ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Grasharm on May 15, 2014, 06:55:43 PM
-
In a recent session of DFRPG me and the Gm had a heated Debate about the semantics of what constitutes free will when picking up an order coin. My character a Warden Wizard had the coin flung at him by none other than Nicodemus himself. Does the action of Catching it without knowing what it is mean the fallen angel is now a part of me? or would i have had to make a conscious decision to take the coin in order for the fallen angel to take hold?
-
Free will is about intent, IMO. The act of "picking up" a coin and "picking up" the entity are two different things.
But, my understanding is that, simply, touching the coin gives the Fallen the opportunity to start tempting you to use it. In fact, I think that's kind of the point. Even Michael, a Knight of the Cross, refrains from touching one. But then again, Michael knew what he was picking up. But, I'm sure, the coins are purposely left lying around so that unsuspecting people pick them up. They also don't know what the coin is, but the act of picking it up, allows the angel to begin tempting them.
A denarian coin can't remove your free will. But it can keep working away at you until you have none left. Basically, it convinces you to choose it over something else until it imprisons you in a cage of your own free will. Which reminds me of a very a good quote that I read somewhere that I need to find...
What were you hoping for? To just drop it as soon as you realized what it was without it affecting you? I'm not sure that that will work...but that's just IMO.
-
Thank you for your feedback, hopefully we can get some more to make a comparison.
-
Pretty much what Taran said. If you touch a coin, the shadow of the fallen gets into you and starts to talk you into picking up the coin. Though that doesn't have to happen immediately. Look at Harry, it took over a year before anything happened.
On the other hand, if you don't want your character to deal with that whole fallen-in-your-head thing, and that's what it sounds like, and your GM forces you anyway, that's a bad move on his part, I think. Talk to him, and maybe you can come to a different conclusion. Maybe you can retcon wearing a glove, or simply retcon to letting it fall into the mud. Compels are a good thing, but only if they are mutually agreed upon and fun for everyone.
-
Yeah, I was going to mention that picking up a coin should involve some kind of roll or a compel. As in, OOC, the GM should have let you know it was a coin (even if your character did not know what it was).
-
I really appreciate the prompt feedback guys/gals. While I wasn't thrilled to take possession of the coin, I know my DM and no amount of feet stomping is going to change that. What bugs me is he threw this coin at me during RP and when I caught it his exact words "You're screwed now" and he immediately went into explaining the permanent penalties i would be taking to all social rolls, which i found a little unfair. While the benefits of using this coin are nice, my character can only be described as a lawful good paladin. He would NEVER utilize this power for anything and would sooner die before that happens.
-
That is an absolute dick move on the GM's part. Sure, you can consider anything Nicodemus lobs at you to be suspect, but that kind nonconsensual messing with a players character is not only diametrically opposite to the philosophy of cooperation in FATE, it's just straight up rude and disrespectful.
-
Setting aside your GM's jerk-ish-ness, DFRPG doesn't really do penalties. The drawbacks of the coin should be handled through Compels.
-
I really appreciate the feedback guys, I actually emailed the GM and backed out of the game today. I really appreciate all your replies
-
Tell him that if he wants you back in (if that is at all advisable) that he's going to have to negotiate with you over your PC's Fate; this is not the game for arbitrary GM behavior.
-
Everything has more or less been said. The three important things:
*Books are a good canon to use for questions about abilities.
*Fate system is about choices and compels.
*GMs are there to provide a fun and enriching experience.
In the first respect, I would focus on Harry's "choice" to save little Harry from the coin. It was a choice made of free will so it provided the Denarian an opening. It was a conscious choice. I don't think lobbing a coin at someone involves a conscious choice to interact with the coin- if that was the case, why would Nicodemus not lob the coin at a world leader?
Furthermore, the scene probably could've been handled with some compel (for a FP, your character knowingly catches the coin). Having a Denarian spirit should've been an option, not a mandate. Finally, if your GM is that stubborn and railroading AFTER a discussion (he/she may not have fully realized the implications or flaws to their design), just drop the game. There are always other GMs that a more inclined to a more wholesome existence.
-
I feel like it is a large kerfuffle about very little.
To start, let us establish some terminology. Pick up the coin is physically touching the thing=shadow, take up the coin is the term for a full on demon partnership/subjugation.
If you caught it, barehanded, you do get the shadow, pretty much no questions asked, but you could have made a pretty good argument against skin contact, I wear long sleeves and even gloves a good bit of the time (it's cold up here) and I'm more likely to get things thrown at me to hit my sleeve or sweatshirt more than my hand. That might be a coordination issue on my part.
