General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!

[Lady Serpentine]

It should also keep its Physical Merits, too - those are also Physical traits!

Which means you can totally raise a kung-fu zombie.

...Striking Looks is a Physical Merit, isn't it?

I wonder how that interacts with the Social and Mental skills it doesn't have, then.

[Yuki Akuma]

No, it's a Social Merit.

Yes, even though it's based entirely on your physical appearance.

Some powers that transform people let you apply it as a physical transformation (the Malleate Transmutation, for instance), but it's unfortunately not a Physical trait.

Plus you know zombies are rotting corpses so why would they have it anyway?

[SiuiS]

Plus you know zombies are rotting corpses so why would they have it anyway?

So you could save that beautiful face forever, just place it on the wall, maybe spritz it with preservatives and lay out potpourri.


Loooots of potpourri.

[123456789blaaa]

Does anything technically require a member of the Legacy Legion to serve the abyss? I can't see anything much in the Legacy's description that prevents a mage from getting the Legacy's powers, hiding their deformities, and going about their (non-evil) business (or even fighting the abyss with them).

Also, does the mastery over Paradox granted to Scelesti by the Old Man interact favorably with some of Legions attainments?

[Mephisto]

Well the attainments are gained from getting transplanted Abyssal organs, which probably means that

a) there is some corruption of your mental processes due to part of your body being composed of hatred and nihilism made flesh
b) the gulmoth probably wouldn't do the procedure unless you were on good terms with the Abyss in the first place
c) it's mentioned that most people who enter the Legacy have a pretty warped mindset in the first place
d) the text suggests that the gulmoth remains in the mage as a symbiote, becoming the transplanted part. It would make actively opposing the Abyss pretty difficult if your organs suddenly decide you are acting against their interests.

In summation, trying to play a heroic member of the Legion is a horrible, horrible idea. If you really like the freaky transhumanism you could try to cook up your own graft-centered Legacy, but Mage as a whole seems opposed to the idea (the Austere from Guardians of the Veil revolve around replacing bits of themselves with clockwork, but are Left-Handed and take Wisdom hits as well).

[123456789blaaa]

Well the attainments are gained from getting transplanted Abyssal organs, which probably means that

a) there is some corruption of your mental processes due to part of your body being composed of hatred and nihilism made flesh
b) the gulmoth probably wouldn't do the procedure unless you were on good terms with the Abyss in the first place
c) it's mentioned that most people who enter the Legacy have a pretty warped mindset in the first place
d) the text suggests that the gulmoth remains in the mage as a symbiote, becoming the transplanted part. It would make actively opposing the Abyss pretty difficult if your organs suddenly decide you are acting against their interests.

In summation, trying to play a heroic member of the Legion is a horrible, horrible idea. If you really like the freaky transhumanism you could try to cook up your own graft-centered Legacy, but Mage as a whole seems opposed to the idea (the Austere from Guardians of the Veil revolve around replacing bits of themselves with clockwork, but are Left-Handed and take Wisdom hits as well).

I think we're coming at this from two different angles. I'll reply to your points one at a time:

a) I can't see anything about that in the Legacy's writeup. Could you quote a section?

Also, I thought the Abyss was a realm of Paradox, not just nihilism. Now nihilism can exist in the Abyss but it is not the whole of the abyss (or that was my impression at least). I don't see why the abyssal body parts have to be hatred and nihilism made flesh . The writeup doesn't say either way.

b) I don't see this either. The writeup only says that the gulmoth will do it. It doesn't talk about any kind of exchange. i don't see why the gulmoth couldn't just want to be part of a human being and see that as reward enough while not really caring about anything else. I am not very familar with NWOD but I was under the impression that the Abyss was mostly not a monolithic entity.

c) Yeah but this doesn't have anything to do with the Legacy itself.

d) Again I thought the Abyss was mostly not a monolithic entity. Why would the gulmoth in your body care if you opposed other beings of the Abyss?

