ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: mostlyawake on August 15, 2010, 03:52:44 PM
-
As the storyteller, choosing the Sponsor's agenda for soulfire is my job (with player input, of course). What are everyone's thoughts on the possible agenda?
I know for sure that I will be including redemption for any mortal, maintaining the balance between summer and winter, maintaining the strength of the veil between worlds, and resisting outsiders. Outsiders, demons, and BCVs are all considered "unholy" for my campaign.
-
Doing what's right, no matter how inconvenient or painful. Turning the other cheek. Being compassionate and forgiving even, especially, to one's enemies.
-
Its almost impossible to say. It hasn't come up yet in the books, but the servants of the Almighty, both archangels, Knights of the cross, and father Forthill, all seem to be more interested in protecting and promoting human freewill, and their right to choose for themselves, than actually seeing them choose good over evil.
-
You may consider looking at the PCs Aspects and that as a base for their 'soul'. Then look for how to compel the most 'angelic' return from that character's 'soul'.
-
It all depends on whether you want things simple or complex. Either should work for a game although the simple path won't fit with the explanation that comes out of the novels for it eventually.
Simple: He's all about doing the most good and avoiding doing evil. This is a very white hats and black hats viewpoint. You may want to temper it a bit to avoid any mustache twirling. The advantage of the simple approach is it can pretty much be background. The disadvantage is that controversies involving this tend to be overly simplistic. If you opt for this it's unlikely you'd put in situations that don't turn your PC into a mustache twirlers if they don't go along with the sponsor.
Complex: Free will is the most important thing to him. Good and evil don't matter, the only important thing is whether you've taken away the ability to exercise free will or not. For example the Denariians do give you a choice but they only give you one and they do their best to disguise it as something completely different. Doing something similar, even to get someone to stop doing evil and act like a better person would be against the rules. Another consideration you could use is mystical politics as a motivation. The literature the sponsor is based on would tend to indicate he's extremely concerned about getting ahead in the godhood game. Moreso earlier in his career than now perhaps but now that he's top dog I'm sure he wants to stay that way. It's highly unlikely any of his servitors would lack similar traits (ie, even the angels aren't going to be fluffy headed innocent do-gooders lacking in any worldly concerns). This also fits in with a significant number of them deciding to make their own faction and have a go at doing things their own way. Although I'm not certain the balance between Summer and Winter is a big concern. I think an attitude more like "Apocalypses must be scheduled with the front office to gain approval" might be more common. If I ran a game that used Soulfire I might have to glance back through the books and see if he ever used it to kill someone. If so, the circumstances would probably give me more ideas for this.
-
I want "smite evil unworldly beings" plus "complex moral questions when humans are involved"
I see the balance of winter and summer to be important only in not letting one get ahead, which could seriously compete with the sponsor for influence in the world.
I like the idea of protecting the sponsor's title or position, in that maybe the sponsor feels that it offers the world the best chance at surviving.
I like the idea of preserving free will more than good or evil.
Anything else?
-
Doing what's right, no matter how inconvenient or painful. Turning the other cheek. Being compassionate and forgiving even, especially, to one's enemies.
I disagree with turning the other cheek and being compassionate and forgiving. Soulfire has much more of a destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, ten plagues of Egypt, or flood the entire earth feel to it than a He died for our sins feel.
-
I disagree with turning the other cheek and being compassionate and forgiving. Soulfire has much more of a destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, ten plagues of Egypt, or flood the entire earth feel to it than a He died for our sins feel.
Ahh but you see, sometimes mercy and compassion entail putting something out of it's misery. Anyway, I'm generally ruling it like Michael was working for the same Agenda as anything that would supply Soulfire, so I kinda tailored accordingly. Michael was definitely willing to get his smite on, but took every opportunity to allow any soul, even the most diabolical of Denarians, the chance for repentance.
-
IMHO, when Harry uses soulfire he doesn't think at all like Michael would.
-
IMHO, when Harry uses soulfire he doesn't think at all like Michael would.
He's also not accruing Sponsor Debt, he's just using his own energy.
-
He's also not accruing Sponsor Debt, he's just using his own energy.
That gets to the point I was about to make about Soulfire. I don't see why it counts as sponsored magic at all really. According to the novels, its an ability bestowed by the angels that allows you to buff your own magic, by channeling bits of your soul into it. Its not really a sponsored magic in the way the others are (handed down with an agenda and closely watched), but a power that they give you, and then its your problem to decide when its worth the extra cost (a piece of your soul) to get what you want.
If a character in my game wanted to use it (and I'd probably want a good explanation, since this is something that's supposed to be like reverse Werewolf rare), I'd probably work up a system where you had to take mental consequences to use it, rather than have a patron.
-
Or maybe Harry has never decided to use its Sponsor Debt ability. You do know that all Sponsored Magic can be used with your own energy and not accrue Sponsor Debt, right?
-
Still, by the RPG, even harry's use has to align with the sponsor's agenda, debt or no debt.
-
no. In the books, it specifically states that Soulfire works by using your own soul to supercharge your spells.
And as far as him choosing not to incur debt, there are 2 flaws in that. 1) it ignores the way he uses soulfire to cast spells that he couldn't have pulled off on his own (which is about every time he uses it). 2) it assumes that incurring debt is a conscious choice. A character doesn't actually know when hes invoking an aspect, or when hes incurring debt. If they did, Hellfire would never corrupt anyone. Harry incurred debt from Hellfire because he had no idea of the cost. It made his magic more powerful, then later levied a cost subtly.
A player can choose to use sponsored magic without incurring debt (on an individual basis. He can take it and then choose never to incur debt, because the power will stop working), but from the point of view of the character it is not a choice, and form the perspective of the story, you can't use sponsorship without incurring debt.
But what it really comes down to is, the books specifically state that its a path to boosting your magic, not a sponsorship situation. Add to that all the times (Both in the novels and RPG books) that they allude to and illustrate that "Gods" plan is more concerned with human freewill than the triumph of good over evil, and it just seems to me that the sponsored magic system would need to be amended for Soulfire.
-
no. In the books, it specifically states that Soulfire works by using your own soul to supercharge your spells.
But what it really comes down to is, the books specifically state that its a path to boosting your magic, not a sponsorship situation. Add to that all the times (Both in the novels and RPG books) that they allude to and illustrate that "Gods" plan is more concerned with human freewill than the triumph of good over evil, and it just seems to me that the sponsored magic system would need to be amended for Soulfire.
(emphasis mine)
I'm assuming that you mean in the novels, and not in Your Story or Our World. There is a difference between how soulfire is presented in the novels and how it is presented in the RPG. The RPG clearly labels it as sponsorship, states that all spells are subject to sponsor's approval, and states that "we" (meaning, "billy's" understanding of the subject) don't know much about the sponsor's agenda. It states that the sponsor has a potentially gentler agenda [when compared to that of hellfire or other sponsors], and suggests that it may be stricter in terms of debt allowance due to this.
I'm fairly certain that this change (to clear sponsorship, rather than "just an improvement on your power") was done to keep soulfire in line with the sponsorship rules, and to provide a limitation on its use...otherwise, you're getting full thaumaturgy and channelling fire PLUS toughness reduction on all creatures for the same cost as normal thaumaturgy an channelling fire. Without limitation, it's just out of balance, and every caster should take it instead of normal wizarding.
In the RPG, at least, you AREN'T free to use soulfire however you want. It has to line up with the mysterious sponsor's agenda. Thus, the need for a thread like this to help us get some ideas on what that agenda should be.
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.