The shadow is free. Taking up the coin is what will cost you refresh. In the mean time you get a friend in your head who is (probably) very helpful and will offer all sorts of advice and will you tell all about how the coin, and demon proper, will help you. This sounds like 1. a great place to get fate points 2. a fun narrative to run your character through. Have fun with the temptation of power story you've been offered and if it comes to it, you now (like most templates come with) have a great "going out with a bang" option.
-
I feel like it is a large kerfuffle about very little.
To start, let us establish some terminology. Pick up the coin is physically touching the thing=shadow, take up the coin is the term for a full on demon partnership/subjugation.
This is what I was trying to say in my first post.
If you caught it, barehanded, you do get the shadow, pretty much no questions asked, but you could have made a pretty good argument against skin contact, I wear long sleeves and even gloves a good bit of the time (it's cold up here) and I'm more likely to get things thrown at me to hit my sleeve or sweatshirt more than my hand. That might be a coordination issue on my part.
The shadow is free. Taking up the coin is what will cost you refresh. In the mean time you get a friend in your head who is (probably) very helpful and will offer all sorts of advice and will you tell all about how the coin, and demon proper, will help you. This sounds like 1. a great place to get fate points 2. a fun narrative to run your character through. Have fun with the temptation of power story you've been offered and if it comes to it, you now (like most templates come with) have a great "going out with a bang" option.
I kind of agree, although, I feel it would require an Aspect change...and that's the kind of thing that needs to get discussed before it happens...or, if it doesn't, and he doesn't want the shadow, he could just, maybe, make a declaration saying he was wearing gloves or something. But the GM and the player should be on-board with whatever decision is made.
-
A slightly different scenario but what is to prevent a Denarion Demon from torturing a perspective host until the take up a coin? And what would that entail? Would they have to break the subject before the shadow would enter them or would simply putting it in their restrained hand do it?
-
A slightly different scenario but what is to prevent a Denarion Demon from torturing a perspective host until the take up a coin? And what would that entail? Would they have to break the subject before the shadow would enter them or would simply putting it in their restrained hand do it?
There is nothing to prevent a Denarian from forcing himself on a person like that. In fact, Tessa and her posse seem to be doing that on a regular basis, I believe. It just takes a human soul to say "yes" to the fallen angel, because they can't just overpower a human host. How that consent comes to be, however, is completely up to you.
-
I guess what I am trying to ask is would the Denarion have to break the human before they will get the shadow? Or would simply placing a coin in their hand while they are restrained be enough to...infect them?
-
Ah, ok. Well, I think the shadow has a pretty easy way of getting in. A simple touch and there it is. But it doesn't really have any power then. I would say it is mostly bound by the laws of hospitality, though they can bend those pretty far. For example, they can't directly harm you, but if you think jumping out of the window to escape the illusionary fire is a good idea, that's not the fallen's fault.
And of course they can play with you. They can make you think they are controlling you, and it only takes that one moment you slip up for them to get a hold of you.
-
OK. That is pretty much what I was thinking but wanted clarification. My group will be facing a Denarion Big Bad in a final showdown next session and I want to be prepared for any eventuality. <insert evil laughter here>
-
Take a note from this thread though and don't force a shadow on one of the players. It's a cool thing to do if one of them wants to introduce that into the campaign, but if it is forced, it's not going to be fun for anyone.
-
Take a note from this thread though and don't force a shadow on one of the players. It's a cool thing to do if one of them wants to introduce that into the campaign, but if it is forced, it's not going to be fun for anyone.
No I hear you. Any taking of coins will be a choice. With implications laid out up front.
-
I feel like it isn't that big a crime. You can make people face all sorts of challenges without express permission. You go up against gangsters, you risk coming in contact with bullets, you fight vampires you risk venom, you fight denarians you risk coins. Make it like how a lot of people handle killing, just let them be aware of the risk if they continue with their actions, and then feel free to impose it if they undergo a course of action that would reasonably result in it.
-
The problem with that view is that you're affecting another person's character, forcing a major change on them that they may not want to take. It can make the game less fun for them, which is against the point of roleplaying games in the first place.
-
It's always the result of a mix unique to each and every group. With one GM it feels like jerkishness and railroading, with another one it's just an unexpected story twist and good storytelling. Two players can feel and interpret the same thing in (at least) two ways. But I agree - if it's not fun there's no point in doing it.
