Home
Gallery
Register
Log in
I believe *you* are underestimating the power of the breasts.
Who is online?
In total there are 6 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 6 Guests
None
Most users ever online was 163 on Fri 24 Sep 2021 - 11:21
Blog Posts
Latest topics
Search
Statistics
Our users have posted a total of 3440 messages in 394 subjects
We have 47 registered users
The newest registered user is Cyurus
+7
Cheriour
Corral
Gabe
Rebecca O'Malley
Rada
Keth
cenobyte
11 posters
Embodiment, Conviction, and Morality
cenobyte- Admin
- Number of posts : 860
Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
Registration date : 2008-06-24
Rada- Retired
- Number of posts : 80
Registration date : 2008-07-26
This is somewhat linking into comments in a different thread, but as it is presented, KC's system of morality is only tangentially linked to good and evil. "Moral" is more accurately described as an aversion to violence and "immoral" as a willingness to do violence and an aversion to kindness. In addition to all the other dichotomies described, it is very possible for there to be quite evil Typical or possibly even Innocent characters, as well as very good Hardcore or even controlled Irredeemable characters.
Corral- Number of posts : 359
Location : Leaving myself behind...
Registration date : 2008-06-25
"I told you I was right. Bewbs over Beards!"
"i believe you are underestimating the power of the beard..."
"I believe *you* are underestimating the power of the breasts."
I am saddened that I hath not the power of Polls to determine the answer to this pressing question. Jill's bewbs... or Sacha's beard... which would win in a fight?
"i believe you are underestimating the power of the beard..."
"I believe *you* are underestimating the power of the breasts."
I am saddened that I hath not the power of Polls to determine the answer to this pressing question. Jill's bewbs... or Sacha's beard... which would win in a fight?
Keth- Retired
- Number of posts : 207
Location : Player: Daniel Smith
Registration date : 2008-07-03
im not sure if such a poll could exist in the same dimension as my sanity. Speaking of which if you find said sanity please return it.
And I agree with Dave's (Rada's) post.
It would be easy to create a character that works for the power of good and has no boundaries in what they are able to do. If it ment killing one to save millions i figure thats along the line of an irredeemable good character. Perhaps a man who has fought so many battles on the side of righteousness that he has become completely numb to the violence arround him. Still a good man, but one who has no problem with violence and destruction to the point where it is mentally easier to kill someone then to talk them down/bring them to justice.
An 'evil' innocent I have more problems picturing in my mind... But im sure it could be done quite easily with a bit of thinking.
And I agree with Dave's (Rada's) post.
It would be easy to create a character that works for the power of good and has no boundaries in what they are able to do. If it ment killing one to save millions i figure thats along the line of an irredeemable good character. Perhaps a man who has fought so many battles on the side of righteousness that he has become completely numb to the violence arround him. Still a good man, but one who has no problem with violence and destruction to the point where it is mentally easier to kill someone then to talk them down/bring them to justice.
An 'evil' innocent I have more problems picturing in my mind... But im sure it could be done quite easily with a bit of thinking.
Last edited by Keth on Wed 17 Dec 2008 - 18:10; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : font was being difficilt)
Marius- Dead
- Number of posts : 45
Registration date : 2008-06-27
Cheriour wrote:Mike: To clarify, this action being to decide whether to uphold or scour Creation? Because, if so, I'm still skeptical that that's what served to form the distinction initially, rather than simple guilt for breaking God's will or confusion and anger at being cast out.
The action in question being whether to ruin Creation or preserve it. "Uphold" and "scour" strike me as tactics to preserve Creation, depending on how far one is willing to go, and whether one believes that Creation has become compromised or not.
Cheriour wrote:Besides which, it strikes me that the seeds that you're referring to would have been pretty hard to maintain in millennia of bitter, brutal warfare, defined by torture, hatred and betrayal.
