Does the DresdenVerse default to Ultimate Good or Ultimate Evil?

[Sanctaphrax]

I disagree about that. We always disagreed this much.

But seriously, NPC Fate Points are mostly handwavium. They get them when their Aspects are invoked against them, when they're compelled, and when the GM says so.

[devonapple]

I disagree about that. We always disagreed this much.

But we've been much more civil about it.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think we've been too uncivil lately.

Then again, I tend to be pretty tone-deaf when it comes to this stuff.

[Richard_Chilton]

Once more:

1) There is no extant rule text barring playing a character without free will.

To quote OW:
Does that -4 refresh mean that I could play a spectre with free will or something?
Not really. These things are low refresh-cost, but don’ t take that as an indication that they have free will. They’re tools, wielded by a binding necromancer.

---
Which seems clear - no freewill = not something you can play.

2) You can play a non-mortal character with free will.

With homebrew, yes.  Show me the template that allows non-mortals other than WCV.

The fact that WCV need their own template demonstrates the need of a custom template for non-humans.

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.

Since the sidebar is in the rules it is part of the RAW.  No, it isn't something that covers hard mechanics, but it is the RAW.

Richard

[Viatos]

To quote OW:
Does that -4 refresh mean that I could play a spectre with free will or something?
Not really. These things are low refresh-cost, but don’ t take that as an indication that they have free will. They’re tools, wielded by a binding necromancer.

---
Which seems clear - no freewill = not something you can play.

Once again, conclusions drawn from no evidence. Spectres do not gain free will from positive refresh. The question is not "can I play a spectre" and the answer is not "no, you cannot play a spectre". The question is "can I play a spectre that gains free will from positive refresh" and the answer is "no, they don't gain free will just because of their power level".

You can still play one without free will, and you can still take an Aspect for free will. Free will remains a metaconcept. Gangsters can lose it and fallen angels can gain it.

With homebrew, yes.  Show me the template that allows non-mortals other than WCV.

Why would I need a template other then WCV to show you? "Show me an example, but don't use the example in the book". I asked before if you were reading my posts when I noticed you were ignoring large sections of them and posting questions answered BY those sections. Now I have to ask if you are proofing your own. This makes no sense.

WCVs are the obvious example.

The fact that WCV need their own template demonstrates the need of a custom template for non-humans.

Okay, no problem. So make one. You can do that.

Since the sidebar is in the rules it is part of the RAW.  No, it isn't something that covers hard mechanics, but it is the RAW.

That's not what RAW is. Sidebars are never RAW. Actually, the entire point of sidebars is to have conversations with the product-user outside of RAW, including providing optional rules or exploring alternatives to a printed setting or clarifying issues that might arise in actual play.

It doesn't matter in this case since despite your relentless distortion that sidebar supports an argument which is not yours, but knowing what the RAW is is probably important. RAW is rules-as-written. Not rules-as-written-plus-interviews-plus-commentaries-plus-homebrew. It's just the hard mechanical rules (and any "soft" mechanics used to talk about those rules, like the guidelines to creating a stunt).

[Richard_Chilton]

You can still play one without free will, and you can still take an Aspect for free will. Free will remains a metaconcept. Gangsters can lose it and fallen angels can gain it.

This is where we disagree.  I've quoted several places where it says that freewill is key, that without it you are a "monster" (perhaps a human monster) that is a slave to your nature.

As to taking an Aspect to gain freewill, I see that as rules breaking as taking an aspect to fly.  "I have freewill" is just as alien to Fae as "I can flap my wings and fly" is to a Pure Mortal.

Why would I need a template other then WCV to show you?

Because I asked you to show me a template in the RAW that allows you to play a True Fae.  To connect the dots:
There is no Template in the RAW that allows you to play a True Fae.
There is a power that is restricted to True Fae.
Therefore there are powers designed for NPCs only.

Okay, no problem. So make one. You can do that.

Again, we are at the point where there in a power in the RAW that no PC can take in the RAW.

That's not what RAW is. Sidebars are never RAW.

We strongly disagree on this point.

Especially in this game where larges chunks of marginal writing is used.

