Posted by The_Meehan on May 21, 2002 at 20:25:38:
In Reply to: Re: Reckoning: an accounting, as for things received or done posted by The Student on May 21, 2002 at 08:50:05:
: Er, no, that's not the way my chart looks...
: Mine has a Primary Virtue and a Secondary Virtue on it. None of this active or passive stuff.
Sure, that's another (equally valid) way to classify things. We could also use "Introverted to Extroverted" or "Internal to External" or even your "Covert to Overt", as the secondary axis.
: And, of course, passivity indicates that you wait for the monster to act first. Redeemers do not, and cannot, act in such a manner and expect to survive.
Two points - the trite strawman first.
1) What makes you think *any* hunter can expect to survive? The more passive creeds may last longer than the more active ones, but they *all* die, and sooner than if they had never been on the Hunt.
2) In some sense, *all* Hunters (with the exception of Waywards) have to wait for the Monsters to act first, as they can only sporadically check for the Monster's presence, and so must wait for a Monster to reveal itself. How many ghouls walk past a Hunter every day with both parties ignorant, simply because the Hunter hasn't turned on his Sight (or Perception edges)? Hunters are *always* reactive, this is one of the inherent weaknesses of the Imbued.
Again, you persist in perceiving "Passive" as a lesser thing, it isn't. It's merely the Anti-thesis to the Active Thesis, it's opposite pole. And in fact, to achieve a true Balance, and equal Synthesis, both Thesis and Anti-thesis must be equal in weight. And, as I've said before Balance is one of the keys to HtR.
I have never said, and in fact have repeatedly denied, that the Passive Hunters are less capable, or less effective, engage in a less dangerous occupation, or even less admirable than the Active ones, though I will admit to not fully understanding the implied worldview, as I don't think in a corresponding manner.
: Unless, of course, you're using a different definition of passive than I'm used to.
Now, you may be right, I may be ascribing different connotations to the word "passive" than is common parlance. This has happened not infrequently. On the other hand, common parlance often misuses words, or uses them inappropriately. In other cases, I use more archaic or esoteric meanings than is normally the case (though not so in this one).
Now you may wish to argue over the connotations and denotations I apply, as Michele did in the case of "Reckoning", but I feel I've at least been reasonably clear about which connotations I do not apply.
: Regardless, I think that passive is the wrong terminology. Everything is active, just not in a "kicking in doors and taking names" kind of way.
No - not *everything* is active. Nor is every form of resistance. Or even every Hunter. To insist otherwise is unconsidered, and perhaps even unwise.
And while "kicking in doors" is certainly overt action, I don't believe I've ever claimed it was the only one.