I don't see that, given that Fallen can live for hundreds of years. It makes sense to me that these are the greater causes that the Convictions herald. I don't say that they ahve been followed well over the centuries, but I do believe that they will have survived.
Marius- Dead
- Number of posts : 45
Registration date : 2008-06-27
Rada wrote:This is somewhat linking into comments in a different thread, but as it is presented, KC's system of morality is only tangentially linked to good and evil. "Moral" is more accurately described as an aversion to violence and "immoral" as a willingness to do violence and an aversion to kindness. In addition to all the other dichotomies described, it is very possible for there to be quite evil Typical or possibly even Innocent characters, as well as very good Hardcore or even controlled Irredeemable characters.
I disagree. I think the Morality system does well in bringing a sense of personal morality to the game. You do address a good point in the other thread, but I think the solution there is to not make all Trauma from taking or witnessing Immoral acts automatically Immoral. I think that Morality reflects what a character does or does not find repugnant, and acting against one's fellow beings is immoral as assumed by the game, and thus repugnant to more Moral characters.
Just because a Typical character takes Trauma for hearing about a horrible mutilation should not make that character more Immoral. The conflation between Morality and Trauma is the problem, not the Morality scale itself.
Cheriour- Retired
- Number of posts : 87
Location : A City on Fire
Registration date : 2008-06-25
I still maintain that one's attitude toward Creation is of far less importance than one's attitude toward the Creator, when it comes to choosing Conviction, and that there's really no reason why an Infernal couldn't hate God but care about Creation. If an Infernal views God as an abusive parent, why shouldn't he care for the Creator's children, even while hating their maker? However, this is likely something that we're just not going to see eye to eye on.
That being said, I have to agree with Marius about the Morality system. Seeing as the actions that define Moral characters are Acts of Grace, which is basically doing nice things for people with selfless intent and that person's best interests at heart. Moreover, Hardened characters are capable of committing Questionable Acts that fit their character concept without taking trauma, which includes killing with a purpose, so Keth's examples could just as easily be hardened characters as anything else. I think that perhaps cenobyte's description of killing creating Trauma is related less to any kind of killing and more to wonton killing, killing without reason or ultimately good intent (not that I want to put words in anyone's mouth, and I could obviously be wrong).
On the flip side, what defines Immoral characters are Heinous Acts. Really, torturing someone is on a whole different level than killing them: you need to be capable of ignoring the suffering of a fellow sentient being, physical or psychological, as well as inflicting and prolonging that suffering. Basically, you need to overcome your own sense of empathy in order to commit the acts that are described as 'Heinous' in the book. Perhaps more importantly, your sense of empathy has become so damaged at this point that you are incapable of performing Acts of Grace, that is to say that you cannot act selflessly with the intent of helping your fellow beings without taking trauma for it. So I wouldn't say that the Morality system connects only tangentally to what most people would consider morality.
Of course, I suspect that if we actually want to argue about what Morality is in the real world, then it's going to take us more than a game-related chat on a forum to come to some sort of consensus.
Sacha
That being said, I have to agree with Marius about the Morality system. Seeing as the actions that define Moral characters are Acts of Grace, which is basically doing nice things for people with selfless intent and that person's best interests at heart. Moreover, Hardened characters are capable of committing Questionable Acts that fit their character concept without taking trauma, which includes killing with a purpose, so Keth's examples could just as easily be hardened characters as anything else. I think that perhaps cenobyte's description of killing creating Trauma is related less to any kind of killing and more to wonton killing, killing without reason or ultimately good intent (not that I want to put words in anyone's mouth, and I could obviously be wrong).
On the flip side, what defines Immoral characters are Heinous Acts. Really, torturing someone is on a whole different level than killing them: you need to be capable of ignoring the suffering of a fellow sentient being, physical or psychological, as well as inflicting and prolonging that suffering. Basically, you need to overcome your own sense of empathy in order to commit the acts that are described as 'Heinous' in the book. Perhaps more importantly, your sense of empathy has become so damaged at this point that you are incapable of performing Acts of Grace, that is to say that you cannot act selflessly with the intent of helping your fellow beings without taking trauma for it. So I wouldn't say that the Morality system connects only tangentally to what most people would consider morality.
