Playing "Free Will-less" Characters

[Dracorex]

I suggest that you guys might be overthinking it slightly.

Characters with free will have a Refresh rate. The ones who don't, don't.

At the very least, it means that starting a game with a PC without free will, you start with 0 fate points. Whatever compel the GM first throws at you, you have to take it, because you lack the FP to buy out of it. You will probably also take the next couple compels, so you have them to spend in a big fight, or to buy out of a compel at a more crucial moment so you don't give in to your urge to eat your allies or whatever.

And now you're back to being starved of FP, so you have to take the compel eventually, or even start self-compelling. Rinse and repeat.

Observe how very, very entrapped by your lack of Refresh your character is.

There we go.


It now merely gets into which Aspects the GM will compel to make life difficult for you, and how. If it's agreed at your table to go easy on the Aspects which might encourage back-stabbing allies, then you can totally have a varied party (Blampire, pure mortal, true believer, etc.) working together, sure. Stranger things have happened in real life.

[Troy]

That makes total sense to me. Thank you!

[Taran]

I suggest that you guys might be overthinking it slightly.

Characters with free will have a Refresh rate. The ones who don't, don't.

At the very least, it means that starting a game with a PC without free will, you start with 0 fate points. Whatever compel the GM first throws at you, you have to take it, because you lack the FP to buy out of it. You will probably also take the next couple compels, so you have them to spend in a big fight, or to buy out of a compel at a more crucial moment so you don't give in to your urge to eat your allies or whatever.

And now you're back to being starved of FP, so you have to take the compel eventually, or even start self-compelling. Rinse and repeat.

Observe how very, very entrapped by your lack of Refresh your character is.

There we go.


It now merely gets into which Aspects the GM will compel to make life difficult for you, and how. If it's agreed at your table to go easy on the Aspects which might encourage back-stabbing allies, then you can totally have a varied party (Blampire, pure mortal, true believer, etc.) working together, sure. Stranger things have happened in real life.

THis

[Vairelome]

Which is why I think your understanding of the metaphysic and the system are incorrect. I think that every once in a while, the monster may act in a manner that is essentially paying off the Compels with previously accumulated FPs.

Then cite to something demonstrating this.  I don't believe my understanding is in error, and it's going to take more than "I think you're wrong" to change my mind.

A character's nature is defined by his Aspects, especially his high concept.  Compelling an Aspect is when a character acts in character to his own disadvantage; conversely, buying out of a compel is suppressing your own nature.  The canonical definition of a lack of free will is that a character may not act outside his nature.  (JB often uses Mab as an example.)  Therefore, a character with no free will may not buy out of compels that come from his nature.

At a minimum, there is no way a character lacking free will should be able to buy out of a compel on their high concept.  You could make the argument that only the high concept defines a character's nature, and the other Aspects are merely personality/association characteristics, but the high concept is the core of every character.

[Taran]

If they have FP, they may buy out of compels.  It's just how the system works.  Things without free will don't typically have FP's.  They can accrue FP's - usually when facing off with the PC's.

There's no double-standard rule about what one NPC can do with FP's that others can't.

[Taran]

If they have FP, they may buy out of compels.  It's just how the system works.  Things without free will don't typically have FP's.  They can accrue FP's - usually when facing off with the PC's.

There's no double-standard rule about what one NPC can do with FP's that others can't.

I'd like to back this up with a quote from YS pg. 107

Harry’s player, Jim, wonders if, rather than
going to the dice, he can short-cut all that and
go straight to getting the effect that he wants by
compelling the fetch’s Fear-Eater aspect

The GM agrees that Jim can do this if he
spends a fate point (understanding that this
means the fetch then gets to consider and potentially
refuse a compel). Jim agrees, and thus
uses Fear-Eater to trigger a compel of “this
fetch is drawn to me as its primary target.” The
GM, acting as the fetch, then needs to decide
if the fetch is willing to spend a fate point to
avoid this compel or gain a fate point and come
bee-lining for the wizard. If the fetch buys out
of it, at least Harry has cost it a fate point; if
it doesn’t, he’s drawn the creature to him. It’s a
win/win situation, of a sort…

This is based on the assumption that Fetches don't have free will...

