IN> Animals in In Nomine

[Jonathan Lang]

Michael Walton wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > since humans lack Instincts, they are potentially doing
> > these sorts of things all the time.
>
> Except that it isn't true that humans lack instincts.

I never said that humans lack instincts; I said that humans lack
Instincts - much like a role is not a Role, and a servant is not a
Servant; the capitalized version is supposed to be a thing which
carries a special meaning with respect to the Symphony (which is not a
symphony [ :) ]).  In fact, what I'm envisioning for animal Instincts
bears a strong similarity to a Role: a celestial who adopts a
particular animal species as its Role will receive the benefits of the
Role when he's acting in accordance with that species' Instincts.
Why?  Because an animal's Instincts defines its role within the
Symphony.  That's why an animal cannot achieve its destiny while
behaving in accordance with its Instincts: because, for better or
worse, it isn't changing the Symphony while it is doing so; and
achieving one's destiny involves changing the Symphony for the better.
 Likewise, an animal can't succumb to its fate while acting according
to its Instincts, or alter the meaning of a Word, or form a Tether;
all of these things involve changing the Symphony.

Humans don't have this: everything that a human does is an act of Free
Will, and changes the Symphony - usually in some small way;
occasionally, in a big way (such as the formation of a Tether).
_This_, more than opposable thumbs or the capacity for language, is
what sets humans apart from animals: while animals _can_ exercise Free
Will, they have to work at it, and overcome their own natures in order
to do so; humans exercise Free Will effortlessly.  In this way, animal
Instincts are similar to celestial Dissonance Conditions or ethereal
Dreads: they are a restriction on Free Will.

> The difference is, we have the capacity for self-analysis and
> the ability to override our instinctive responses.

For playability reasons, I didn't want to make it so that animals
can't override their instinctive responses (note the lower-case "i").
In game mechanical terms, overcoming your instincts is usually
represented as a successful Will roll; to most accurately represent
the notion that animals can't override their instincts, you'd have to
ban animals from having Celestial Forces - which is a moot point,
because there is already at least one canonical example of an animal
with a Celestial Force in Liber Reliquarum (heck, Liber Umbrarum
states that the only animals that can become phantoms are the ones
with Celestial Forces; ditch animals with Celestial Forces, and you
ditch animal phantoms).

I _am_ willing to grant that _most_ animals won't have Celestial
Forces, and that even those who do won't be able to reach the levels
that humans can: that's why I set the cap for Celestial Forces at one
or two instead of five.  But this is primarily a difference of degree;
what's needed is a difference of kind, one that applies even to Lassie
(a six-Force dog with two of each kind of Force).  The lack of an
opposable thumb and the corresponding inability to use tools covers
the most noteworthy difference in body, and the inability to learn a
language covers the most significant difference in the mind; but even
that isn't enough, especially since there _are_ animals that can use
tools and learn languages (chimpanzees, for instance), and there are
humans (albeit physically deformed and mentally retarded) who can't.
For In Nomine purposes, there also needs to be a spiritual difference
between humans and animals.  So what is it?

While I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that In Nomine
claims that Celestials don't have Free Will as humans do, despite the
fact that they typically have higher Will scores.  The difference is
that celestials have restrictions on their behavior that humans lack,
in the form of Dissonance Conditions.  So what I needed was something
analogous to that for animals.  At the same time, the whole
"Dissonance/Discord" mechanism seemed wrong, as it carries an
implication that the celestial interacts with the Symphony without
actually being a part of it; animals, even those who somehow manage to
violate the restrictions on their behavior, are still fundamentally
part of the Symphony: moving beyond their limitations alters the
Symphony from within to accomodate them, so it seems inappropriate to
punish them for doing so: no corporeal being should ever have
Dissonance.  Thus the fallback on requiring a Will roll to overcome
the behavioral restrictions.

-- 
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang