Virtues and the Great Curse
- Thread starter Lord Isfa
- Start date
Flagg
The Most Electrifying Man in Sports Entertainment
You're kind of contradicting yourself. What's your problem with Virtues?
This happened in the last Solar game I ran. Â Sapphire Light, a Compassion 3 Twilight, wants to kill a Dragon-Blooded who surrendered after the last of his Sworn Brotherhood were killed in combat. Â
She really wants to kill him though, as she has a thing against the Ragara and this guy with his buddies just tore through a town she lived in looking for her and killed her Sidereal mentor (plot twist, they thought they got the Solar. Yay PAoC Style).
Now, the battle's done, and he's basically a prisoner of war. Â He's unarmed. Â Rules state that if you have a Compassion rating of 3 or above, you need to check for Limit in order to commit this kind of murder.
She rolls her Compassion and botches, so she has absolutely no inner conflict with offing this guy. Â Had she actually succeeded on the roll and gone ahead with the killing anyway, she'd take a point of Limit as a reflection of the guilt she'd feel over taking a life, no matter how justified she thought she was.
She really wants to kill him though, as she has a thing against the Ragara and this guy with his buddies just tore through a town she lived in looking for her and killed her Sidereal mentor (plot twist, they thought they got the Solar. Yay PAoC Style).
Now, the battle's done, and he's basically a prisoner of war. Â He's unarmed. Â Rules state that if you have a Compassion rating of 3 or above, you need to check for Limit in order to commit this kind of murder.
She rolls her Compassion and botches, so she has absolutely no inner conflict with offing this guy. Â Had she actually succeeded on the roll and gone ahead with the killing anyway, she'd take a point of Limit as a reflection of the guilt she'd feel over taking a life, no matter how justified she thought she was.
Moonsilver
Member
The contribution of Virtues to the game is like a walking a tightrope to play. You don’t want your players to become caricatures because they have a high Virtue. Conversely you may get players trying to ignore their Virtues. They spot their 3 dots of Conviction when rolling for Willpower at dawn but it is never mentioned by the player otherwise.
But used carefully Virtues bring a lot to the game.
But used carefully Virtues bring a lot to the game.
Ledaal Kajiri
Two Thousand Club
Virtues see fequent use in my games...both as people channel them to aid them in a tough situation, and as they follow them. Admittedly one player almost always activelly screws their virtues because they don't like anything limiting their options...but such also tends to result in a less interesting character...who has very little willpower. Valor helps tell who is brave and who not...and who will stand firm no matter the odds. Compassion sees little mechanical use in my games outside of channeling, but not due to people not following it...quite the opposite. The Compassionate characters ARE compassionate, and so rarely do they act in a way contrary to their virtue. Conviction sees limited use outside of regaining willpower, primarlilly due to limited numbers of character made with an exceptional Conviction. Temperance is quite common indeed, as people keep it in mind when they determine their responses to some things, and certain charms or effects have results related to Temperance. On the other hand...rather few characters in my games are well known for their Temperance.
WW morality/virtue/vice systems are best used in a not too strict manner methinks.
IMHO, a good game treats the benefits situations liberally and the must fail categories not so much so. Â That's the one that should be more specific to character and campaign background.
Part of the issue is not applying RL modern morals to the AoS. Â Slavery exists. Â It is a norm. Â Some of the compassionate people in the world may have, and even physically punish slaves (campaigns vary, I'm sure). Â Also, there is not necessarily a need for trial by a jury of peers. Â In the example above, if what the DB did qualified as executable offenses, the fact that he had to be defeated in combat to be able to execute him shouldn't force the Solar to have to roll a compassion check, unless there's something peculiar in his character in that area.
The other part is recognizing that virtues cover large swaths of behavior. Â It becomes farcical to say that a Night case that regularly infiltrates enemy organizations and sends them into pandemonium must either choose a) to have to role temperance every mission for acting dishonestly, or b) must have a temperance of 2 and thus not follow the concept of a fairly temperate person when it comes to resisting temptation and moderating, perhaps even abstaining, from various pleasures.