-
I'd be okay with getting Denarian-ized against my will. I'd want a defence roll, though, and I can see why other players might not be okay with it.
So there are some nuances to the issue.
But I'm not sure nuances are appropriate here. This:
What bugs me is he threw this coin at me during RP and when I caught it his exact words "You're screwed now" and he immediately went into explaining the permanent penalties i would be taking to all social rolls...
looks pretty awful.
-
But I'm not sure nuances are appropriate here. This:
looks pretty awful.
Amen. That's bullshit. I'm all for torturing characters, but you have to talk it over wth the players to make sure you're torturing them in the /right/ way, to make a better story. If my GM did that to me, I wouldn't speak to him ever again. Screw the game.
-
It's basically summed up like this: Screw over the character, not the player (and cooperate in doing so).
-
I would also like to point out that my character wears leather gauntlets at all times as they are my Evocation Foci. However when i cited the same thing about skin contact and even referenced Thomas and his coin and how his gloves protected him he answered as follows "Thomas is a Supernatural Creature and Can't have a coin". Which may be true but he went to presume that gloves offer no protection against the coin or the Angel imprint unless they were on par with the sanctified cloth the Knights of the cross use to transport the coins.
-
I would also like to point out that my character wears leather gauntlets at all times as they are my Evocation Foci. However when i cited the same thing about skin contact and even referenced Thomas and his coin and how his gloves protected him he answered as follows "Thomas is a Supernatural Creature and Can't have a coin". Which may be true but he went to presume that gloves offer no protection against the coin or the Angel imprint unless they were on par with the sanctified cloth the Knights of the cross use to transport the coins.
Yeah... Dump him on his ass. Call railroading. Cuz that's /total/ bullshit.
-
I would also like to point out that my character wears leather gauntlets at all times as they are my Evocation Foci. However when i cited the same thing about skin contact and even referenced Thomas and his coin and how his gloves protected him he answered as follows "Thomas is a Supernatural Creature and Can't have a coin". Which may be true but he went to presume that gloves offer no protection against the coin or the Angel imprint unless they were on par with the sanctified cloth the Knights of the cross use to transport the coins.
Did he read the books? :o
-
Apparently he did read all of them, both him and his "Triumverate" ironically made up of multiple females and single male which he would often consult after gaming to help him with messing with our game. That is neither here nor there. I would like to thank you all for your input on this matter. It seems the general consensus is that I did the right thing leaving the game especially since the recurring theme that he took delight in mentioning at every session was "It's my job to bring misery to your characters". Now to paraphrase the wisest wizard i know “There are things you can't walk away from. Not if you want to live with yourself afterward. Thankfully this game isn't one of them.”
-
I figured out the part that bugged me. There is no reason in game or in the books why you would suffer immediate social penalties from having a shadow.
-
"It's my job to bring misery to your characters".
He's right about that. Though he seems to confuse that with "bring misery to the player".
-
Yeah. You're /supposed/ to torture the character. It's fun. But you don't do it by saying "here's how you're going to RP your character because I'm going to make you", you do stuff like, "Well, you're a warlock with Council level talent, so you can Soulgaze. Have a FP to look into the eyes of this random old man. Oh wait? He's the Blackstaff of the White Council? Whoooooops."
Then of course you give them a way to hightail it out of there very very quickly.
-
I would also like to point out that my character wears leather gauntlets at all times as they are my Evocation Foci. However when i cited the same thing about skin contact and even referenced Thomas and his coin and how his gloves protected him he answered as follows "Thomas is a Supernatural Creature and Can't have a coin". Which may be true but he went to presume that gloves offer no protection against the coin or the Angel imprint unless they were on par with the sanctified cloth the Knights of the cross use to transport the coins.
One more bullet for this dead horse and then I'm done. Three words: Crown Royal Bag.
-
Well, I would say you CAN torture even the player along with their character (uncertainty is one of the ways, even forcing something on the player/character duo might work sometimes) but it's necessary to know the player very well and work with the overall gaming atmosphere carefully. Otherwise, it's too easy to cross the fine line between "tension almost unbearable" and "our GM is a jerk".
In this case we lack the input from the other party but generally, either he is a bad GM or his style just doesn't comply with your style, Grasharm (it seems like the first option to me but I wasn't there so I don't want to judge). In either case, no fun => quit. Your life is too valuable to be wasted on unfunny leisure activities :-)
-
This sounds like a bad case of the D&D classic: "bad GM throws the unwinnable moral dilemma at the Lawful Good paladin and forces him to fall".
