Oh, the Humanity

To hop this topic over to Sorcerer-matters, I'd be interested in your take on Humanity -- from the discussion posted on the web page. What kind of Humanity definitions, what sort of Humanity conflicts, seem appropriate to YOU as a player or GM?

CLINTON NIXON:

To me, sorcerers become more alien as they lose Humanity. They don't necessarily become demons, but perhaps more demonic. The way I see Humanity is your belief in societal restrictions and inhibitions. After breaking a taboo multiple times, you no longer feel any remorse; the first time alone is enough to make the second breaking much easier.

An example: Universally, stealing is wrong. I'm a fourteen-year-old at the grocery store about to shoplift a Milky Way, or maybe some batteries for my Walkman. My bowels are watery, my breath is ragged, and all I want to do is throw up, but I manage to slip out of the store, and suddenly, I'm lightheaded, tingling from the rush.

Next time I go in the store, I'm still scared, but only about half as scared. This continues, much like whatever the name of that problem is where Joe travels halfway to town, then half of the remaining distance, then half of that, over and over, never reaching the town, but getting awfully close. I'm the same way, still scared each time, but in a few times, I just have a guilty prick in the back of my mind, knowing I'm doing something wrong.

Now, at some point, I've lost my societal inhibition against stealing. I'm not sure where, but I think it's when either you learn to ignore the guilty voice, or stop having it although. A professional thief, or mugger, or whatever, has lost something in his conscience.

In Sorcerer, the taboos broken are much bigger, but I believe follow the same idea. I realize this makes reasons for Humanity checks much more subjective, as everyone's taboos are different. For example, in real life, I was raised in a very religious Southern Baptist household. I grew up being told RPGs were books of the devil, and alcohol was liquid sin. Needless to say, it was a real rush cracking the spine of the little red D&D book my first time. Now, I'm playing Sorcerer, pretending to consort with demons, and no guilt. (And, I quit being scared of the alcohol.) Neither of these would be big taboos to some other people, but they were definitely Humanity-loss events in my life.

Now, as to what happens when your Humanity falls to zero? Hmm... I have some ideas, but I'd like to flesh them out more. I'll post them later when I've had some time.

RON EDWARDS:

>... The way I see Humanity is your belief in societal restrictions and inhibitions. After breaking a taboo multiple times, you no longer feel any remorse; the first time alone is enough to make the second breaking much easier.

>In Sorcerer, the taboos broken are much bigger, but I believe follow the same idea. I realize this makes reasons for Humanity checks much more subjective, as everyone's taboos are different.

I think that's a very interesting and different take on the issue. After all, it then becomes a tad relativistic ... torturing prisoners, human sacrifice, self-mutilation all have fairly prominent "places" in some societies. Even cannibalism, in rare and highly ritualized instances. So what it takes to lose Humanity will differ a great deal for people from those societies ... or are there "universal" societal standards against which these whole cultures transgress? (like the Stygians in Howard's Hyborian age)

Note that for this discussion I'm not interested in the REAL answers to these questions but rather answers that help all of us come up with better Sorcerer stories.

>I grew up being told RPGs were books of the devil, and alcohol was liquid sin. Needless to say, it was a real rush cracking the spine of the little red D&D book my first time. Now, I'm playing Sorcerer, pretending to consort with demons, and no guilt. (And, I quit being scared of the alcohol.) Neither of these would be big taboos to some other people, but they were definitely Humanity-loss events in my life.

Really? That's kind of chilling. Is there no such thing as a "societal standard" that is more Humanity-threatening than an individual rebellion? Clarify: perhaps certain strictures laid upon a child themselves result in Humanity loss (for the child), and rebelling against them actually would be an instance of Humanity gain. Again: I'm only talking about theoretical narrative RPG stuff here; don't want to tread on your real-life toes.

Oh yeah ... so how might this affect designing demons? Especially the role of rapidly changing behaviors in society. One could imagine demons being really into leather and nose-rings in the late 70s, but not at all so in the late 90s ...

