law.

Where (for that law) does it say that magic must be used?

Well, seems that's been handled for me. I notice you also skipped "is Living Dead necromancy / are Claws First Law violations waiting to happen". Anyway, aside from the text in Your Story...

Where in the LAWS OF MAGIC does it say that magic must be used? Really, dude?

You miss the point - a monster MUST follow his nature.  A Paladin could decide to go on a murder spree, killing countless innocents and becoming a Blackguard, but a True Fae cannot do anything except follow its nature.

Yes, a Paladin could. Many don't. If you're okay with not running wildly contrary to your character concept, there's no problem. It's just doing what you would have done anyway. If the lack of choice bothers you, as I said, either take an Aspect to enable free will or don't play a monster. If it doesn't, have at it!

The core of the DFRPG is that it apes the setting.  Ignore the setting and you're playing Urban Fantasy FATE 2.0 - which is fine, but I prefer the DFRPG.*

*The DFRPG altered by your houseruled setting elements, to be precise. Didn't you just start a poll about this?

[Richard_Chilton]

3) Well, go with "Your Story" for player characters and "Our World" for NPCs. That's what "Our World" is: a compendium of NPCs.

Well agreeing with the rest of your post - I see option 3 working best.  Something along the lines of "No, you don't have to worry about giving lawbreaker to these NPCs".

And I think that if the game had undergone one last revising then someone would have picked up on  the conflict - spelling it out more clearly.  I also think that since the game had been under development for years that some of the developers would have had to make SAN rolls if it was delayed any further.

Richard

[Tedronai]

Well agreeing with the rest of your post - I see option 3 working best.  Something along the lines of "No, you don't have to worry about giving lawbreaker to these NPCs".

Please see above, re: the relevant quote being mis-attributed to OW and actually being found in YS, specifically on page 241, in the section addressing the Laws of Magic and the Lawbreaker power.

[Richard_Chilton]

Yes, a Paladin could. Many don't.

While a Paladin could make that decision, Mab can't.  Lea can't.  The Erlking can't.

Because they lack freewill and follow their nature as opposed to choosing their paths.

Below is a quote from someone who chose his path.  He accepts that in many ways he is more evil than the monsters because he had a choice.

(click to show/hide)

I am a professional monster.
It sounds pretentious. After all, I’m not a flesh-devouring ghoul, hiding behind a human mask until it is time to gorge. I’m no vampire, to drain the blood or
soul from my victim, no ogre, no demon, no cursed beast from the spirit world dwelling amid the unsuspecting sheep of humanity. I’m not even possessed
of the mystic abilities of a mortal wizard.
But they will never be what I am. One and all, those beings were born to be what they are.
I made a choice.

Richard

[Viatos]

Yes, a Paladin could. Many don't.

While a Paladin could make that decision, Mab can't.  Lea can't.  The Erlking can't.

Because they lack freewill and follow their nature as opposed to choosing their paths.

Didn't I answer this? Like, in the same paragraph you're quoting from? Like, immediately after the text you quote?

(click to show/hide)

Yes, I did.

[Richard_Chilton]

Here is where we disagree: in the DV setting, True Fae have no freewill.

Ergo, if something is flagged as "True Fae only" then it is flagged as NPC only.

Richard

[Viatos]

Here is where we disagree: in the DV setting, True Fae have no freewill.

Ergo, if something is flagged as "True Fae only" then it is flagged as NPC only.

Richard

You're not making sense now. First of all: I have never disagreed that True Fae have no free will by default, so...I have to ask, are you even reading my posts? I'm not accusing, I just don't understand how you keep missing this stuff, and it's a little grating, like you're having a conversation with yourself but wearing a Viatos-mask to conduct one side of it. I am here and stating my ideas and opinions, please don't cut out the first line and then argue it while ignoring that the rest of the paragraph answers your assertion.

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. 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? Can you play a character without, to use your example, deciding to go on homicidal rampages in total defiance of your established personality and agenda every now and then? If you can play a mortal who always Does The Right Thing, you can play a true fae. Heck, it's not even that restrictive. A Paladin's personal code is way more defined then a fae agenda. All you have to do is not lie and not break promises. You can, as noted, even resist compels - the spent Fate Point ensures you find another way to conceal the truth without actually going against your nature.

B) play a true fae or other monster with an Aspect granting them free will, if it really bothers you.

[devonapple]

Because the DFRPG equates 0-Refresh with "no free will":
YS 20: "PCs are not allowed to let their refresh level drop below one; when a character’s refresh hits zero or less, he crosses over that crucial, invisible line that separates a mortal’s free will from a monster’s compulsion of nature."
YS 66: "Important: PCs may not reduce their refresh rate below one. This is the line dividing a mortal’s free will from a monster’s unnatural compulsions. (Even non-supernatural characters cannot cross this line, lest they become the kind of “human monster” that haunts the worst events of our history.)"

Where the dispute arises is because not everyone agrees that:
If [0-Refresh = no free will], then [no free will = 0-Refresh].

[Silverblaze]

I'm about to find myself with no agreeing with me at all.

Ah well what else is new?

 I think dropping below the refresh line is a game balance feature to keep players within a number of points to spend on a character.  People can tell me all day long that this has nothing to do with Free-Will and it plays no part in the narrative.  I wholeheartedly stubbornly ignore their assertations.

However, if a True Fae manages to get positive refresh...I say it has Free-Will.  It is playable so long as it does not disrupt game balance and the group finds it enjoyable.  That said, they should suffer from their aspects a lot since Fae are slaves to their natures.  I should know, we have one in our group.  It is a very mixed blessing and I'm not sure I like them as PC's but it happened and it isn't ruining the game.