Making a Hunter Question His Moral High Ground: How To?

Paul_V:

A good way to challenge Hunters is to show them that they are no different than the so-called monsters they hunt. Especially when they go around wielding supernatural powers of their own. And no, not all Hunters should have Immunity to Irony. They should realise that just because someone's supernatural doesn't mean they are evil and monsters by default. Or, by that same reasoning, they should be monsters as well. Also, you should probably do what I do with NPCs: Flesh them out. Give them dimensions and lives. Show the little details that make the Hunters realise they're actually going to kill a human being. Give them families and pets, worries and joys, fears and desires. Make them realistic and human. Unless, of course, they have a very low or outright inexistent Morality-equivalent stat. But if that's the case, what were you thinking by trying to challenge them morally with something like that?

Quite. My Hunter characters tend to either be the stereotypical "kill them all, sort it out later" kind, who usually go insane once they realized what they've become. The other kind tends to be someone who realizes that not all "monsters" are monsters, and that you have to judge them on a case-by-case basis, or not at all. Of course, that doesn't stop them from carrying a loaded .45 in a shoulder-holster. I can think of a certain German-American occultist in one of your games, Paul, that fits this. ;D

QualitySteel:

As you approach Morality 0, you really only have two options.  Your character can become an NPC (as in, you don't get to play him anymore)

This only happens at Morality 0

QualitySteel:

or you can become a Slasher, and learn to exist without Morality. I'd call that a hell of a penalty, myself.

I asked them about it.  They said they didn't like the splat and I wasn't interested either.  We set it aside.

QualitySteel:

What's the difference? What counts as a monster? Is a Psychic a monster? What about a Werewolf that refuses to change and tries his very, very best not to get angry at people? Is a member of the Cheiron Group a monster? What about the Lucifuge? If a Changeling, who is just a normal person who's had their soul ripped apart completely against their will, is a monster, why isn't a member of the Ascending Ones, who regularly imbibes supernatural potions to change themselves into something more than human? I think the decision to 'ignore Morality as it relates to monsters' is much more complex than you're treating it.

We have a very simple conflict resolution method.
1. Is it human?  If yes proceed to 4.  If no, proceed to 2.
2. Kill it.  Is it dead yet?  If yes, you are done, if no proceed to 3.
3. Kill it HARDER.  Repeat as necessary.
4. Does it use magic or psychic powers?  If yes, proceed to 5.  If no, or said powers are part of an Endowment, ignore.
5. BURN THE WITCH!  Is it dead yet?  If yes, you are done, if no proceed to 6.
6. BURN IT AGAIN!!  Repeat as necessary.

QualitySteel:

If you're actually committing mass murder or serial murder in game on a regular basis, something is seriously wrong.

What can I say?  They're really good at catching groups, especially Vampires, unaware.  You'd be surprised how many kills you can add up with a simple application of demolition.  They've killed at least 400 hundred Supers by now, if I only count their high profile hits.

QualitySteel:

All of it? Every last one?  Even someone from Second Sight who's only supernatural ability is to be able to use a pronged stick to find water or their lost keys? 

He's a low priority.  They'd probably just lock him away somewhere to save themselves the legal trouble.

High Quabalist:

If anything, it proves he is a cold blooded killer (I.E of lower morality) because he doesn't regret killing someone on the basis that he is different from him.

Again, something.  It's like breaking a rock--a highly dangerous and squishy rock.

Paul_V:

A good way to challenge Hunters is to show them that they are no different than the so-called monsters they hunt. Especially when they go around wielding supernatural powers of their own. And no, not all Hunters should have Immunity to Irony. They should realise that just because someone's supernatural doesn't mean they are evil and monsters by default.

 
I always thought this was a cool angle.  It soared right over their heads and they didn't understand it at all, so they promptly threw the monster into a wood chipper.

Paul_V:

Also, you should probably do what I do with NPCs: Flesh them out. Give them dimensions and lives. Show the little details that make the Hunters realise they're actually going to kill a human being. Give them families and pets, worries and joys, fears and desires. Make them realistic and human.