Of course, I suspect that if we actually want to argue about what Morality is in the real world, then it's going to take us more than a game-related chat on a forum to come to some sort of consensus.
Sacha
Cheriour- Retired
- Number of posts : 87
Location : A City on Fire
Registration date : 2008-06-25
And, I think that a typical character taking Trauma for hearing about the torture of one of their fellow beings makes perfect sense. That being said, and our storyguide can correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be immoral trauma. However, if said character knew that torture was imminent, and just walked out of the room, I would argue that any trauma that they take should be immoral: they have chosen to ignore the suffering of a fellow being, and to allow it to happen. It makes sense to me that such a person would become slowly more hardened to the idea of inflicting suffering on another person, and slowly less capable of caring about the welfare of others.
Sacha
Sacha
Keth- Retired
- Number of posts : 207
Location : Player: Daniel Smith
Registration date : 2008-07-03
Cheriour wrote:And, I think that a typical character taking Trauma for hearing about the torture of one of their fellow beings makes perfect sense. That being said, and our story guide can correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be immoral trauma. However, if said character knew that torture was imminent, and just walked out of the room, I would argue that any trauma that they take should be immoral: they have chosen to ignore the suffering of a fellow being, and to allow it to happen. It makes sense to me that such a person would become slowly more hardened to the idea of inflicting suffering on another person, and slowly less capable of caring about the welfare of others.
I wouldnt argue that point to hard. Its not that they have chosen to ignore the suffering of another of their fellows. Its that they cant stand to be witness to something that will happen whether they are present or not, I mean honestly if some incredibly powerful fallen, that no one can hope to match in physical combat, and with a mean streak a mile wide, decides to torture someone there is little hope that anyone could stop him. So you can either stay for what could be hours as said fallen goes to work, chopping off toes, slicing layers of skin off one at a time, putting bamboo under fingernails... etc. OR you can choose to not watch the utterly horrific scene and leave the room. Its not Immoral to back away from a situation you cant change and that you find repulsive.
There is just as much of a change with the logic you gave that they would take immoral trauma from hearing about the torture, as after many of them occurred they would become hardened to the idea of inflicting violence on others without ever having to inflict the violence themselves.
And to be fair. Id be more afraid of the sick twisted entity that decided to stay around and watch as if he had paid hundreds of dollars for tickets, then the guy doing the torturing.
Not sure how much sense that made, but hopefully it didnt fail as completely as some of my comments do
Marius- Dead
- Number of posts : 45
Registration date : 2008-06-27
Keth wrote:
And to be fair. Id be more afraid of the sick twisted entity that decided to stay around and watch as if he had paid hundreds of dollars for tickets, then the guy doing the torturing.
But how about the guy who remained to ensure that someone witnessed the acts the torturer was taking (and was allowed to take because of the Codex)? To ensure that said torturer didn't step over whatever line the bad guys had bargained out of it?
Cheriour wrote:I still maintain that one's attitude toward Creation is of far less importance than one's attitude toward the Creator, when it comes to choosing Conviction, and that there's really no reason why an Infernal couldn't hate God but care about Creation. If an Infernal views God as an abusive parent, why shouldn't he care for the Creator's children, even while hating their maker? However, this is likely something that we're just not going to see eye to eye on.