The last factor is how much the group wants the Great Curse to be a burden. Â If a lot, then the ST should be more stringent in requiring rolls and thus WP spending to contradict. Â If not as much (but still present), then less stringent.
Best thing is to sit down together and talk about how a character views his virtues during some down time.
IMHO, a good game treats the benefits situations liberally and the must fail categories not so much so. Â That's the one that should be more specific to character and campaign background.
Part of the issue is not applying RL modern morals to the AoS. Â Slavery exists. Â It is a norm. Â Some of the compassionate people in the world may have, and even physically punish slaves (campaigns vary, I'm sure). Â Also, there is not necessarily a need for trial by a jury of peers. Â In the example above, if what the DB did qualified as executable offenses, the fact that he had to be defeated in combat to be able to execute him shouldn't force the Solar to have to roll a compassion check, unless there's something peculiar in his character in that area.
The other part is recognizing that virtues cover large swaths of behavior. Â It becomes farcical to say that a Night case that regularly infiltrates enemy organizations and sends them into pandemonium must either choose a) to have to role temperance every mission for acting dishonestly, or b) must have a temperance of 2 and thus not follow the concept of a fairly temperate person when it comes to resisting temptation and moderating, perhaps even abstaining, from various pleasures.
The last factor is how much the group wants the Great Curse to be a burden. Â If a lot, then the ST should be more stringent in requiring rolls and thus WP spending to contradict. Â If not as much (but still present), then less stringent.
Best thing is to sit down together and talk about how a character views his virtues during some down time.
In the example above, the Terrestrial had honorably surrendered, was unarmed, and flat-out killing him after all was said and done was cold-blooded murder as far as the Twilight in question was concerned. Â Whether or not she thought she was justified in taking his life, with her Virtue rating and personality she'd still have to make a Compassion check to see if she feels any guilt over her actions and accrues Limit from those actions, despite if it was the right thing to do to her mind. ÂYakumo said:
It's the same thing as euthanasia. Â No matter how much pain a person is in, if you pull the plug you're going to be wracked with guilt even if you think they're truly better off without all the suffering keeping them artificially alive is giving them. Â
Things like taking a life are not supposed to be easy, even in the Age of Sorrows. Â Virtues are a good reflection of that.
cyl
Creepy smile
Wow... so I really must have a Compassion rating lower than 2 ^^
Figures...
But let's not drift from the subject, Virtues can be introduced to your system as a "garde fou" against players that change their minds too often about their pcs reactions.
The example above about the twilight is really a good one, someone with a 3 dot Compassion should not be able to murder an honorable opponent who has surrendered, even if he has murdered loved ones, especially if the pc has a high rating Temperance...
Virtues are both moral barriers and inner strengths.
Now, you can use them as a more or less strict system, or you can just not use them... personnally, in my 1E solar & abyssal campaigns, I never used them in the gaming system, they were roleplaying guidelines made by my players as they chose which virtue should be higher than another.
But in 2E, the system is quite good, so, when abyssal 2 comes out, I'll use it
Obviously, it's going to differ between groups. Â So the most important thing is for each player to at least talk it over with the ST. Â There's just going to be differences.
Rhapsody and I obviously view virtues differently. Â I believe that there are people who can give a death sentence where appropriate by their own ethics system and still have a compassion of 3 or more. Â Now, in the DB example, it may make a difference between taking the surrender and a time out to look everything over before execution, or it may not.
Since the thread was started about limit, I'll get back to that here. Â It's not a matter of what you may feel guild over, it's a matter of whether or not you must spend willpower to overcome a compulsion from a success on a virtue roll. Â You picked a cusp issue where compassion may go either way, or more likely, NOT compel one action over the other. Â I'd say force the decision one way or the other is too stringent and makes the virtue system not just annoying, but limiting to the point of making characters inhuman.
This is a prime example of why things should be talked out ahead of time with respect to how virtues work (Nevermind if you have someone in you group who has issues with euthanasia or worse, has had a very personal, disturbing experience from its use or lack of use). Â And if a ST is going to direct compassion to one side of morality, it should get detailed.