CLINTON NIXON:

I think Humanity has to be a bit relativistic--Vampire tried this out on a macro- scale with their paths, but even for mortals, the ties that keep you a reasonable citizen and human differ somewhat. I definitely think there are universal standards, though. The relativism comes in the interpretation of these standards. Here's a few (by no means a complete list):

a. Do not kill those undeserving of death.

Arguments: human sacrifice - people killed for greater good euthanasia - people killed to end suffering torture and killing of prisoners - mortal enemies, people with no honor

b. Do not steal from your neighbor.

c. Do not destroy what is not rightfully yours.

Arguments: war - The aggressor is justified (in his own mind) for whatever reason. Thus, the disputed land/property is rightfully his (in his own mind, again.)

d. Do not betray your friends or family.

This brings me to what I was thinking about a sorcerer with zero Humanity. (Warning: this is going to have a low view of the mental strength of humanity in general.)

I think the human mind needs these inhibitions in order to survive; a world without any restrictions is unfathomable and alien (and, of course, anarchy and chaos.) The trap is, once enough taboos are broken, others become easier to break (interestingly enough, the Sorcerer rules follow this: the less Humanity you have, the easier it is to lose.) When enough have been broken (zero Humanity), your self-control begins to slip.

In real life, this would mean your "inner demons" begin to gain control. In Sorcerer, your demons do. I would give definite penalties to controlling demons, and give the demons much more chance to control the sorcerer.

Another effect I would add is a sort of mixed blessing. I haven't thought about this in game terms, but I think a sorcerer with zero Humanity should have some sort of "gift" that is supernatural in a sense, but is frankly disturbing and noticable enough to set him outside of society. The best real life example I can think of is Charles Manson. Here's a man who had little to no taboos left, but he had a commanding control over (some) people. As well, many supernatural rumors have floated about him, the most famous being that he stopped the watch of the prosecutor in his trial. Yet, if you've ever seen his eyes, you'll know what I mean about the gift being disturbing. To me, his eyes seem like the eyes of a wild animal caged inside his skull, bestial and alien.

> Is there no such thing as a "societal standard" that is more Humanity-threatening than an individual rebellion? Clarify: perhaps certain strictures laid upon a child themselves result in Humanity loss (for the child), and rebelling against them actually would be an instance of Humanity gain.

I like this idea a lot--that there could be inhibitions that are negative, and once you break them, you actually gain Humanity. But, once again, I think the restrictions themselves are what keep the mind sane, and not the nature of the restrictions. (Maybe. That was my original argument, but this idea makes too much sense. In my own life, I'm a lot more stable once I realized that not everything was going to send me down the great fire chute, and I manage to laugh about those early years with my parents, so this passes the real world test, as well as a good idea for Sorcerer.)

> Again: I'm only talking about theoretical narrative RPG stuff here; don't want to tread on your real-life toes.

You won't. :) See above--the people in charge were young and misguided. I'm amazed I managed to bring them out of the dark, but we all have a good laugh about it now. (Although, I don't think they'd be up to playing Sorcerer. :)

> Oh yeah ... so how might this affect designing demons? Especially the role of rapidly changing behaviors in society. One could imagine demons being really into leather and nose-rings in the late 70s, but not at all so in the Late 90s ...

I always leave with something undone, but I've got some errands to run, and some thinking about this to do. I will say, though, that I think demons might not openly reject your inhibitions, in order to manipulate you into breaking them yourself later, once you're comfortable with the demon.

This discussion is great... now if I can get someone to play Sorcerer, I'll be set.

RAVEN:

>I think that's a very interesting and different take on the issue. After >all, it then becomes a tad relativistic...

I've never liked relativism, probably because I used to be a relativist and eventually came to a different conclusion than most of the same have.

In my own life, I went from being raised a hunter, finding nothing wrong with firing hot balls of lead at unsuspecting forest creatures, and nothing wrong with chowing down on their remains, either, to finding hunting to be cruel and deciding that swallowing the dead parts of another living creature was disgusting.