I don't disagree that you can be Infernal and want to take care of Creation. However, I think it should be seen within and without the Conviction as bucking the party line, and as an unusual stance. Just as I think Cheriour's stance (as opposed to Sacha's) should be considered an oddity among the Divine. Being willing to go to any lengths (ie. Immoral lengths) to stop evil? Yes, I think that's within Divine doctrine (it shouldn't be, but it certainly is). Feeling that the Creator wants us to scourge the world of everyone not up to snuff? That's a departure from the main line of Divine thought, I think. And I think Cheriour got exactly the right reaction from the Divine.
cenobyte- Admin
- Number of posts : 860
Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
Registration date : 2008-06-24
Whoa, Nellie!
Jeepers. I leave you guys alone for two minutes, and look what happens!
You don't necessarily take aligned (Moral or Immoral) Trauma from witnessing events. You take aligned Trauma from it being *inflicted* on you (through the use of certain Techniques) or from being forced to *do* something outside your own Morality.
The Trauma you take from 'events' is *usually* unaligned. You might take Trauma from witnessing someone beat someone to death (not pointing any fingers, here, RADA), but that Trauma will be unaligned. If, however, *you* are the one doing the beating, and 'beating someone to death' is outside your morality, and you fail your Trauma test, then you will take Immoral Trauma.
Likewise, if you are, say, Irredeemable, and you are forced to do an Act of Grace (through the use of Techniques, say), and you fail your Trauma Test, you will take Moral Trauma.
You can take aligned Trauma if someone uses a Technique on you: f'rinstance, if you're an Immoral character and a Moral character uses Bliss on you, you will take Moral Trauma. And vice versa.
But by and large, any Trauma you take from witnessing stuff is unaligned, since you're not being forced to *do* something outside your own morality. I might make a different decision if you're being *forced* to witness something outside your own Morality, but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
Jeepers. I leave you guys alone for two minutes, and look what happens!
You don't necessarily take aligned (Moral or Immoral) Trauma from witnessing events. You take aligned Trauma from it being *inflicted* on you (through the use of certain Techniques) or from being forced to *do* something outside your own Morality.
The Trauma you take from 'events' is *usually* unaligned. You might take Trauma from witnessing someone beat someone to death (not pointing any fingers, here, RADA), but that Trauma will be unaligned. If, however, *you* are the one doing the beating, and 'beating someone to death' is outside your morality, and you fail your Trauma test, then you will take Immoral Trauma.
Likewise, if you are, say, Irredeemable, and you are forced to do an Act of Grace (through the use of Techniques, say), and you fail your Trauma Test, you will take Moral Trauma.
You can take aligned Trauma if someone uses a Technique on you: f'rinstance, if you're an Immoral character and a Moral character uses Bliss on you, you will take Moral Trauma. And vice versa.
But by and large, any Trauma you take from witnessing stuff is unaligned, since you're not being forced to *do* something outside your own morality. I might make a different decision if you're being *forced* to witness something outside your own Morality, but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
Cheriour- Retired
- Number of posts : 87
Location : A City on Fire
Registration date : 2008-06-25
Well, personally, I would still give immoral Trauma to a Typical who didn't, to some degree, try to stop any such torture. In Marius' example, I think that Trauma should be handed out to the witness, but for any morality beyond Hardened, I would hand out Immoral Trauma. But then, in terms of ethics, I have a hard time distinguishing between action and failing to act, if you know what I mean.
And again, Marius, I suspect that this is where we are going to disagree. The only party line that I see is how you relate to God.
Sacha
And again, Marius, I suspect that this is where we are going to disagree. The only party line that I see is how you relate to God.
Sacha
cenobyte- Admin
- Number of posts : 860
Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
Registration date : 2008-06-24
But it's not Immoral Trauma. It's situational Trauma. The whole point of aligned Trauma is when something is *forced* on you or when you do something outside your Morality.
The only time it matters whether Trauma is aligned or unaligned is when you take your Mortal Traumatic Wound and suffer a breakdown. If that happens and the Trauma you have is unaligned, you have a breakdown and try to heal. If that happens and the Trauma you have is aligned, you shift morality toward the far end of the spectrum from which you have taken the most aligned Trauma.