  I frequently do this.  There is some pity for the family and pets--but none for the monster.  I've learned not to try and engage in conversation with them as it usually ends up like talking to Han Solo in Mos Eisly

the real question is if you are trying to make the player question their characters morals or the character themselves.

GARdian:

We have a very simple conflict resolution method.
1. Is it human?  If yes proceed to 4.  If no, proceed to 2.
2. Kill it.  Is it dead yet?  If yes, you are done, if no proceed to 3.
3. Kill it HARDER.  Repeat as necessary.
4. Does it use magic or psychic powers?  If yes, proceed to 5.  If no, or said powers are part of an Endowment, ignore.
5. BURN THE WITCH!  Is it dead yet?  If yes, you are done, if no proceed to 6.
6. BURN IT AGAIN!!  Repeat as necessary.

Yeah, I actually facepalmed at reading this. It strikes me as a very D&D mindset.

GARdian:

What can I say?  They're really good at catching groups, especially Vampires, unaware.  You'd be surprised how many kills you can add up with a simple application of demolition.  They've killed at least 400 hundred Supers by now, if I only count their high profile hits.

Make that another facepalm. My game is set in a small town. If they had killed 400 supers, they would have completely wiped out the metanormal population of the city. It strikes me as rather odd how they aren't being considered primary targets for swift annihilation. And if they are, then why the hell are they still alive?

GARdian:

Again, something.  It's like breaking a rock--a highly dangerous and squishy rock.

The books specifically state that you get to choose whether this is true or not. If this isn't true, then moral degeneration happens over and over again until they get it. Get what, you ask? That when something displays supernatural powers they don't suddenly lose sentience and sapience. Hell, even my Malleus Maleficarum faction eventually learned to get along with everyone else in the town. After they'd been almost obliterated, true, but that's the beauty of near death experiences. I wholeheartedly recommend them as teaching methods.

Of course, I wouldn't play with your group- their style clashes completely with mine- but that's how I'd handle it if I were you.

GARdian:

I always thought this was a cool angle.  It soared right over their heads and they didn't understand it at all, so they promptly threw the monster into a wood chipper.

Yeah. Might want to start cracking the D&D books open. nWoD is definitely not for them.

Paul_V:

If they had killed 400 supers, they would have completely wiped out the metanormal population of the city. It strikes me as rather odd how they aren't being considered primary targets for swift annihilation. And if they are, then why the hell are they still alive?

They usually counterstrike the counterstrike.  It goes off like a set of dominoes.  Failing having a plan for that, they pack up and leave town within the hour.

Paul_V:

After they'd been almost obliterated, true, but that's the beauty of near death experiences. I wholeheartedly recommend them as teaching methods.

They just got smarter about how to kill.

Paul_V:

Yeah. Might want to start cracking the D&D books open. nWoD is definitely not for them.

You know, it's funny.  We do play D&D as well but they almost always spare their foes in that game.

I agree with Paul.  GARD and his group are hopeless.

QualitySteel:

I agree with Paul.  GARD and his group are hopeless.

IMO, skip D&D and go straight to Munchkin.

truly, even DnD has alignments, they would be chaotic evil...

QualitySteel:

 Just like a military, the ratio of shooters to logistics is actually pretty low, with most Hunters providing information and other support in the form of safehouses, money, supplies, medical treatment, and other sidelines to those few who actually do the killing.

I strongly disagree with this.
Hunting is not a war, and if it is, it is one of the guerilla kind. Hunting knows no frontlines, no hinterland.
The picture you are drawning here is one of strictly organized, hierarchic fighting force with shooters and those people who sit in bureaus and warehouses and cook meals or hand out weapons.
A hunters support is his famliy. His kitchen IS his kitchen. His armory is the local weapon store, the Walmart or the home imporvement shop. He is his own mechanic and his own medic and if he is not he sure as hell does not have his designated mechanic and doctor, commanded to help Hunter Chapters West 12 and 13.
That is a first tier hunter.
For a second tier hunter it is not much different.
For a third tier hunter. Well they hardly qualifiy as humans anymore, or they have an extensive support networks that is actually not part of their organization (Task Force uses the USAF support networks) or their organization is only about catching and exploiting stuff.