[SiuiS]

I think we're coming at this from two different angles. I'll reply to your points one at a time:

a) I can't see anything about that in the Legacy's writeup. Could you quote a section?

You acquire the legacy at the mercy of your master. Who is scelestus. And can deny you training.

You could certainly create your own legacy instead, even so far as copying this one and filing off the abyssal serial numbers, but the assumption is rather implicit that you are scelestus, trained by scelestus and subservient to the abyss.

Also, I thought the Abyss was a realm of Paradox, not just nihilism. Now nihilism can exist in the Abyss but it is not the whole of the abyss (or that was my impression at least). I don't see why the abyssal body parts have to be hatred and nihilism made flesh . The writeup doesn't say either way.

The abyss is just bad. It's not misunderstood, it's not just a different viewpoint. It's as close as the writers were comfortable with saying "Okay, guys, we know you like ambiguous morals and stuff, but the abyss is bad. we know that subjective morality doesn't allow for something to just be bad, but even so the abyss is bad." the entire point is that nothing good can come from the abyss, and those who try are signing up for tragedy – that is not a bad thing, as the storytelling system puts less emphasis on winning and more on fun and drama, but you're still telling the ST that if someone has to go crazy and murder people to further the plot, it's you.

The abyss ha properties of an entity, but those who treat it as an entity fail because it's not an entity. The abyss has properties of [X], and those who try to game the system because they understand [X] tragically fail, always. [X] can be; a place, an energy, a plane, a corruption, a contagion, radiation, a god form, a point of view, a mindset, a Supernal realm, a void, it doesn't matter. There is no succeeding via the abyss.

You can certainly change that, but it's pretty clear that if you can't quite conceptualise the abyss, that's okay, an if you can it's a trap run away screaming.

b) I don't see this either. The writeup only says that the gulmoth will do it. It doesn't talk about any kind of exchange. i don't see why the gulmoth couldn't just want to be part of a human being and see that as reward enough while not really caring about anything else. I am not very familar with NWOD but I was under the impression that the Abyss was mostly not a monolithic entity.

They could, actually. The idea would then be whether or not the Gilmore had negative impacts just from existing. The Gilmore could be likened to antimatter, where it doesn't matter if it wants to be anathema, it just is.

Or it could be perfectly fine, since the abyss has infinite variety. perhaps the Gulmoth's name is Charles, and it bonds with you to escape the crapsack world it lives in? Of course, someone will eventually notice and you'll he hunted from consillium to consillium, accidentally wreaking havoc. In which case it's up to you whether that's coincidental or if it's an abyssal function; how far out, abstractly, can the abyss reach?

Plus you're replacing organs with sentient cancer and hoping for the best.

d) Again I thought the Abyss was mostly not a monolithic entity. Why would the gulmoth in your body care if you opposed other beings of the Abyss?

Humans are a pretty diverse bunch, but if space-cattle started working against planet earth (or more accurately, out plane of existence) after an agreement to use human supplies to further or at least not oppose earth/existence, then humans woul probably be pretty pissed off.

Heck, "The pentacle wants to blow up reality for the arcane Xp, but me, I like reality. I live there." is one of the bigger recruitment hooks for the Seers of the Throne. So we have in-universe proof that works.



Unrelated, I love your avatar and user name. Thank you for that~

[imany]

Okay, so I have a question about changelings and vinculum.

In the game I'm playing now, I am playing a changeling character. In our game, the vampires are very strong and old, and also numerous (it's a continually rolling game, so mechanically the vampire players have been around for a long time and gained a lot of xp) while the changelings are weak (it's a relatively new sphere, and due to the storyline in an event unrelated to the vampires, a lot of NPC changelings have fled from our setting). The power play has ended up so that in the last fight, all of the changelings in the grid ended up under the influence of vinculum (or dead).