That doesn't mean I won't give *unaligned* Trauma to Typical characters who witness something. Based on the game mechanics as presented to me, there is no Trauma to be dealt out for *not stopping* something that's outside your morality. And if there is Trauma Tests to be made for not stopping an Immoral (or Moral, I suppose) act, I can't imagine it being aligned. I really can't.
Because if I'm Immoral and I don't stop someone from murdering you, does that mean that's an Act of Grace? No. Not at all. It probably means I just don't care. If I'm Innocent and I don't stop someone from slapping you up, does that mean I'm committing an act of violence? No, it doesn't. Complicity does not equal action. Or rather, non-action /= action. By definition.
The only time it matters whether Trauma is aligned or unaligned is when you take your Mortal Traumatic Wound and suffer a breakdown. If that happens and the Trauma you have is unaligned, you have a breakdown and try to heal. If that happens and the Trauma you have is aligned, you shift morality toward the far end of the spectrum from which you have taken the most aligned Trauma.
That doesn't mean I won't give *unaligned* Trauma to Typical characters who witness something. Based on the game mechanics as presented to me, there is no Trauma to be dealt out for *not stopping* something that's outside your morality. And if there is Trauma Tests to be made for not stopping an Immoral (or Moral, I suppose) act, I can't imagine it being aligned. I really can't.
Because if I'm Immoral and I don't stop someone from murdering you, does that mean that's an Act of Grace? No. Not at all. It probably means I just don't care. If I'm Innocent and I don't stop someone from slapping you up, does that mean I'm committing an act of violence? No, it doesn't. Complicity does not equal action. Or rather, non-action /= action. By definition.
Cheriour- Retired
- Number of posts : 87
Location : A City on Fire
Registration date : 2008-06-25
If you only take aligned trauma for action according to the book, then I am incorrect.
Sacha
Sacha
Gabe- Retired
- Number of posts : 111
Location : Halifax
Registration date : 2008-07-27
I think that whether or not trauma moves from unaligned to aligned should also be somewhat in the hands of the player (although the same would *not* be true in reverse). If a character feels that their failure to stop an ongoing act that they abhor (be it graceful or odious) was permissive of said action, then they may feel complicit. If the character feels that as such it was as though done by their own hand...
I wouldn't force this on players, mind you, but I think it is valid for a player to tell the storyteller that they think certain trauma should be aligned.
I wouldn't force this on players, mind you, but I think it is valid for a player to tell the storyteller that they think certain trauma should be aligned.
Corral- Number of posts : 359
Location : Leaving myself behind...
Registration date : 2008-06-25
Non-action is an action. Non-action is the action of standing around, doing nothing. Or going into the next room so as not to have to watch.
Not that I'm saying it should be aligned or what-have-you.
Not that I'm saying it should be aligned or what-have-you.
Cheriour- Retired
- Number of posts : 87
Location : A City on Fire
Registration date : 2008-06-25
My argument exactly.
Sacha
Sacha
cenobyte- Admin
- Number of posts : 860
Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
Registration date : 2008-06-24
Players **ALWAYS** have the option of taking Trauma Tests at their own request.
The rules in the book talk about when the Storyguide should look at asking players to make a Trauma Test.
Which, to me, is very fair. Because if you're playing, say, a Slothful character, there may be many times when you choose inaction. Or, when you cause another character to choose inaction. In that case, that may be one of the times when the Storyguide chooses to ask a player to make a Trauma Test for not trying to stop someone from doing things.
However, unless you want a 2500 page rule book that tries to anticipate what you should do as a Storyguide in *every possible situation* (which is impossible, and, IMO, a little dictatorial), you have to leave room for Storyguide and Player discretion. Which this system does nicely.
And which boils down to trust between the Player and the Storyguide. Which is another topic altogether.
The rules in the book talk about when the Storyguide should look at asking players to make a Trauma Test.