It doesn't matter in this case since despite your relentless distortion that sidebar supports an argument which is not yours, but knowing what the RAW is is probably important. RAW is rules-as-written. Not rules-as-written-plus-interviews-plus-commentaries-plus-homebrew. It's just the hard mechanical rules (and any "soft" mechanics used to talk about those rules, like the guidelines to creating a stunt).

RAW = what is in the rule book.

But I now understand where you are coming from.  You feel that if it isn't a mechanic then it is not part of the RAW.  And I'll explain where I'm coming from: I feel that if it's in the rule book it's part of the RAW.

The fact that we have been using two different definitions for RAW explains why we can't agree on things.  I'll point to page 10 of the RAW and say "See? No freewill = not a PC" while you look at page 10 and conclude "No mechanics on that page so it isn't part the RAW".

Richard

[Viatos]

As to taking an Aspect to gain freewill, I see that as rules breaking as taking an aspect to fly.  "I have freewill" is just as alien to Fae as "I can flap my wings and fly" is to a Pure Mortal.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion and your suggested houserules.

Because I asked you to show me a template in the RAW that allows you to play a True Fae.  To connect the dots:
There is no Template in the RAW that allows you to play a True Fae.
There is a power that is restricted to True Fae.
Therefore there are powers designed for NPCs only.

Oh, come on. Now you're just insulting yourself and me at the same time. No, that's not what you asked. No, those dots don't even connect ANYWAY. Let's not play those reindeer games. I can look at your previous post.

Again, we are at the point where there in a power in the RAW that no PC can take in the RAW.

Saying it more assertively won't make it true. Look, you have no legs to stand on here, why keep circling back to already-disproven claims?

But I now understand where you are coming from.  You feel that if it isn't a mechanic then it is not part of the RAW.  And I'll explain where I'm coming from: I feel that if it's in the rule book it's part of the RAW.

Where you're coming from is not a definition of RAW. It doesn't even make sense. RAW literally stands for rules as written, not "whatever text is in the corebook". A rule doesn't have to be a mechanic, but it does need to be a rule. Sidebar commentary supporting my argument is, sadly, not a rule (nor does it propose to be a rule), or I would just point to it and end the conversation. It's just sidebar commentary supporting my argument with RAI, which is rules as intended. And while it makes a strong case for me, I can't say that it's absolute RAW.

[Richard_Chilton]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion and your suggested houserules.

Can we agree that an aspect is not a power? That an aspect cannot allow you to do things that are impossible - such as flying by flapping your arms?

If we can, then what I am saying that it is impossible to grant a non-freewilled creature freewill with an aspect.

Oh, come on. Now you're just insulting yourself and me at the same time. No, that's not what you asked. No, those dots don't even connect ANYWAY. Let's not play those reindeer games. I can look at your previous post.

Let me save you the time:

Show me the template that allows non-mortals other than WCV.

Can we agree that there are no templates in the RAW that allow you to play True Fae.  You could make one, but currently none exist?

Where you're coming from is not a definition of RAW. It doesn't even make sense. RAW literally stands for rules as written, not "whatever text is in the corebook". A rule doesn't have to be a mechanic, but it does need to be a rule. Sidebar commentary supporting my argument is, sadly, not a rule (nor does it propose to be a rule), or I would just point to it and end the conversation. It's just sidebar commentary supporting my argument with RAI, which is rules as intended. And while it makes a strong case for me, I can't say that it's absolute RAW.

We are talking about a rule book - and what is in that book? Rules.  There's a rule on page 10 that says monsters are those without freewill.  Freewill is mentioned in several other areas of the rule book.  Some of those discussions don't fit well with  the narrative so rather than reword them in a way that would increase page count they are put in sidebars.  Sometimes they are put in sidebars to emphasise those rules - as in "these are so important we put them in a special section".

Since you refuse to accept my definition of RAW, would you be more comfortable if I used "The rulebook clearly says..."?

Richard

[Viatos]

Can we agree that an aspect is not a power? That an aspect cannot allow you to do things that are impossible - such as flying by flapping your arms?

If we can, then what I am saying that it is impossible to grant a non-freewilled creature freewill with an aspect.