I should note here that the addition of the changeling sphere to the game is still new and there aren't any Storytellers who are especially familiar with the system; the one who was isn't really ST-ing lately.

After looking through V:tR, I noted that werewolves and mages were specifically excluded from being able to be bound (and embraced, but that's not so relevant). I couldn't find anything in the changeling books that noted they were excluded as well. I'm wondering what the general opinion is on this is.

Edit: I'm thinking changelings probably don't need to be excluded due to their having certain options available (like disenchanting kiss and goblin fruit that can get rid of emotional/mental supernatural influence). But if there's a specific clause that does exclude them I'd like to know where it is.

[Selrahc]

Okay, so I have a question about changelings and vinculum.

The general rule is that supers can't be blood bound, although they can become blood addicts. So you can have a changeling that gets off on drinking vampire blood, but he won't be supernaturally loyal to the vampire he gets his fix from.

[imany]

Thanks for the quick response :) I have a more general 'would like feedback' question.

I asked about it, and apparently in our game we have house ruled that changelings count as mortals for the purpose of vinculum with a power stat roll to resist, but ghouling and embrace automatically fail. This holds the same for werewolf characters, which are the only other major supernatural sphere in our game.

As a player, I'd like to argue that this has caused the game to become rather unbalanced; the vampire characters have a ridiculous amount of people bloodbound, and could do more, but don't due to player restraint, to the point that the changeling sphere has basically been shut down. However, I'm fairly new to the system myself and am not sure that my arguments are coherent or well reasoned, so if I could just run it by you guys before I start picking a fight with my STs, any advice would be helpful.

I had a discussion with an ST who ran a very nice scene for me and the other changeling who has been bloodbound yesterday, part of through we wanted to seek a way to break the influence of vinculum. We are the only two changelings who are active in the storyline. It was ruled that by the definition of vinculum, it was impossible for us to seek to break the bond even if a hedge fruit exists that would allow us to do so, because the full bond makes us love our bonder. Though I believe we are being allowed to find a fruit in the hedge that would allow us to break the vinculum, we won't be able to consume it by our own volition.

The player of the vampire our characters have been bound to has been very nice about the whole situation. It has led to interesting RP, so my complaint definitely isn't about that vampire PC or any others. However, I feel that because vampires have this ticket with any character, super or not, they use it to resolve everything, and once bound, it is permanent, shutting down what seems like any future conflict with that faction (unless the bond holder allows us to to do so, but why would they). In addition, once a vampire in our game decides to bond a person, the three day binding process is essentially a formality; it is always done when the victim is completely unable to resist or run due to the vampire players being savvy and having the resources to ensure it happens as planned.

The ST response seems to be that "it's fine how it is because they don't abuse it", meaning they don't bind anyone who hasn't kicked the hornets' nest, so to speak. The problem for me, aside from that my current character as well as my last were both bound as bystanders in unfortunate situations, is that vinculum should not be the 'go to' solution in a supernatural conflict. When another supernatural sphere is weaker due to out of game influences (lack of players, newer and weaker characters) it stands to reason that vinculum would be the default practice, and by virtue of vinculum those characters can never make trouble for the vampire sphere and have to be happy about it. It completely eradicates the need for normal politics or even changeling pledges to deal with a situation that has already gone awry.

I should note that a change to this rule would end up leading to an awkward situation with the changelings who have already been bound; we've done a lot of scenes and progressed with the story as we are, and I suppose the vampires would probably have questions over why two of us could be bound and the rest wouldn't be if there's a change to the rule. Anyway, any sort of help with this would be great.

[Lady Serpentine]

Short answer from me would be... Call bull**** on the whole 'you can't do this because you love them' thing. Empathy is not an exact science; one cannot simply say 'one part sorrow, two parts fear, he'll come running back to me', or the like. The supernatural effect can say that you love them, but your character's reaction to that love is up to you.

(If Vinculum has other things going on, then that's different of course, but I'm going based solely on what you've said.)