-
First let me say:
1. It was Nicodemus (and you presumably knew that), when he throws something small to/at you, a coin is a reasonable assumption. You had options to deflect or dodge, perhaps much like Harry, your subconscious made a decision for you...
Now to the other hand:
2. Harry considers a glove and a crown royal bag sufficient. There's no indication that the cloth need be blessed.
3. A shadow could have done very little to you. Indeed without first knowingly using some of its power, it couldn't even appear to you as itself; it would have to deceive you.
So there are cases where your GM is not staying true to canon.
Your bit about how your character can only be described as a LG Paladin however, might indicate this isn't the best fit for you either. Canonically, there are about 3 people who would never [insert specific violation of moral code here], and they all carry the swords. Most of the books are about the fact that the characters keep having to things which are clearly gray areas. Theoretically, your story could be about how you never ever ever ever fall to temptation, on the other hand that likely means the situations you are in aren't tempting enough.
If you're not in a situation where the power of a fallen angel might make the difference between success and dying, how terrible could the bad guys really be.
-
First let me say:
1. It was Nicodemus (and you presumably knew that)
False, at the time of the incident i had read none of the books and it was my first time playing DFRPG.
-
Let me just say this in closing. Again thanks to all who participated in this discussion, your input was very much appreciated. What my main concern was I was given an item that gave me a constant penalty to all my Role playing interactions and the only way to get rid of it was to give up my magic forever, which if i wanted to do that why would I have rolled a wizard.
-
I guess what I am trying to ask is would the Denarion have to break the human before they will get the shadow? Or would simply placing a coin in their hand while they are restrained be enough to...infect them?
Remember in Death Masks Nic had Harry bound and under water and he still needed him to choose to take the coin. You just can't force someone to take the coin and hope for a viable result. Just remember in he Christian theology the idea of Free Will is more prominent than the ideas of salvation. If someone has the coin it should be because they chose to take it up knowing full well the results and not just some poor schmuck who found a coin out in the park.
-
Remember in Death Masks Nic had Harry bound and under water and he still needed him to choose to take the coin. You just can't force someone to take the coin and hope for a viable result. Just remember in he Christian theology the idea of Free Will is more prominent than the ideas of salvation. If someone has the coin it should be because they chose to take it up knowing full well the results and not just some poor schmuck who found a coin out in the park.
Not sure that is strictly the case. I think the person needs to Choose to pick up the coin, yes, but I dont think they need to actually understand the full implications of it (any more than when making a Deal with a Sidhe, where you NEVER know the full implications). Basically you have to give Consent, but not necessarily Informed Consent. In the Alley in DM harry was in danger when he tried to pick up the coin, having absolutely no idea what it was.
On the flip side, I dont think you can just sneak into somebodies bedroom and drop it on their face while they sleep, either, because there is no Choice. But a Choice made in Ignorance is still a Choice.
-
Remember in Death Masks Nic had Harry bound and under water and he still needed him to choose to take the coin. You just can't force someone to take the coin and hope for a viable result. Just remember in he Christian theology the idea of Free Will is more prominent than the ideas of salvation. If someone has the coin it should be because they chose to take it up knowing full well the results and not just some poor schmuck who found a coin out in the park.
Well, the deck can be stacked against them there as well. The Shadow's job is to tempt the host into using more and more of its power until they're willing to take up the Coin, making them more likely to fall to temptation. That's not how all of the Denarians work, however. Ursiel drives his hosts insane and subdues their free will instead of working with it like Nicodemus and Lasciel do, likely not even telling Rasmussen about what the Coin meant before having him take it up.
-
Not sure that is strictly the case. I think the person needs to Choose to pick up the coin, yes, but I dont think they need to actually understand the full implications of it (any more than when making a Deal with a Sidhe, where you NEVER know the full implications). Basically you have to give Consent, but not necessarily Informed Consent. In the Alley in DM harry was in danger when he tried to pick up the coin, having absolutely no idea what it was.
On the flip side, I dont think you can just sneak into somebodies bedroom and drop it on their face while they sleep, either, because there is no Choice. But a Choice made in Ignorance is still a Choice.
Ninja'd. Agreed though.