[toturi]

Then cite to something demonstrating this.  I don't believe my understanding is in error, and it's going to take more than "I think you're wrong" to change my mind.

A character's nature is defined by his Aspects, especially his high concept.  Compelling an Aspect is when a character acts in character to his own disadvantage; conversely, buying out of a compel is suppressing your own nature.  The canonical definition of a lack of free will is that a character may not act outside his nature.  (JB often uses Mab as an example.)  Therefore, a character with no free will may not buy out of compels that come from his nature.

At a minimum, there is no way a character lacking free will should be able to buy out of a compel on their high concept.  You could make the argument that only the high concept defines a character's nature, and the other Aspects are merely personality/association characteristics, but the high concept is the core of every character.

Nemesis and fallen angels. If character lacking free will cannot buy out of a compel on their high concept, then no fallen angels, because in order for them to fall, they would have to act outside their nature in the first place, which is not possible since they cannot.

[wyvern]

At a minimum, there is no way a character lacking free will should be able to buy out of a compel on their high concept.

I disagree, actually.  Buying out of a compel doesn't always mean an in-character excercise of free will - it just means that, right now, that aspect isn't going to complicate your character's existence.

For example: Say you've got an aspect "A sucker for a pretty face" - and a mysterious lady has just asked you to help - she needs a ride home, say.  But you probably don't have time to do that and still be on time to a date with your girlfriend - and she's unlikely to be sympathetic to the excuse... This is fairly obviously a compel, and while you could buy it off and leave this random person standing by the side of the road waiting for someone else... that's not really in character now is it?  Instead, you'd buy off the compel - and what do you know, the lights line up just right and you manage to make it to your date just barely on time.

Is buying off that compel an exercise of free will?  Of course not.  It's a mechanic for narrative control.

So, for the Black Court Vampire PC, of course you can buy off the compel to kill whoever it is - your character has plans, and this person is still useful... until he isn't.  And then you eat him.  But that's for later.

[Vairelome]

This is based on the assumption that Fetches don't have free will...

This is a compelling argument, and I'd agree that fetches don't have free will (at a minimum, some don't because they are Fae; we aren't shown a counterexample that I recall in the fiction).  I still don't think that the player of a non-free-will character can buy out of a compel in order to take an action that violates the character's nature--either option for the fetch would have been consistent with Fear-eater, though only one puts the fetch at a disadvantage.

Nemesis and fallen angels. If character lacking free will cannot buy out of a compel on their high concept, then no fallen angels, because in order for them to fall, they would have to act outside their nature in the first place, which is not possible since they cannot.

My best guess is that Nemesis-infection would edit Aspects something like advanced Lawbreaker, so post-infection actions would have to be consistent with the changed nature.  Fallen angels are a bad example for your case, since angels do not lack free will, by WoJ.  Exercising that free will has extreme consequences--Falling--so faithful angels functionally act like they don't have free will, but the choice is always there.

[LMage]

I think that the difficulty here comes from the fact that "Free Will" is naturally a very had concept to define.

What about when two Aspects that are both within the character's nature, is their a choice there? Say Placeholdersidhe has both the aspects of Indirect Trickster and Faeire Lader Climber- both are perfectly natural parts of a Sidhe's nature, the first because Sidhe are meant to act indirectly and the second because they are also meant to try and amass power and influence.

So, the Placeholdersidhe has hitched his wagon to a Party Member's rising star, using them as a means to gain power, now the Party Member is Taken Out during a fight with Nasty Creature, and the Sidhe is left with two options- directly aid Party Member by fighting Nasty Creature (keeping with his second aspect) or baking off and leaving the Party Member to die or be captured (Keeping with the first). If the GM compels "Indirect Trickster" to force Placeholdersidhe to back off, should Placeholdersidhe be allowed to spend a Fate Point in order to intervene anyways?

[toturi]

My best guess is that Nemesis-infection would edit Aspects something like advanced Lawbreaker, so post-infection actions would have to be consistent with the changed nature.  Fallen angels are a bad example for your case, since angels do not lack free will, by WoJ.  Exercising that free will has extreme consequences--Falling--so faithful angels functionally act like they don't have free will, but the choice is always there.

Interesting. I can't seem to find the WoJ on angels not lacking free will. Can you link?