[comicshorse]

Short answer from me would be... Call bull**** on the whole 'you can't do this because you love them' thing. Empathy is not an exact science; one cannot simply say 'one part sorrow, two parts fear, he'll come running back to me', or the like. The supernatural effect can say that you love them, but your character's reaction to that love is up to you.

(If Vinculum has other things going on, then that's different of course, but I'm going based solely on what you've said.)

Seconded, if you are AWARE that the 'love' has been forced on you against your will ( rather than just being fooled into thinking you've fallen for your great, new friend) then you are going to want to take action. Particularly if the action is as relatively simple as finding a certain Hedge Fruit and eating it.
The thing to do now is free your self of the Vinculum but still pretend to the Vampire you are enthralled. That way you are his trusted servant and will hopefully learn lots of interesting things about his plans which can be used to put you in the driving seat

[The Glyphstone]

Point out the canon in-text example of the effects of a Vinculum, in particular how it applies a penalty to passively or actively act against the interests of the master, not flatly denying the ability to do so.

Thralls are normally incapable of blatantly
disobeying or working against their regnants, but some are
sufficiently strong willed to sabotage their masters in more
subtle ways.

Regnants are the objects of their thralls’ love, artificial and
unwilling though it may be. A regnant gains a +2 dice bonus
on all Social rolls affecting her thrall. Further, thralls are subject
to a Resolve + Composure roll at a -3 penalty any time
they want to take an action (or engage in inaction) that might
result in indirect harm to their regnants. For example, a ghoul
thrall who tries not to run to her regnant when she sees obviously
hostile Kindred breaking into his haven would be subject
to this die roll. A thrall who directly tries to act against
her regnant — say, the same ghoul trying to stake her regnant
as he slept — is subject to the Resolve + Composure roll at a
-5 penalty. Failing either of these rolls means the thrall cannot
act against the regnant (or allow engage in the dangerous
inaction). Dramatically failing either of these rolls means that
the thrall isn’t even allowed to make such a roll again for the
next month, meaning she’s unable to even consider allowing
harm to befall her master.

'Deliberately breaking the bond' sounds like taking an action that causes indirect harm to the regnant (by taking your service away from them).

[imany]

Okay, thanks for the responses. That was what I thought, but when previously bringing it up, the ST rulings tended to fall on the side of 'no you can't do anything because you love them', which was about the most frustrating answer one could get.

For what it's worth, my character is not directly aware she was bound (she was unconscious for the duration due to severe wounds) but she is aware of what the vinculum is and is also directly aware the other changeling has been bound. RP-wise she is the sort to take a 'better safe than sorry' view of things as well as reason that if the vampire who bound her is worth it, it'd be better not to be supernaturally bound to him. Breaking the bond without him knowing and still acting or pretending to act in his interests is precisely what I would like to do.

At the moment, it seems the hedge fruit plot has been allowed to move forward through a reasoning loophole on our parts (we're seeking the fruit for the numerous other people who have been bound/future use in the very likely event this happens again).

Because this has been house-ruled in and is not normally something that would take place with supers, I am wondering what your thoughts would be on asking for a wyrd (or power stat) modifier on the resistance roll penalty to act against the interests of the bond, given that resistance to the initial vinculum process is also allowed such.

[The Glyphstone]

I'd say no, because Vampires don't get to add their Blood Potency to the 'fight the bond' roll.

[Mewtarthio]

You could argue, though, that Blood Potency doesn't get added because blood bonds are an integral part of the vampire condition; for other supernaturals, it's something totally foreign, so they get to add their own power stats. From an OOC perspective, vampires with powerful non-vampire thralls gain a serious boost in the breadth of their influence, so it's not unreasonable to make it a bit riskier than normal blood bonding.

Basically, it can go either way, depending on what your ST wants.

[Morty]

Has anyone in this thread ever tried to run Hunter: the Vigil using the Conviction trait from Mirrors? If so, how did it work out?