Yes, and your equivalence of having free will to flight is your opinion. I'd put its equivalence more on the scale of being able to disrupt technology by proximity, which is an Aspect for wizards and sorcerers.

Let me save you the time:

Can we agree that there are no templates in the RAW that allow you to play True Fae.  You could make one, but currently none exist?

That's still not what you asked, is it? You asked for an example of a template that let you play a non-mortal other then a WCV. You realized halfway into asking that there was already a core example of a non-mortal, but rather then discard your flawed point, you forged ahead and tried to label it as a special exception, which it isn't.

That's disingenuous, dude.

We are talking about a rule book - and what is in that book? Rules.

 

There's also names, page numbers, funny jokes by Bob and Harry, casual suggestions, "it's up to you" disclaimers, and an index in the back. Oh yeah, and sidebar commentary.

[Richard_Chilton]

That's still not what you asked, is it? You asked for an example of a template that let you play a non-mortal other then a WCV. You realized halfway into asking that there was already a core example of a non-mortal, but rather then discard your flawed point, you forged ahead and tried to label it as a special exception, which it isn't.

That's disingenuous, dude.

I thought my reasoning was clear - but if you think I was trying to trap you then I'm sorry.

And having the WCV there show that non-humans get their own templates.  And not just those who are completely non-human.  Those who are only partway human - White Court Virgins, RCI, etc - have to take a specific template.

But the question remains - point to the Template that ...

Oh, I need to ask - do you see Templates as part of the RAW?

If so, please show me what Template in the RAW that you can pick that allows you to take Greater Glamor.  And allow me to be explicit with my reason here: If you can't then there is a power in the RAW (provided you accept Templates as part of the RAW) that PCs cannot take without making a custom template (i.e. going beyond the RAW by adding custom content).

Richard

[ways and means]

Characters with free will who aren't mortal, Kincaid, possibly Gard, WCV's, Changeling with Recovery (allows you live indefinitely).

[Viatos]

You can just...make Templates. That's in the RAW. And...you don't have to use a Template at all. That's also in the RAW. It is, in fact, the very first sentence of chapter 5.

This ain't DND. You don't have to pick a class at level 1.

[Richard_Chilton]

You can just...make Templates. That's in the RAW. And...you don't have to use a Template at all. That's also in the RAW. It is, in fact, the very first sentence of chapter 5.

While you and your GM can work together to devise new and strange character types for your own campaign if you wish, the actual Dresdenverse has many already-established peoples (mortal and semi-mortal) to draw from.

Yes to custom templates (character types), no to "templates being optional.

To quote:
YS 63: Choose a Template
First, you’ll need to choose a template from Types & Templates (page 72). There, you’ll find packages that tell you what things you’ll have to do in the rest of these steps in order to build a character that matches your concept. Most templates (in fact, all but the Pure Mortal template) require a certain high concept (page 54) and some supernatural powers (page 158), as well as suggesting some skills to take. Thus, the initial template decision will impact everything else down the line. The template is crucial to creating your character; even with Quick Character Creation (page 68), this step is necessary.

Ergo, templates are not optional.

This ain't DND. You don't have to pick a class at level 1.

No, but you have to pick a template.  If you and your GM want to work something out you can, but it's not optional under the RAW.

Which brings me back to:
What template in the RAW can you take and then take Greater Glamor?
(the reasoning behind that question hasn't changed.)

Richard

[Viatos]

templates

If you're doing quick character creation, yes. The actual section you go to to look at templates notes that you don't need one.

Which brings me back to:
What template in the RAW can you take and then take Greater Glamor?
(the reasoning behind that question hasn't changed.)

Richard

Any RAW-designed custom template. Also, any extant template applied to a true fae such as Emissary of Power.

[Becq]

If you're doing quick character creation, yes. The actual section you go to to look at templates notes that you don't need one.

Not that it really matters, but ... read that section again, please.  It says that you need not restrict yourself to one of the sample templates.  But if you know of a place where it discusses templates being optional, I'd be interested to see it.  I can point you to several places where it says that you do need a template of some form, starting with this one, which seems rather unambiguous:

The template is crucial to creating your character; even with Quick Character Creation (page 68), this step is necessary.