bravesirrobin
Geek of Geeks
Post-Whore
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by bravesirrobin on Apr 4, 2008 9:16:12 GMT
A question on flavour of the campaign; how much do we want virtues to matter? I am more or less willing for them to be a bit of a mechanical difference - and that's basically how we've been playing it up to now, but i think it would be better in some ways for us to include them more heavily?
My assessment of characters as things currently stand. Please note this is a reading of the virtues. You may well have a different opinion. I am not trying to tell you how to play your character, and I'm merely tring to provide an interpretation of how the virtues contextualise the personality of a character. I'm not taking into account attributes and abilities, which should also affect how one plays a character, as well as personal ideas and character background.
Kairos
Comp 1; Con 4; Temp 1; Valor 3
Kairos is headstrong and determined, and not afaid of conflict. He has difficulty waiting for others when he knows he is right. He doesn't worry about who he might hurt in the course of pursuing the greater good and has no problems manipulating or deceiving, even his friends, when it serves his purposes.
Azir
Comp 1, Conv 5, Temp 3, Val 1
Azir is absolutely committed to what he believes in, unshakeable in the core nature of his personality and rarely believes he is wrong. He tries to avoid conflict wherever possible, and has the clear-headedness and patience to pursue the course that allows him to achieve long-term goals. When it suits his purposes he can be as merciless as necessary, and can have difficulty empathising with others in normal circumstances.
Ferric
Comp 2; Con 1; Temp 2; Val 4
Ferric hasn't really found his place in the world and is still looking for something that can inspire him. Though he is respectful to others he can be quick to anger and will take up any challenges that are laid before him. When necessary he can control himself as well and take more sensible options.
Grey Wolf
Compassion: 1, Conviction: 3, Temperance: 2, Valour: 4
Courageous to a fault, Grey Wolf relishes conflict, especially to support the causes he believes in. He understands that those who oppose him deserve what they get, and those who challenge him need to be shown the error of their ways. He is restrained where necessary, but sometimes his own strong beliefs override his own common sense, meaing that he can be hard to divert from a course of actions he is committed to.
Fox
Comp 3, Conv 4, Temp 1, Val 2
Fox is a man of strong beliefs and will follow them wherever they may lead, and even when it may not be the wisest course of action. He doesn't relish conflict, but doesn't shy away from it when the need is there. He wants to help people and empathises easily, but when he feels the absolute need he can override his own better nature. He can be very impulsive, especially on issues he cares about, and won't over think choices he makes, being pretty confident in himself.
Raiden
Compassion 1, Conviction 3, Temperance 2, Valour 3
Raiden has a strong self belief, he feels he is up to any challenge and likes to show it when it's not inappropriate. He doesn't empathise easily and may hurt others intentionally or inadvertently if he hasn't taken time to consider a situation first. He doesn't like to back down when he thinks he's right, but can make accurate assessments of most situations when required, and responds to sensible arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Apr 4, 2008 9:38:18 GMT
i think it would be better in some ways for us to include them more heavily? Why? As mentioned on the other thread, I think virtues are daft. What makes you think they should be more significant? You haven't given any further detail on this...  Good summaries, IMO. As you say, I don't know how well they mesh with the specific characters, but I definitely think they're good readings of the virtue spreads in isolation. |
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Apr 4, 2008 9:45:08 GMT
My gut is to do what we've been doing; and essentially ignore them.
As has been pointed out, we've been talking about how comp 1 characters are heartless, but nobody has pointed out that conviction 1 characters should do whatever they're told, and valor 1 characters should be cowards.
Similarly, my conviction 4 would probably dictate that I am capable of deceiving my friends for the greater good, but I make a point of never using social combat on, or deceiving, any of the PCs. (Except for that time I didn't tell Ferric I was almost certainly responsible for his slavery).