-
Not sure that is strictly the case. I think the person needs to Choose to pick up the coin, yes, but I dont think they need to actually understand the full implications of it (any more than when making a Deal with a Sidhe, where you NEVER know the full implications). Basically you have to give Consent, but not necessarily Informed Consent. In the Alley in DM harry was in danger when he tried to pick up the coin, having absolutely no idea what it was.
On the flip side, I dont think you can just sneak into somebodies bedroom and drop it on their face while they sleep, either, because there is no Choice. But a Choice made in Ignorance is still a Choice.
That is my point. A person simply not knowing at all wouldn't truly work but if they have a sense of an idea it's the beginning the Fallen need. If you take this coin you'll have the knowledge necessary to cure your dying wife vs Hey look what I found in the park. Someone who does will face the same issues but the struggle the Fallen face with an unknown/unwilling target would be a waste of resources. That might work for Nic's wife who is more of a short term kinda thug. Nic and those like him would choose those who have some idea and still make that choice as honestly as possible.
-
O.k...but Little Harry doesn't have a clue what the coin does. He was just a baby. It seemed pretty important that the baby not touch the coin.
I'm not disagreeing with the Free-will thing. I suppose, the baby is picking up the coin is 'willingly' and 'ignorantly'.
Corrupting innocence seems like something Denarian's like to do.
Edit: Picking up the coin, in this situation feels a lot like Gollum picking up the ring in Lord of the Rings and becoming perverted by it.
-
O.k...but Little Harry doesn't have a clue what the coin does. He was just a baby. It seemed pretty important that the baby not touch the coin.
I'm not disagreeing with the Free-will thing. I suppose, the baby picking up the coin is 'willingly' and 'ignorantly' picking up the coin.
Corrupting innocence seems like something Denarian's like to do.
Because I doubt the baby was the target. Nic knew Harry would take the coin to protect that child. Even Michael. Nic doesn't rely on something so chaoctic as trying to possess a baby who's the child of a Knight. The baby would be worthless to him in his goals. Hence why it was the same coin Nic offered Harry in the tunnels.
-
Because I doubt the baby was the target. Nic knew Harry would take the coin to protect that child. Even Michael. Nic doesn't rely on something so chaoctic as trying to possess a baby who's the child of a Knight. The baby would be worthless to him in his goals. Hence why it was the same coin Nic offered Harry in the tunnels.
I seem to recall it being stated later in the series that Nicodemus would have been happy with either outcome, because corrupting a Knight's son and tearing the family apart would be more than enough to offset the short term loss. Remember as well that Nicodemus is immortal and a long term planner; it doesn't matter to him if a plan takes decades to come to fruition because he's confident he'll still be there to see it happen.
-
I seem to recall it being stated later in the series that Nicodemus would have been happy with either outcome, because corrupting a Knight's son and tearing the family apart would be more than enough to offset the short term loss. Remember as well that Nicodemus is immortal and a long term planner; it doesn't matter to him if a plan takes decades to come to fruition because he's confident he'll still be there to see it happen.
It's his long term planning as to why I don't think he'd be so willing to waste a coin on a baby. To much to risk for so little gain. Besides I think Daniel would be easier to corrupt with a coin due to his jealousy over not being a knight.
-
I think the difference being missed, here is that between 'picking up' the coin and 'taking up' the coin.
The physical act of 'picking up the coin' (or catching it mid-air, or otherwise coming into direct skin-to-metal contact) means that the Fallen imprisoned within it has access to you to the extent that it can communicate with you and offer you (limited) help, advice, and power. In Harry's case (the only one we really have knowledge of), this was facilitated by the 'shadow', Lash.
'Taking up the coin' is often used synonymously with accepting the Fallen, up to and including 'cohabitation' and perhaps even within your body. In some cases, the human vessel is so psychologically broken from interaction with the Fallen that cohabitation turns into full-on possession.
-
I gotta go with the "intent counts" side of things here; skin/coin contact isn't enough, or they'd just have laid the coin on Harry's skin when they had him. Ditto Marcone; ditto Ivy -- the Denarians had each of them, and in all cases *could* have forced skin/coin contact. For some reason, it wouldn't have sufficed (for Denarian purposes) in these cases.
I presume, "intent" is they key. I presume that no Shadow-Denarian *can* gain a Host, if said Host is physically forced into contact with the coin, despite their intent to avoid such contact by all means possible.
Thus, a Crown Royal bag is "sufficient" for Harry -- it symbolizes his "intent" not to touch or otherwise "take up" the coin. For someone Faithful, obviously their "intent" is better shown with Blessed cloth, than a scrap of booze-bag.