Which, to me, is very fair. Because if you're playing, say, a Slothful character, there may be many times when you choose inaction. Or, when you cause another character to choose inaction. In that case, that may be one of the times when the Storyguide chooses to ask a player to make a Trauma Test for not trying to stop someone from doing things.
However, unless you want a 2500 page rule book that tries to anticipate what you should do as a Storyguide in *every possible situation* (which is impossible, and, IMO, a little dictatorial), you have to leave room for Storyguide and Player discretion. Which this system does nicely.
And which boils down to trust between the Player and the Storyguide. Which is another topic altogether.
Rada- Retired
- Number of posts : 80
Registration date : 2008-07-26
If you only take aligned trauma from actions you DO. It reinforces my argument about the game's morality system not being a system of good/evil or actual morality. It is a system that defines a character's willingness to use violence.
cenobyte- Admin
- Number of posts : 860
Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
Registration date : 2008-06-24
There are many people who consider violence in any form to be immoral.
Just sayin'.
In fact, entire world religions have been based on the concept that violence is immoral.
And again, you also take aligned Trauma from the use of Techniques.
Just sayin'.
In fact, entire world religions have been based on the concept that violence is immoral.
And again, you also take aligned Trauma from the use of Techniques.
Keth- Retired
- Number of posts : 207
Location : Player: Daniel Smith
Registration date : 2008-07-03
But but but...
Violence is so much fun though.
Violence is so much fun though.
cenobyte- Admin
- Number of posts : 860
Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
Registration date : 2008-06-24
Didn't say it wasn't fun.
Said lots of folks think it's immoral.
Said lots of folks think it's immoral.
Rada- Retired
- Number of posts : 80
Registration date : 2008-07-26
A soldier who voted against a war, but fights anyways because it's his duty is "immoral" in Kingdom Come. Someone who voted to go to war, but is too cowardly to fight themselves is not "Immoral". That is why I disagree with calling the system a "morality" system.
Also going back somewhat to the original idea behind the thread, Wouldn't God himself have to be irredeemable? Biblically he repeatedly committed mass murders, genocides, and tortures. Even if the none of the bible is true in the KC world, the casting out of Lucifer into Hell as well as the condemning the Grigori to bodies of Clay would both be heinous acts, would they not?
I've also never understood why Angels are not considered immoral in KC with their willful slaughter of Fallen not to mention those humans who stand in their way.
Also going back somewhat to the original idea behind the thread, Wouldn't God himself have to be irredeemable? Biblically he repeatedly committed mass murders, genocides, and tortures. Even if the none of the bible is true in the KC world, the casting out of Lucifer into Hell as well as the condemning the Grigori to bodies of Clay would both be heinous acts, would they not?
I've also never understood why Angels are not considered immoral in KC with their willful slaughter of Fallen not to mention those humans who stand in their way.
cenobyte- Admin
- Number of posts : 860
Location : She is overfond of books, and it hath addled her brain.
Registration date : 2008-06-24
I would argue that the Creator is outside of or beyond or extra-morality. Which is to say, since there's no way one can truly understand the Creator, there's also no way to understand Its motives, directives, or reasoning. Therefore, the Creator is outside of 'morality'.
And since Angels are the first created, they also should be.
And since Angels are the first created, they also should be.
Keth- Retired
- Number of posts : 207
Location : Player: Daniel Smith
Registration date : 2008-07-03
cenobyte wrote:And since Angels are the first created, they also should be.
Just a small thing... but technically... are the fallen angels not still angels? Im not saying we shouldnt have to be accountable to morality, but considering how close they are to us shouldnt they also have to be accountable to the same system the fallen are?
Similar topics
|
|
|
» Magic Creation-Zeal Table
» Houses of the Blooded in Regina, August 28th
» The Sentinel's journal
» Character backgrounds
» The dreams of Edward
» Some of Eliel's secrets
» Question/June Game
» "Map" of the Fallen