[MH] [RPM] Willing Sacrifice & Mind Control

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

I meant coercion in the legal sense, which is what Rev seemed to be talking about... "Help me or I'll kill your wife".

That's the dictionary definition, too, and the way I would mean it as well. It's just that we've seen posts here calling any choice made where external factors make one choice more desirable or honorable or necessary as being coercive, when that's really too broad.

If you're drafted under threat of going to jail if you don't show up for service, that's a form of coercion. If you voluntarily join the army or the militia because barbarians are literally at the gate, it's not coercion, it's a willing choice to help defend your home from invaders that might otherwise kill you or your family.

With ritual spellcasting, if somebody is threatening to do harm to you (although it would have to be severe to weigh against death from being completely drained of HP) or others that you care about unless you willingly contribute to a spell, it's definitely coercion. If you volunteer to sacrifice your life force to save a friend or loved one, there's no force or threat of force, and therefore no coercion.

While RPK's ruling only applies to actual mind control rather than 'normal' coercion, I'd suggest that if somebody were abusing such tactics, it would be simple enough to say that coerced agreement stood at least a chance of not really being sincere, and therefore actually having a negative effect on the spell. Basically, it's easy enough to imagine that no matter how nasty the threat and how cowed the subjects to be drained for energy, no matter how much they care about whatever you're threatening, there's a good chance of them thinking in that split second you're going to tap the energy something like, "No, you know what, screw you!". And I think it would be more interesting if, in those cases, rather than simply not getting the energy because the subject was not willing, if this actually resulted in a good chance of a critical failure directing all the energy of the spell back on the caster.

Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of the cult leader with Charisma 4, other social advantages, excellent social skills, and a fair amount of patience.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by vitruvian

With ritual spellcasting, if somebody is threatening to do harm to you (although it would have to be severe to weigh against death from being completely drained of HP) or others that you care about unless you willingly contribute to a spell, it's definitely coercion. If you volunteer to sacrifice your life force to save a friend or loved one, there's no force or threat of force, and therefore no coercion.

While RPK's ruling only applies to actual mind control rather than 'normal' coercion, I'd suggest that if somebody were abusing such tactics, it would be simple enough to say that coerced agreement stood at least a chance of not really being sincere, and therefore actually having a negative effect on the spell. Basically, it's easy enough to imagine that no matter how nasty the threat and how cowed the subjects to be drained for energy, no matter how much they care about whatever you're threatening, there's a good chance of them thinking in that split second you're going to tap the energy something like, "No, you know what, screw you!". And I think it would be more interesting if, in those cases, rather than simply not getting the energy because the subject was not willing, if this actually resulted in a good chance of a critical failure directing all the energy of the spell back on the caster.

Sounds like a good house rule, I guess. However the naughty witches are just going to kill them (unwilling sacrifice rules coming out in MH3) if they can't coerce them. So, eh, it works out either way. :)

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion
http://www.answers.com/topic/coercion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coercion

Wikipedia appears to have the most thorough definition:

There has never been a human choice made without that choice being subjected to some form of threat, reward, intimidation, pressure or force.

There have been many. If I defend myself against an attacker, there may be a threat, but I am not acting in compliance with the attacker's wishes. If I save a family member, it may be in pursuit of a desired goal, but it's not a reward provided by some third party whose wish that I save them I'm complying with. You're completely missing the element that in order for there to be coercion somebody needs to be coercing me into compliance with their desires concerning what I should do.

Additionally, while most definitions include rewards, usually positive reinforcement of that kind is considered inducement rather than coercion. Negative reinforcement, as in away good things (like salary, expected bonuses, etc.) that one has come to expect, though, would be something that could be threatened as a form of coercion.

EDIT: There's also the point that if you were right, and coercion covers all human choices and actions, there's no point in having the term at all. It's only a useful term if it somehow distinguishes one type of choice from another, which it does. Look at the legal use of the term for some pretty clear examples that as used, it's not taken to be a part of every choice, since coercion can be a legal defense for many actions but everybody who even bothers to claim it certainly does not win acquittal or even a reduced sentence.

[PK]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I'm not disputing that, of course mental compulsion removes the agency for choice. But arguably so does duress "Put your hand in the demon's mouth or I will destroy your family, " and trickery "I dropped my keys in this statue's mouth and I can't reach them, can you take them out for me?"

Remember, the willing sacrificer must understand what he's doing! He has to know what your spell will do, and know that his sacrificed FP or HP are to assist the spell. Thus, any trickery will mostly be about your motives.

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

To remove all doubt, I would think that you should just rule that coerced subjects all count as "unwilling".

Why? Coercion is fine. There's a simple litmus test: Does the subject have the ability to say "no"? If so, then it's a choice. Mind Control removes that ability.

Mind, I do rather like the idea (as an optional rule) of having coercion automatically add a quirk to the spell. I may steal that one for my own games. :)

Originally Posted by RyanW

But, interestingly, you don't have to have a clear idea of why the spell is necessary.

Which means "this spell will strike down those who are after us" is okay, even if the assistant thinks the people are after them to oppress their religion, rather than to arrest the cult leader for drug trafficking.

And that's how most cults actually pull it off. +1 cp for you. :)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Mind, I do rather like the idea (as an optional rule) of having coercion automatically add a quirk to the spell. I may steal that one for my own games. :)

I believe I will too. In fact, I might even add a minor quirk to a spell if the motives of the energy providers substantially differ from those of the caster.

Those DEA agents may hear snippets of the teachings of that cult leader, imparted by the cultists who provided the energy in hopes that they repent before dying. Messages that the cult leader doesn't himself believe. This would be under unconscious (i.e. GM) control. No sticking secret messages in spells against the caster's will.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Why? Coercion is fine. There's a simple litmus test: Does the subject have the ability to say "no"? If so, then it's a choice. Mind Control removes that ability.

*shrug* For much the same reason as for MC. Cooperation given under duress isn't really willing. Of course, I don't have the luxury of reviewing the rules for Unwilling Sacrifice... maybe I'll see it differently afterward.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Why? Coercion is fine. There's a simple litmus test: Does the subject have the ability to say "no"? If so, then it's a choice. Mind Control removes that ability.

What about more subtle influences, like where the victim can say "no", but has to resist or win a contest of wills at the moment to do so?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

What about more subtle influences, like where the victim can say "no", but has to resist or win a contest of wills at the moment to do so?

That's how Mind Control works, so it's obviously a 'no'.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

What about more subtle influences, like where the victim can say "no", but has to resist or win a contest of wills at the moment to do so?

Generally, I would assume that only accepting because one failed a Will or HT roll to refuse implies that the subject is unwilling. Mostly because I don't want addicts to become familiars. "You want a hit. I want a demon summoning."

Self-Control rolls are a different matter. Threatening a coward or offering a greedy guy money just seems appropriate.

[Novembermike]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

What about more subtle influences, like where the victim can say "no", but has to resist or win a contest of wills at the moment to do so?

I'd say that it's less about the physical act of saying no and more about setting your mind towards it. Mind control isn't perfect and parts of your mind will be resisting.