[The Glyphstone]

You could argue, though, that Blood Potency doesn't get added because blood bonds are an integral part of the vampire condition; for other supernaturals, it's something totally foreign, so they get to add their own power stats. From an OOC perspective, vampires with powerful non-vampire thralls gain a serious boost in the breadth of their influence, so it's not unreasonable to make it a bit riskier than normal blood bonding.

Basically, it can go either way, depending on what your ST wants.

I'd say that is covered in the initial attempts to bond, where Power Stat is added, but once the bond is applied it's just straight Res+Comp-3/5, universally applied to supernaturals or mortals.

Considering we're starting at a houserule point of disadvantage, I'd be wary of trying to reach too far. Aim for a return to fairness/equilibrium by-the-book first.

[comicshorse]

Okay, thanks for the responses. That was what I thought, but when previously bringing it up, the ST rulings tended to fall on the side of 'no you can't do anything because you love them', which was about the most frustrating answer one could get.

For what it's worth, my character is not directly aware she was bound (she was unconscious for the duration due to severe wounds) but she is aware of what the vinculum is and is also directly aware the other changeling has been bound. RP-wise she is the sort to take a 'better safe than sorry' view of things as well as reason that if the vampire who bound her is worth it, it'd be better not to be supernaturally bound to him. Breaking the bond without him knowing and still acting or pretending to act in his interests is precisely what I would like to do.

At the moment, it seems the hedge fruit plot has been allowed to move forward through a reasoning loophole on our parts (we're seeking the fruit for the numerous other people who have been bound/future use in the very likely event this happens again).

Of course once you free them of the Bonds they're likely to see the same behaviour in you that they used to exhibit to the Vampire that bound them and want to help you. Very karmically sound

You could argue, though, that Blood Potency doesn't get added because blood bonds are an integral part of the vampire condition; for other supernaturals, it's something totally foreign, so they get to add their own power stats. From an OOC perspective, vampires with powerful non-vampire thralls gain a serious boost in the breadth of their influence, so it's not unreasonable to make it a bit riskier than normal blood bonding.

But I'd say the advantage of gaining a more powerful ally is balanced by the risk of gaining a more powerful enemy if they free themselves of the blood bond or figure out what the Vampire is up to before they feed them sufficient times

[Selrahc]

the vampire characters have a ridiculous amount of people bloodbound,

The vampire has created a recipe for his own destruction. A bloodbound person is a crazy junkie stalker. Unhealthy, very demanding love. Jealous and destructive.

The blood bound characters will react in numerous different ways to this imposed loyalty, depending on their psyches. But the reaction will almost always be extreme. Managing one bloodbound is doable. Managing "ridiculous amounts" is going to be... well... ridiculous.

If these people aren't regular mortals, but instead powerful supernatural entities who have already had to labour under a ghastly yoke... he might as well go sunbathing, because the results are like to be the same.

[Chen]

The flavor of the blood bond tends to imply its a fair bit stronger than what the rules change it to. That said some expenditure of willpower and a decent roll should allow you to at least temporarily subvert the bond, at least enough to realize you want to be free of it. Normally this wouldn't be terribly useful since generally just time erodes the bond, but if you actually have some item somewhere that can instantly break it, it seems like a reasonable way to do it.

It is difficult though. Looking at it from an RP perspective, you love this person, you are loyal to this person. You want to be around them and you want to please them. It would be difficult to roleplay because of the cognitive dissonance involved, but that's what you need to strive for.

As stated by Selrahc being blood bound is like being obsessed with that person. Even for a vampire, trying to manage many ghouls is difficult. They will get jealous of one another and try to keep one-upping each other. So it would be perfectly in character to start trying to frame his other blood bound servants for various crimes, so that he could spend more time with you. Or constantly be around him always doing things to "help" him whether he needs it or not. Granted if they get sick of this they can't really break the bond, but I suspect it would be easier for you to break it if they are constantly trying to kill you or such.

