Responsibility for your demon
Ron Edwards:
You're absolutely right about the principle in question; it was a central design consideration. Jesse, thanks for taking that discussion-specific point into the general level and also into the context of real play.
Also, some in-play decisions and tweaks add layers or new angles of attack regarding Possessors. For instance, yes, most times that I've seen a player choose to have his or her sorcerer Bind a Possessor, it's with some other host or hosts in mind besides the sorcerer's own body. However, at times, there are exceptions. Some of the concepts in Chapter 2 of The Sorcerer's Soul are drawn from actual play, in which, for any number of reasons, a player-character ends up hosting a Possessor. Sometimes what you want is so urgent that you are willing to give the reins over to something which promises to get it for you ...
Finally, here is a thread about playing Sorcerer without the Otherness of demons factored in: Sorcerer without demons, magic or demons. One of my posts is essentially my answer to your question about demons as unconscious urges. The linked threads might be interesting to read too.
Best, Ron
Hans:
Quote from: jburneko on April 18, 2008, 10:16:58 AM
2) A Sorcerer's orders his demon to do something non-Humanity threatening but the demon carries it out in a Humanity threatening manner. No Humanity Roll for the Sorcerer.
and...
Quote
This, on the other hand, does happen:
Sorcerer Joe: "Hey, Drax, I have an important meeting do you think you could pick up my kid from school."
Drax (upon returning): "Hey boss, your ex-wife had already picked up your son. I tracked him down at her new boyfriend's place, and uh, I had to get a little rough with him, I hope you don't mind?"
See? Sorcerer Joe is now going to have to answer to, his son, his ex-wife, her new boyfriend if he's still alive, maybe the police if he isn't. And, "I'm so sorry, I didn't mean it, it's that damn demon" probably isn't going to cut it. I mean Sorcerer Joe CAN say that and think that way but look how whiny and wimpy it makes him look. Joe is still accountable for the changes in the Situation caused by the demon.
Jesse, your example seems to be a item 2 example from your list, yet your discussion seems to imply it requires a humanity check and is more similar to item 3. Unless Joe has a restraining order against him or something, I think I am missing your point.
James_Nostack:
Hans, in Sorcerer there's a distinction between having to "pay a price" in terms of the overall situation, vs. having to make a Humanity Loss check.
The sorcerer in Jesse's example isn't directly morally responsible for the demon's anti-social behavior, so there's no Humanity Loss check. However, because it's his indirect moral responsibility, some issues are likely to arise as the other NPC's react to what he's done--and these could cascade into Humanity-threatening choices.
Piers:
To put what James says more concretely:
Quote from: jburneko on April 18, 2008, 10:16:58 AM
But let me answer the general cases as I would run them and then flesh them out a bit.
1) A Sorcerer's Demon runs out all on its own and does something Humanity threatening. No Humanity Roll for the Sorcerer.
2) A Sorcerer's orders his demon to do something non-Humanity threatening but the demon carries it out in a Humanity threatening manner. No Humanity Roll for the Sorcerer.
3) A Sorcerer orders his demon to carry out something Humanity threatening for him. Yes, Humanity Roll for the Sorcerer.
In some sense this conforms with the idea that demons are a cosmic dodge which may seem contradictory to my original point but let's talk specifics...
As Jesse's reference to the specifics of play suggests, these aren't static situations. In abstract they may be different and distinguishable, but, in practice, the deniable situations tend to transform into the undeniable as knowledge leads to responsibility.
In situation 1) we ask, how long does it take before the Sorceror realizes that not banishing the demon means that these things will keep happening?
Then we are in situation 2) and we ask, how long the Sorceror can justify using the demon before (s)he takes responsibility for the carnage?
Finally, we are in situation 3), and the group probably agrees that (s)he is responsible immediately.
In practice, this is like challenging a belief in BW or DitV: If as a group you are unsure if a humanity check is appropriate right now put it off, but ask yourselves how what has happened pushes the Sorcerer to a clearer awareness of his or her responsibility. And as a GM consider how the demon will act with the knowledge that its master is letting it get away with things.
Not taking responsibility allows the Sorcerer to evade humanity checks, but restricts the player's ability to take action letting you up the ante. Eventually, the Sorcerer' and the Demon's actions will come into conjunction with the group's agreement, and the humanity checks will engage.
Hans:
James and Piers...got it. Makes sense to me now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page