Including them more heavily will (a) give us another mechanic to contend with, and the game is slow enough as it is with its varied mechanics and (b) give us less control over our characters - 'what do you mean I'm running away? I want to fight'; 'what do you mean I can't change my mind? they're right'
The mechanic we currently use is a sporadic virtue check if you act against your accepted virtue (to be heartless, change your mind, act on impulse, or retreat) respectively. The difference between a virtue of 5 and one of 3 is the chances of failing such a test. This means that the wp gain and dice adding potention of a high virtue trumps the drawback, but then they cost 3bp each, which is almost a charm, so it should be useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Apr 4, 2008 9:47:39 GMT
I agree with LH on all points and I should probably play Fox as more Temperance-1, in fact. LH, no modifying your post to make me look like I agree with stuff. |
|
bravesirrobin
Geek of Geeks
Post-Whore
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by bravesirrobin on Apr 4, 2008 9:51:49 GMT
Well it seems to me some characters are benefitting/ being handicapped by certain virtue choices in a way that goes beyond mechanics. I think one could have virtues purely for mechanical reasons, but I think that would be a little ugly, especially in terms of the limit system.
Basically we seem to be cherry picking when to allow virtues to impact the game world at the moment, and I don't think it's a system that is working. I think that the benefits and penalties of high/low virtues should attempt to apply a little more clearly.
I might be mistaken, and I know you don't like the virtue system, but we don't really have a plan to deal with the situation. If you have an alternative that would be great. I don't think that we can simply ignore them as they're far too integral to parts of the system.
EDIT: Having read the above two posts I can now see the alternative point of view. If everyone is happy to continue in that vein I am more than ready to go along with it. The reason for me bringing this up is that it felt like people were not happy with the current state of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 4, 2008 9:59:00 GMT
I don't think we should be using the virtues as stated. For a start the randomness inherent in dice rolls using such a small pool would make our characters ridiculously inpredictable. But we should be using them as a guide to our characters, IMO. It is beyond silly if we don't do that. (And in fact, if we don't, I demand to reallocate my stats so I can have some more willpower.  ) The question surely has to be, how big a problem is that? It isn't a problem at the moment, but that might be because we're playing the virtues wrong. In particular, it seems as though CMP 1 is essentially being treated as "ends justify means" which is a very convenient "alignment" to have most of the time. It is also mechanically convenient, because it allows you to buy up stats which are better in game mechanical terms. OTOH if we stuck to the "rules" and insisted CMP1 meant you had no regard at all for other people, then I for one would have been very reluctant to take CMP1, because I don't want to play a villain. My point is, we need clarity on what's expected, and the opportunity to adjust as needed to reflect the new, clear, position. Personally I strongly advocate that CMP1 should be worse than "ends justify means" because I think otherwise there's almost no point in taking points in CMP - and I certainly don't see why anyone would take CMP2 if that was the case. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Apr 4, 2008 10:07:55 GMT
I agree, again. I'm evidently in a better mood today My only concern with virtues was that, regardless of any actual numbers you care to assign, all the characters except Fox are "ends-justify-means" at best. Which potentially makes it difficult for a single "don't-hurt-people" character to work in the party. The numbers themselves are immaterial - it's the clear distinction between two points of view that matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Apr 4, 2008 10:10:52 GMT
[Sorry - I just deleted my post because I wasn't happy with it]
What do we expect from compassion 1 characters. Should they be cackling super-villains? No - I see them as people who aren't too concerned if people get hurt but won't go out of their way to hurt people (there's a sadism flaw for that). And that just is end-justifies-means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Apr 4, 2008 10:14:05 GMT
I agree, again (with CS). I'm evidently in a better mood today My only concern with virtues was that, regardless of any actual numbers you care to assign, all the characters except Fox are "ends-justify-means" at best. Which potentially makes it difficult for a single "don't-hurt-people" character to work in the party. The numbers themselves are immaterial - it's the clear distinction between two points of view that matters. LH, what are the advantages to virtues at 2? Other than you are above-average without ever having to actually roll it. So going by my new post, it's not as if people in the party are saying 'let's go hurt some people' they're saying 'let's fix the world. If some people happen to get hurt then that's fine' I do think we should read a virtue of '1' as average, i.e. slightly flawed. Mechanically 2 might provide a benefit if you wanted to not run away (V) to not drink yourself blind (temp) to stay true to your beliefs (con). Comp is less clear - there's the extra essence, there's the dice channelling when you want to help somebody, and there's also the chance that the ST will reward you for helping people 'thank you for saving my life, did I mention that my brother is a sidereal?' But maybe comp 2 isn't useful. Neither is sail. Not everything is useful. You might take it to get higher compassion, which is useful, or for role play reasons (K would have it if he could get another dot of virtue, even though higher valor would clearly be mechanically better). |
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 4, 2008 10:16:20 GMT
What I think the rules say (and, for game balance reasons described above, what I think we should say):
CMP1 aren't cackling super-villains (well not necessarily). But they are not at all concerned if people get hurt.