So, a relativist system would say, "This is a case of you losing humanity, since hunting and meat-eating is part of our culture," which I really don't jive with. I think there are some things which are just plain inhumane; otherwise the issue (to me) becomes moot. If you have nothing universal to compare it against, then "humanity" loses all meaning...you could pop from culture to culture, "Ok, I have a 10 humanity here, but only 3 here." The score and its loss becomes nothing more than a "culture-o-meter" instead of something more along the lines of "oh, scary, evil, bad."

Now if you don't care if it does then, then that's fine, though I personally think it loses something.

So, in the example above, I would say that I *gained humanity via my choices, and would clarify that by defining humanity as a measure of empathy, which defies social boundaries (note that most of the "good acts" of our history have been due to cases of empathy -- or seeming empathy -- winning out over tradition/culture; which is, in part, why I chose it as the defining factor).

So, one's ability to understand and feel the same way as another, to put themselves in the other's shoes and make a choice for them that that individual would want for themselves, and to do this with all those involved or affected by the action would be the measure of humanity.

This seems to jive with part of the "main" Sorcerer theme..."How much is power worth to you and what will you do to get it?" With the loss of humanity, eventually, you don't care how you affect others, you become completely introverted and utterly lacking in care about anyone or anything except yourself, your goals, your desires and so on. Indeed, this might also allow relativism, or seeming relativism, for a sorcerer might begin doing all the right things, but for all the wrong reasons...spooky, eh? Becoming so focused on their "good" goals, that their humanity takes a back-seat to their plans (for example, a demon might allow you to control the minds of others, and you might use that to stop folks from feeling hatred towards one another, but when does it stop being a preventative measure and cross the line to tyranny over the minds of others? How many demons will you summon and sic on world leaders to prevent war...how much control do you take before you end up being a worse tyrant than those whose minds you are imprisoning?).

ANGEL:

Just to spark further discussion, what do you think about the idea that Humanity could be subjective? After all, there really are no "universal" ethics.

RAVEN:

>Just to spark further discussion, what do you think about the idea that >Humanity could be subjective?

As I said in my last post, I don't like the idea for the reasons given also therein.

>After all, there really are no "universal" ethics.

While humanity doesn't subscribe to a universal set of ethics, I do not believe that precludes the existance of such. But that might be straying too far from on-topic discussion, so I'll just leave it at that.

RAVEN:

>I like this idea a lot--that there could be inhibitions that are negative, and once you break them, you actually gain Humanity. But, once again, I think the restrictions themselves are what keep the mind sane,

I think an appropriate counter-example to this line of thought would be to point out a recent event involving my wife's mother...the subject was brought up of a woman financially supporting a man. My wife's mother thought that was just WRONG: either the two work together and support one another, or the man supports the woman.

Obviously an old/traditional cultural taboo, the man is the "bread-winner", the woman should never be. This is a definite example of a cultural restriction that is widespread, but does it really keep the mind sane or keep a rein on inhibitions?

So, while I think cultural taboos and restrictions might have something to do with humanity, I don't think they could be the whole ball of wax, due to definite and concrete situations wherein taboos aren't over things like murder/theft/violence/etc., but things that viewed in hindsight are really just cultural "control mechanisms" and serve no real purpose for keeping individuals safe from other individuals or whatever.

ANGEL:

Sorry bout that. "Relativism" and "subjectivism" are two separate schools of thought. I assumed you were including only relativism. *shrug* Anyway, I think that there is value in roleplaying a relative or subjective Humanity. Of course, like any concept, this can be taken to the point of absurdity. Your example regarding hunting and (I presume) vegetarianism, for example. Conversely, I would actually find it somewhat absurd to set a game in *any* setting and not have the cultural values of that setting affect Humanity. If one assumes one set of objective morals for every setting, say the usual restrictions against theft, murder, and rape, then your characters' gains and losses in Humanity may end up running counter to the culture they live in. Appropriate if you intend the culture to be inhumane. Inappropriate if you do not. But, if one does not assume one set of universal ethics, it becomes... relative.

Personally, I think empathy is only part of Humanity. The other part is purely internal; a part of you that holds on to certain values and I think these values are highly influenced by your culture. Violating these personal ethics, even if it isn't an "objective" wrong, is still going to have a psychological effect, one which potentially causes you to become more permissive regarding other ethical decisions. That is, a loss in Humanity.

