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

GARdian:

I think you're missing the point.  It's like trying to shout at the deaf.  No matter how loud you are, they still won't be able to hear you.
If a player has made up his mind about being right, then that's the end of it.  He'll never see it as murder or torture.

I think you are both missing the point.
There is no absolute morality.
Example:
Is it right to kill a child if this saves 500 People?
One half will say yes, and will be right. After all, what is one life against 500?
The other half will say no and will be right. After all, killing is always wrong and nobody has the right to make this decision.
A hunter is not a moral creature.
After all, in most cases, they resolved to kill things simply because they do not understand them or fear them.
The thing is that the player and the SL can both be right in what they see as moral. They just might not agree.

It's nice to see a game where you play an anti-villain.

Friedrich vom Berg:

I think you are both missing the point.
There is no absolute morality.
Example:
Is it right to kill a child if this saves 500 People?
One half will say yes, and will be right. After all, what is one life against 500?
The other half will say no and will be right. After all, killing is always wrong and nobody has the right to make this decision.
A hunter is not a moral creature.
After all, in most cases, they resolved to kill things simply because they do not understand them or fear them.
The thing is that the player and the SL can both be right in what they see as moral. They just might not agree.

QualitySteel:

That's funny, I think you're the one who's missing the point.  If you have a player that doesn't see 'killing someone' as murder, or 'hurting someone so they give you information' as torture, you need to sit them down outside of game and explain that they're not doing it right.  If that doesn't work, you should replace them, or run a different game, or throw out the Morality system entirely and run 'WoD lite.' You shouldn't just ignore their behavior, or allow it to take away from everyone else's (including yours) enjoyment of the game.  At this point we are no longer discussing their failure as a player, we're discussing your failure as an ST.

Ad hominem much?  Excuse me and my players for being failures.  I wasn't aware we were disallowed from using the alternative morality options in the Hunter corebook.

You think I don't sit down and speak with my players?  As a matter of fact, I did, and we came to the conclusion that a moral dilemma wasn't going to happen.  Despite this, he still wanted to play Hunter, and the rest of the group wanted him in, so we just decided that anybody who wants to use the Monsters-don't-count Morality only has to say so.  Half the group dropped morality and the other half didn't--it was still a really fun game.

The lesson is that when somebody plants their feet, you should learn to let it go and try to work with them, instead of against them.

GARdian:

Ad hominem much?

I don't think this means what you think it means.  Ad hominem is when you insinuate that someone's argument is weak because the person behind it has some flaw.  It doesn't apply if my argument is that a certain person has a flaw.

QualitySteel:

I don't think this means what you think it means.  Ad hominem is when you insinuate that someone's argument is weak because the person behind it has some flaw.  It doesn't apply if my argument is that a certain person has a flaw.

You stated I was a failure as an ST because a player would not change his moral stance.

QualitySteel:

 I suggest using the Hunter's Code rules instead of the Monsters Don't Count option, however, it is much more nuanced.

I'll be honest, I tried using them, but we all agreed it was a pain in the ass to keep track of whose Code did what.

QualitySteel:

No, you stated that you did.  I don't think you sit down and speak to your players effectively.

Meaning, what?  That you should always be able to change someone's mind?

QualitySteel:

There are many other options available to deal with problem players, and even to work around nuances of the Morality system, than to let a belligerent or uncooperative player run all over you, than to just 'go with it.'

The thing is, he's not belligerent or uncooperative.  The only problem was trying to force something on a person that would have none of it, and ruining everyone's fun in the process.  It is a needless conflict over a small aspect of the game--so it was better just to let it go and keep having fun.

GARdian:

You stated I was a failure as an ST because a player would not change his moral stance.

You do realize you can fail without being bad, right?  I've failed my troupe many times by either misunderstanding what my group wanted out of something, or letting one player ruin the fun for another.  In your earlier posts you did not mention you had tried to talk it out with the group, or that you were using alternate Morality rules, etc.  You just said you had a player that refused to acknowledge the consequences for his actions.  Thing is, it isn't his job to provide consequences, it's yours, as the ST.  If the player can do anything without consequence, that is a failing on the ST's part, whoever it happens to be.

QualitySteel:

but, really, if you've got someone who seriously doesn't think killing someone is murder, or torturing someone is bad, that's immature gameplay.  In WoD, those things come up, players will do them, the trick is to make it have some kind of impact, to affect their character as much as the character being murdered or tortured.  Ignoring that impact is cheapening the WoD experience, it runs against the very core themes of the game.

I do not think that is right no matter what.
I mus confess i am a little hazy on whether GARdians Player thinks that is okay, the player thinks it is okay for his character or whether just the character thinks it okay.
When it is one of the last to options, i would argue, that this is actually part of the scope of the game. I already compared Hunters to terrorists once, i think that is very fitting, because they are basically fanatics willing to kill for their delusion ( they only happen to follow a delusion that has some base in reality). So i would argue that thinking about a character who has 'no problem' with these things for 'the greater good' or because 'it is not human' is quite an interesting part if you reflect on it.

Friedrich vom Berg:

I do not think that is right no matter what.