CMP2 aren't too concerned if people get hurt.
CMP3 are concerned if people get hurt. Helping people is important to their motivations.
CMP4 are extremely concerned if people get hurt. Helping people is very important to their motivations.
CMP5 would find it almost impossible to deliberately hurt someone. Helping people is central to their motivations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Apr 4, 2008 10:18:18 GMT
What I think the rules say (and, for game balance reasons described above, what I think we should say): CMP1 aren't cackling super-villains (well not necessarily). But they are not at all concerned if people get hurt. CMP2 aren't too concerned if people get hurt. CMP3 are concerned if people get hurt. Helping people is important to their motivations. CMP4 are extremely concerned if people get hurt. Helping people is very important to their motivations. CMP5 would find it almost impossible to deliberately hurt someone. Helping people is central to their motivations. canonically, '2' in anything is average (except essence) and I'm pretty sure that the average human is 'concerned if people get hurt', rather than 'not too concerned if people get hurt'. Which would allow 3 to be 'helping people is important to them, and 1 to be 'not too concerned if people get hurt' although of course you could be more thoughtless. 'Not concerned at all' is sociopathic, and if compassion 1 is sociopathic, then valor 1 should be quivering coward, who runs from any and all battles. I don't think that's a sensible interpretation of the rules |
|
|
|
Post by Blackrat on Apr 4, 2008 10:20:16 GMT
Agree, kind of with both CS and LH. Comp 1 means the fact that people might get hurt doesn't even really cross your mind - or if it does, you write it off almost immediately if there's any other benefit to be gained. Comp 2 means it does, but you fairly often decide to overrule it given a vaguely significant benefit.
Apologies to BSR for my first post, btw - I hadn't seen the equivalent of his post in the PbP thread, which explained his thinking a bit more clearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Apr 4, 2008 10:21:53 GMT
actually, the rules say that someone with valor 1 is a 'snivelling coward' whilst compassion 1 can 'eat a lavish meal whilst watching people starve'.
This might just mean the rules should be ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 4, 2008 10:30:54 GMT
Those quotes are exactly what my response would have been.
As I say, I have no in principle objection to ignoring the rules, *except* that in practice I think doing so incentivises taking CMP1. I don't think its a coincidence that most of us have CMP1.
If you literally ignore the descriptions given, then I'd say there is literally no reason to take any points in CMP at all (possible exception of some odd charms I don't know about).
|
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Apr 4, 2008 10:36:00 GMT
Compassion 1 can eat a lavish meal whilst people starve. It doesn't mean they will, that they have to, or that they need to go out of their way to engineer a famine, so that they enjoy eating a lavish meal whilst people starve (and I'm concerned that the current debate over comp 1 will end up with people saying they should - it was as though Kairos pointout out we don't need to torture this guy was a reason to think he is in fact comp 2; he's just practical)
As I've pointed out, comp 2 may well be useless canonically, which is why lots of us have comp 1. But then none of us have sail either. It being useless doesn't suggest that our interpretation is wrong.
|
|
) The question surely has to be, how big a problem is that? It isn't a problem at the moment, but that might be because we're playing the virtues wrong. In particular, it seems as though CMP 1 is essentially being treated as "ends justify means" which is a very convenient "alignment" to have most of the time. It is also mechanically convenient, because it allows you to buy up stats which are better in game mechanical terms. OTOH if we stuck to the "rules" and insisted CMP1 meant you had no regard at all for other people, then I for one would have been very reluctant to take CMP1, because I don't want to play a villain.