[imany]

My changeling's vampire has, to my knowledge, one vampire (who also has two thralls), two changelings and one hunter bound. Another vampire on the grid has one pc ghoul, one npc ghoul and two regular mortals bound (or one, and the other is bound to another vampire, I'm not sure on that count), who are the two or three our characters are interested in 'freeing'. The scope of our game is such that this comprises a rather large number of pcs.

Managing them is such that I have only encountered one other thrall to my vampire (the other changeling) due to our playtimes/knowledge of each other not being terribly compatible. For example, my character is not icly aware of any other thralls besides the other changeling, who for all intents and purposes is considered her friend and in the same boat -- they also don't have the same view of their bond holder; my character views him as a love interest and the other views him as a father figure, which are both supported by his treatment of our characters. I think in practice the competition for one's bond holder's love and affection doesn't work out very well due to the various personalities (a lot of the bonded mortals aren't very confrontational, for example) and also due to lack of compatible playtimes. You could say that a harem pecking order is quickly established :P

I will take your advice and do things by the book for now. I suppose I am feeling that it's a little unfair to give vampires a sort of get out of jail free card like this that doesn't follow as written rules in the book to begin with >.< Thanks everyone!

[Sith_Happens]

Also keep in mind that you're a changeling, with all the baggage that entails. I imagine the typical response to finding out that a vampire has been f***ing with your mind and emotions like that would be something along the lines of "spend EVERY Willpower until you've gotten yourself unbonded, then help the bastard get a nice tan," regardless of how much you otherwise "love" him.

...Or, for a more interesting tact roleplaying-wise, it might turn out once you have your free will back that your infatuation with him wasn't entirely due to the blood bond, forcing you to weigh your feelings against your 'Nam Durance flashbacks. Just make sure you get him Pledged to not do it again.

[imany]

The problem so far, I'm afraid, is that the ST rulings tend to be in favor of "despite your history, you still love this guy/girl, and even if you're aware of it, the bond's influence takes precedence."

Especially as a changeling. Because changelings after their durance are super susceptible to slavery I guess :/

But they are maybe implementing a rule for wyrd 5+ where changelings will be able to make daily rolls to reduce the influence of the bond so I guess all my flailing was not for naught :D

[The Glyphstone]

The problem so far, I'm afraid, is that the ST rulings tend to be in favor of "despite your history, you still love this guy/girl, and even if you're aware of it, the bond's influence takes precedence."

Especially as a changeling. Because changelings after their durance are super susceptible to slavery I guess :/

But they are maybe implementing a rule for wyrd 5+ where changelings will be able to make daily rolls to reduce the influence of the bond so I guess all my flailing was not for naught :D

Did you present to them the book text that shows how a Thrall can, when presented with stimuli, act against his master's best interests, and they rejected it?

[WitchSlayer]

So good news, the Mummy: The Curse PDF will be available to those who donated to the kickstarter AND on drivethruRPG later this week by the looks of it.

[comicshorse]

Especially as a changeling. Because changelings after their durance are super susceptible to slavery I guess :/

Despite the fact that Changeling P.C.s are the strong willed ones who escaped from the hold of an immensely powerful demi-god ?

[Lady Serpentine]

Despite the fact that Changeling P.C.s are the strong willed ones who escaped from the hold of an immensely powerful demi-god ?

Well, some Changelings do want someone to be in control of them again. But not most, yes.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm getting the impression it's just a vampire-centric game, or otherwise vampire-favoring. The other splats are guest stars.

[The Random NPC]

I don't really suggest this (too much passive aggressive drama) but you can play it to the hilt. Your master implies that they're hungry? Go kidnap a high profile blood bag, perhaps one that belongs to a powerful Vampire (only the best for your Master). They implies that someone else is attractive? Murder them with extreme predjuice (Only you're good enough for your Master). So on and so forth.