Now remember, limit is only involved when willpower must be spent in contradiction to the virtue. Â In other words, a success on a compassion roll would have to force you to forgo euthanasia. Â "No matter how much pain a person is in..." Â That's a pretty particular brand of morality. Â While one group may hold that to be true, I think the rules flex quite a bit the other way. Â In fact, there would be a large number of groups that would argue quite a bit the other way.
For example, a circle of young exalts are in very hostile territory. Â They enter a quad where traitors are in cages and shackles to die by exposure. Â For this example, let us say that these prisoners have nothing to do with the exalts, but their crimes were for what the exalts consider good, and moreover, selfless acts. Â The prisoners limbs are in such positions that they must always exert themselves to keep from having them bent painfully (similar to crucifixion). Â They are past the point where they could care for themselves.
Now in example A), there is NO WAY the solars can rescue that guy and make out alive. Â Say it's the center of Thorns. Â Moreover, it actually derails the plot to have the characters blow their cover to free these people.
Instead, the compassion 3+ night caste sneaks out during a lull period and feeds a sedative poison (so it causes no pain) to each prisoner. Â When he gets to the last, that prisoner thanks him, and gives a tidbit to progress the plot.
Now here, compassion compels the character to do something to end the pain, but it doesn't have to be an act of stupidity. Â Even if their is a slim to poor chance of getting away with it, the character still shouldn't be compelled to do that if euthanasia is a compassionate alternative.
Now in example B). it's quite possible to rescue the people alive, nurse them back to health, and see them on their way. Â We'll say this is more ambiguous: the punishment may or may not be justified, but it's how things are done here. Â There's a much bigger threat- Deadlord, demon, somesuch- that will run amok if the characters get pulled take time out to perform what may very well be an injustice.
Now I could see a lot more of a split here between reasonable groups. Â Again, from my angle, people with a compassion of 3 shouldn't have to be fighting compulsions left and right from normal aspects of society, unless they are extreme for the setting and their roles. Â To say that a spy with temp 5 b/c he is a firm believer in moderation and generally acts in fairness in arm length transactions should have to fail a temp roll or blow willpower to work in disguise for his job, for the greater good of his people and not himself, is just plain silly. Â It archtypes people too much. Â "If you are truly resistant to temptaiton, you never lie about anything." Â Bull! Â (endrant).
Anyway, I return to the first point. Â Make sure you and your players talk out how the virtues effect them and why ahead of time.
Rhapsody and I obviously view virtues differently. Â I believe that there are people who can give a death sentence where appropriate by their own ethics system and still have a compassion of 3 or more. Â Now, in the DB example, it may make a difference between taking the surrender and a time out to look everything over before execution, or it may not.
And yet, if you don't pull the plug, you'll still be wracked with guilt. Â Unless you mean euthanasia against the subject's will.Rhapsody said:
Since the thread was started about limit, I'll get back to that here. Â It's not a matter of what you may feel guild over, it's a matter of whether or not you must spend willpower to overcome a compulsion from a success on a virtue roll. Â You picked a cusp issue where compassion may go either way, or more likely, NOT compel one action over the other. Â I'd say force the decision one way or the other is too stringent and makes the virtue system not just annoying, but limiting to the point of making characters inhuman.
This is a prime example of why things should be talked out ahead of time with respect to how virtues work (Nevermind if you have someone in you group who has issues with euthanasia or worse, has had a very personal, disturbing experience from its use or lack of use). Â And if a ST is going to direct compassion to one side of morality, it should get detailed.
Now remember, limit is only involved when willpower must be spent in contradiction to the virtue. Â In other words, a success on a compassion roll would have to force you to forgo euthanasia. Â "No matter how much pain a person is in..." Â That's a pretty particular brand of morality. Â While one group may hold that to be true, I think the rules flex quite a bit the other way. Â In fact, there would be a large number of groups that would argue quite a bit the other way.