In the context of DFRPG, I suppose it depends on how the GM and the player wishes to portray having "free will". Is having a positive Refresh free will? Is it possible to simulate free will with a change in nature?

If the GM compels "Indirect Trickster" to force Placeholdersidhe to back off, should Placeholdersidhe be allowed to spend a Fate Point in order to intervene anyways?

Or should the GM be compelling both Aspects? One to back off and the other to intervene, since both seem to be equally applicable.

[wyvern]

Or should the GM be compelling both Aspects? One to back off and the other to intervene, since both seem to be equally applicable.

Both, of course; the fae should intervene, but do so in an indirect and trickster-ish manner.

As for free will... I just had a thought.  What if we're looking at this wrong?  What if "Free Will" translates, not to buying off compels, but to the ability to change your aspects?  (Without restriction, that is; a "Fae Ladder Climber" who managed to maneuver to get herself promoted to the position of Mother Summer would... well, there's nowhere further to go from there, so that aspect would have to change.  Essentially, she could only change an aspect when picking up - or discarding - some sort of metaphysical mantle of power.)

[Tsunami]

I think we need to differentiate between "Impulse Control" on one hand, which is something even the most monstrous of monsters can have, and "deciding to act against/ changing one's nature" on the other, which is something that monsters can not do.
A monster being a random no-free-will creature.

A Mortal, i.e. a creature with free will, can decide to act against his nature, and therefor refuse a compel simply BECAUSE... add whatever reason here. And his or her actions can literally be against his or her nature. Or rather a Mortal has no "nature" that defines his/her actions, free will does.
A No-Free will creature can refuse a compel as well, but from a narrative point of view it would not be acting against it's nature. There was the fetch example earlier in the thread... the fetch might refuse the compel to eat the one scared target, and instead decide to create more fear in others to enrich it's food source. He could not refuse to eat the scared target because he just decided to be nice all of a sudden. It's actions would always be in keeping with it's nature.

Just my random thoughts...

[blackstaff67]

I think that the difficulty here comes from the fact that "Free Will" is naturally a very had concept to define.

What about when two Aspects that are both within the character's nature, is their a choice there? Say Placeholdersidhe has both the aspects of Indirect Trickster and Faeire Lader Climber- both are perfectly natural parts of a Sidhe's nature, the first because Sidhe are meant to act indirectly and the second because they are also meant to try and amass power and influence.

So, the Placeholdersidhe has hitched his wagon to a Party Member's rising star, using them as a means to gain power, now the Party Member is Taken Out during a fight with Nasty Creature, and the Sidhe is left with two options- directly aid Party Member by fighting Nasty Creature (keeping with his second aspect) or baking off and leaving the Party Member to die or be captured (Keeping with the first). If the GM compels "Indirect Trickster" to force Placeholdersidhe to back off, should Placeholdersidhe be allowed to spend a Fate Point in order to intervene anyways?

Then technically what you have is described in the Your Story Rulebook as a 'double compel."  Example: Michael Carpenter's family is held by cultists on one side of town, demon-summoner is on other side of town.  Compels are "Family Man" (to go save his family) and I think either his "Knight" Aspect of "Man of God" (to fight the evil wizard.  It's a character-defining moment and the player is justified in taking two Fate Points for the decision he makes (Example had him going to fight evil wizard and then saving family moment he was finished).

[Wordmaker]

the fetch might refuse the compel to eat the one scared target, and instead decide to create more fear in others to enrich it's food source. He could not refuse to eat the scared target because he just decided to be nice all of a sudden. It's actions would always be in keeping with it's nature.

Bingo! This is the oft-made mistake made with "evil" characters; that is, the old D&D story of the thief PC who steals from other party members because "that's what he would do."

It's in a monster's nature to kill, but it's up the monster when and how they do it.

A Black Court vampire might work with a group of more heroic characters for its own ends, perhaps revenge or to protect its own territory. It's still an evil monster that eats people, but it can choose who to eat and to keep the other characters around so long as they remain useful, resisting compels to feed on them when they're injured, etc.

Once those characters have served their purpose, or someone comes along who is more useful, that's when the vampire's nature should kick in and lead them to turn on the rest of the group.