For example, say I'm running a game set amongst the ever-proper American aristocracy of the Gilded Age. If I have a PC who is high Humanity and he violates his personal ethics and the culture ethic by engaging in premarital or extramarital sex, regardless of how absurd it may seem to our oh-so-modern minds, I *am* going to call for a Humanity check. If this character can engage in such scandalous activities without any qualms of conscience, then I'm frankly inclined to think he just might be capable of further "immoral" acts. Or could possibly be lured into them.... Now, I don't think the culture is the only relevant factor in determining one's personal ethics, but I wouldn't deny its massive impact. Simply acknowledging culture's impact doesn't turn your Humanity system into a "culture-o-meter" as long as you take other factors into account as well. Note also that I also don't believe a culture's mores can excuse all behavior; some cultures have elements that are inherently Inhumane. But while it doesn't make the behavior "right," it can prevent the need for a Humanity check. As long as the inhumane elements are highly codified, they aren't likely to lead to further "immoral" behaviors if said behaviors are proscribed in that culture. Therefore, after a certain point, there will be no more Humanity checks for that behavior. Or at least fewer. This is where ideas like honor and face enter the equation.

This, of course, is all based upon the premise that the Humanity raiting isn't just a means of determining how "human" they are, but is also a means of determining how easily they will become less human. If killing another human being is one of the objective wrongs, then a member of a warrior society sinks further into inhumanity with each kill. That is, with each foe who falls in combat, the warrior becomes more likely to commit acts of rape, theft, and so forth. In some cases, this may be true (though that would be due to a *lot* more factors than just the killings). In others, in situations where killing is only allowed under the most specific circumstances, it's a ridiculous assumption. He might be low Humanity because he is a killer, but I don't think each kill after that is going to sink him further into Inhumanity. It will drive him further from empathy, but it will not affect that part of his psyche which believes killing under certain circumstances is perfectly acceptable. And eventually, the empathy the character has regarding his enemies is going to vanish. To say the opposite is to say that all samurai, cavaliers, holy warriors and so forth are automatically nothing more than inhumane monsters. A concept I find absurd.

Anyway, as far as the idea of universal ethics goes in games, I won't subject my players to my ethics and I won't create universal ethics for the world they play in unless I make a god or pantheon to back it up.

************

RON EDWARDS:

>Just to spark further discussion, what do you think about the idea that Humanity could be subjective?

I think that falls into the category of "GM should definitely think about this" as far as Humanity goes. Or maybe even (this is what I do): run the Sorcerer-game universe as if my own take on Humanity (quite likely subjective) IS objective. In that sense, the players of Sorcerer are fully in "my power," that is, my own sense of morality and its tenets are "natural law" in the game-world. What's interesting is that this is arbitrary, artificial, and dictatorial -- but it's hard to imagine writing a good story in ANY way (pen & paper, alone; roleplaying, with others) that doesn't have some element of this.

In general, though, I think we've done a good job of talking about this issue in strict RPG terms rather than rant at each other about what the Universe is really like.

Raven submitted a really good post right here, but it got lost. Sorry Rave!

************

RON EDWARDS:

Regarding a story that does not automatically project the author's value system onto the "chain of events" -- that is, the resolution does not equal the theme ...

Raven wrote,

>You know, that's just the kind of story I've lately (in the last few years) been moving towards attempting to write. As I think more and more about it, I wonder if it would be that difficult if one patterns events on nature and just throws out "this is right, this is wrong" and merely has things happen, free of a character-external morality.

We're moving off-topic, onto writing rather than GMing and playing, but it seems to me that writing a GOOD story is incompatible with writing a NON-JUDGMENTAL story. I don't mean that in the modern, narrow sense (where judgment = prejudice), but rather in the older sense that consequences ARE moral outcomes. In other words, a story whose outcome does not carry moral weight is, well, boring.

Boy, reading that over, I can isolate about four places with major potential for misunderstanding ... for now, just remember I'm talking about fiction, not the real world.