I'm not sure what you don't think is right, that actions should have consequences, or that consequences for your actions are a core theme of the World of Darkness?

QualitySteel:

 In your earlier posts you did not mention you had tried to talk it out with the group, or that you were using alternate Morality rules, etc.  You just said you had a player that refused to acknowledge the consequences for his actions.  

The changing of the rules came afterward.  As far as consequences went, he took Morality loss like a champ and would only bother to raise it again if he got a derangement--by repeating this pattern, he got down to Morality 2.  There is no penalty for having low Morality, and at that point--there was no reason to really enforce it due to a lack of further consequences to be had.  After discussion, we came to the agreement to more or less disregard Monster related Morality.

QualitySteel:

I don't mean it as a direct insult, but, really, if you've got someone who seriously doesn't think killing someone is murder, or torturing someone is bad

Not someone, something: Monsters.

QualitySteel:

Meaning that you should explain to them that if they want a game where actions do not have consequences, they should play a different game.  

There are plenty of in game consequences.  There comes a time when there is a distinct LACK of consequences, though.  Being a very by the book man when it comes to imposing conditions on players, I'm not going to invent weird and new penalties for him.

QualitySteel:

I'm still not sure how we go from 'one player doesn't like it' to 'The Morality system is ruining everyone's fun.'  It still sounds to me like you're letting one player dictate how everyone else should have to play.  At this point I think you're implying that it's more than one player who doesn't want to use the Morality system, which makes sense to me, because why would you want to be punished for actions that the ST allows someone else gets away with with impunity?  IMO, this is a case of a the horse pushing the cart.

It's more like the player isn't having a good time having to deal with the occasional derangement on the way down to Morality 1 or 2, and so are some others who hover around 3 or 4.  The derangement is more of a speed bump, which to their credit they roleplay properly, than something interesting or fun.  And fun is the ultimate goal.

Also:

I mus confess i am a little hazy on whether GARdians Player thinks that is okay, the player thinks it is okay for his character or whether just the character thinks it okay.

It's both.  The players who still have characters operating under normal Morality have characters who don't think it's okay.  The whole group thinks it's perfectly fine out-of-character to kill the supernatural with reckless abandon.

GARdian:

It's both.  The players who still have characters operating under normal Morality have characters who don't think it's okay.  The whole group thinks it's perfectly fine out-of-character to kill the supernatural with reckless abandon.

You know, there are special rules and advantages for characters who think like that. There is a whole supplement dedicated specifically do dealing with that kind of players and characters, including special story hooks, mechanical benefits, talents and a plethora of options. It's called Slashers. And no, I'm not being sarcastic here. If your characters are going to murder with reckless abandon and throw their Morality down the drain, they should get some advantages for that.

Personally, I'm exceedingly tough on Morality when it comes to my players' actions. I will make them roll for every kill, and if they exceed four murders in a given scene, then that qualifies as mass murder. And if they happen to resort to killing as a regular tactic, then that's serial murder right there. At most, you get a +1 or +2 to the degeneration roll for acting in self-defence (+1 if you initiated violence yourself, though without intent to kill, +2 if you were completely innocent). Also, I'm specially tough on Werewolves, since murdering humans is very, very rarely a strictly necessary act. I always make sure my players have options, so if they resort to murder, they have to roll for degeneration. The one that vexes me the most is Geist, who has no penalties of any sort for killing people in a planned manner, as long as the Sin-Eater doesn't devolve into a serial killer or mass murderer. Especially when the reasoning we get for that is because they're "unclean deaths," whatever that means. It's ridiculous. Killing someone in cold-blood or even in the heat of the moment is also a very unclean act, considering that it just creates more ghosts to deal with. Maybe that person was going to pass on quietly to the afterlife, but now you've killed them and created a very angry ghost. Nice Job Breaking It, Hero. That's my reasoning for adding Planned Murder as a Synergy 3 discord, and Impassionate Murder as a Synergy 4 discord. But I ramble.

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?

Have to agree with QualitySteel here, despite our disagreements in the past on numerous issues. Being a something does not excuse murder or lack of morality rolls, even if the character believes he is right. 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...
And he should get the morality punch for acting like this...

Merciless hunters are hate groups, nothing more. Despite what they tell themselves...

A truly moral hunter will study supernatural beings and heavily consider the implications of any hunt. If anything he will attempt to avoid killing unless necessary, like self-defense or taking saving innocents and even then he should be very clear that he only chose the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, the Code is a good mechanical alternative but with the acceptance that the Code is not conventional morality as WoD defines it

Further, the vast majority of Hunters do not kill monsters.  As weird as that may sound, it's true.  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.  It's a very rare Hunter whose sole purpose in the Vigil is to simply kill shit. Many Hunters are happily 'employed' in Vigils that, in fact, have nothing at all to do with killing.  Easy examples are Network Zero (who try to catch them on film), the Loyalists of Thule (who simply blackmail them more often than not), Null Mysterious (who only follow the supernatural out of scientific curiosity), and the Cheiron Group (who, in fact, have explicit rules against killing monsters - they're much more valuable alive).  Simply playing Hunter: The Vigil is not a free pass to getting away with murder, torture, rape, and other sins.