The support arm you are talking about, these people do not qualify as hunters to me. Hunters are those who hunt, as the name already says. And a 'hunter' who never went out with his cell and met a monster on a 'kill or be killed'-basis is a) extremely rare and b) not a hunter at all.

On a Game design note, killing monsters is the unavoidable consequence of entering the hunt, because there a threats that are so evil, so mindless or so dangerous that there is no other way than killing them or die trying or doing nothing at all.

As for GARDian:
I really hoped we had left this "You are not playing it right IDIOT!" thing behind in WoD 1.0.
Another failed hope.

Friedrich vom Berg:

QualitySteel:

 Just like a military, the ratio of shooters to logistics is actually pretty low, with most Hunters providing information and other support in the form of safehouses, money, supplies, medical treatment, and other sidelines to those few who actually do the killing.

I strongly disagree with this.

I can't tell you what to like and dislike, but this isn't my opinion.  The Hunter core book is pretty clear about the ratio of 'fighting' to 'non-fighting' Hunters.

This might be just a tad bit off topic, but I'm very interested in the morality concepts proposed here. Even as players, we can see cultural differences to what counts as right or wrong. For instance, I'm an OIF Vet and I live in Texas,  so rolling morality degen for killing in self defence in my group is considered to be almost unthinkable. Even somthing as simple as owning a gun here ( Hell, in Texas, a resident 21 or older can obtain a concealed handgun licence simply by compleating a three day safety course, assuming you arn't a convicted felon),
 can be all thats needed to go to jail elsewhere. With all that in mind what laws do you use as far as weapons, self defence, ect? Since those laws can imply what a certain geographical community considers morally acceptable, how dose it affect the way you play?

I'm not sure if this answers your question (since I know nothing about USA law so I can't comment on that), but I'm extremely generous when it comes to armament and powers for my players. Anything they want, they get. Eventually. After some hardship. But they get it. Anyway, my point is that they have access to all sorts of ways to harm, maim and kill. What they do with that power allows me to see exactly how they are, as players and characters. If the character used his awesome gun to rape and kill a hooker, gaining Willpower for indulging in his Vice of Lust, he's rolling for degeneration twice, with a -1 penalty to both rolls. If he killed a Slasher that hounded him all night in typical horror-movie fashion and endured through it all because of his Virtue of Fortitude, he's getting a +3 to the roll, +2 for the self-defence and +1 for the Virtue.

But there will always be a roll. Those people, no matter how mindless, amoral or evil they might have become, are still human beings, just like the character, and both logic and empathy say that what the character has just done is very, very bad, both for himself and society as a whole. If the character feels that certain elements of society should be eliminated for the good of all, well, that's too bad. Many dictators felt the same way.

Now, from a personal point of view, my community has absolutely no influence in the way I handle Morality. Here, people get away with murder every day. When you get mugged, there's statistically a 58% chance you'll end up dead or severely wounded. Rapists and paedophiles are burned in their own homes by mobs of infuriated citizens. Justice is a joke. Criminals send minors to do all the killing because they know they can't be tried for that since they're underage. All cops are dirty cops. If you kill a criminal, you're a hero to the average citizen. If you kill an average citizen, you're a hero to the criminals. Trigger-happy is the new black.

bfieldscg63:

Even as players, we can see cultural differences to what counts as right or wrong.

Morality isn't about right and wrong, it's about compassion towards other people, and your connection and/or disassociation with them.

what I trying to say i guess from a mechanics point of view certain things which might be a sin against wisdom 7 in one culture might be a sin against wisdom 10 in another, or a sin against wisdom 4 in another. Im not talking about universal heinous acts like rape or out right murder but the moral "gray area" that can change from culture to culture and how that affects your game. Anywho you answered my question wonderfully.

There's plenty of examples where one culture might not consider something a particularly heinous sin - say theft in a culture that doesn't believe in personal property - when compared to another culture, which might have some impact on a given game if you want it to. I don't think anyone's saying you can't modify the system if it suits the purposes of your game, but for a quick and dirty barometer for how your character behaves regarding other people, the Morality rules as written work fairly well.