For example, a circle of young exalts are in very hostile territory. Â They enter a quad where traitors are in cages and shackles to die by exposure. Â For this example, let us say that these prisoners have nothing to do with the exalts, but their crimes were for what the exalts consider good, and moreover, selfless acts. Â The prisoners limbs are in such positions that they must always exert themselves to keep from having them bent painfully (similar to crucifixion). Â They are past the point where they could care for themselves.
Now in example A), there is NO WAY the solars can rescue that guy and make out alive. Â Say it's the center of Thorns. Â Moreover, it actually derails the plot to have the characters blow their cover to free these people.
Instead, the compassion 3+ night caste sneaks out during a lull period and feeds a sedative poison (so it causes no pain) to each prisoner. Â When he gets to the last, that prisoner thanks him, and gives a tidbit to progress the plot.
Now here, compassion compels the character to do something to end the pain, but it doesn't have to be an act of stupidity. Â Even if their is a slim to poor chance of getting away with it, the character still shouldn't be compelled to do that if euthanasia is a compassionate alternative.
Now in example B). it's quite possible to rescue the people alive, nurse them back to health, and see them on their way. Â We'll say this is more ambiguous: the punishment may or may not be justified, but it's how things are done here. Â There's a much bigger threat- Deadlord, demon, somesuch- that will run amok if the characters get pulled take time out to perform what may very well be an injustice.
Now I could see a lot more of a split here between reasonable groups. Â Again, from my angle, people with a compassion of 3 shouldn't have to be fighting compulsions left and right from normal aspects of society, unless they are extreme for the setting and their roles. Â To say that a spy with temp 5 b/c he is a firm believer in moderation and generally acts in fairness in arm length transactions should have to fail a temp roll or blow willpower to work in disguise for his job, for the greater good of his people and not himself, is just plain silly. Â It archtypes people too much. Â "If you are truly resistant to temptaiton, you never lie about anything." Â Bull! Â (endrant).
Anyway, I return to the first point. Â Make sure you and your players talk out how the virtues effect them and why ahead of time.
FluffySquirrel
Member
I agree with Yakumo pretty much, I'm personally fairly flexible regarding virtues, and I'm quite happy for virtues to mean different things for different characters, (importantly, as long as the player is consistent about it, if they keep changing to be able to do what they want, fair enough, that's abusing). But yeah, many people would argue that a high compassion would make you want to use euthanasia on a willing person, whereas temperance might be used to oppose it.
In general, we only used virtue rolls for biggish kinds of things, not general every day stuff, the great curse didn't come into play a massive amount in our game though, which is possibly a downside, though often it was perhaps because we didn't play against our virtues much.
In general, we only used virtue rolls for biggish kinds of things, not general every day stuff, the great curse didn't come into play a massive amount in our game though, which is possibly a downside, though often it was perhaps because we didn't play against our virtues much.
magnificentmomo
That Guy
Once there was a guy who had gone insane beyond all help magically in one of my campaigns. I had compassion 4 and I felt it was the compassionate thing to do: too bad my attempt at euthanasia took 5 blows (ST made me roll the attacks and I didn't roll too well).
On a different note, I don't see the correlation between temperance and telling lies: it isn't an indulgent thing, or brash or compulsive. It is very calculated, in that situation.
On a different note, I don't see the correlation between temperance and telling lies: it isn't an indulgent thing, or brash or compulsive. It is very calculated, in that situation.
Jukashi
Four Thousand Club
Considerng the lack of a general code of "goodness" in Exalted, I would usually say that high Temperance is related to how well the character follows their own personal code of conduct. So if a character is presented as thinking it's ok to lie, no problem; if they're part of a religion that discourages it or a just innately honest, then they'd have to roll.
So, for example, a Dragon-Blooded character who comes from the Realm would have to roll Temperance to work with an Anathema, but wouldn't have to roll to employ slaves because it's permitted for Dragon-Blooded to do so. But an Outcaste Dragon-Blooded from the scavenger lands might work the opposite way.
So, for example, a Dragon-Blooded character who comes from the Realm would have to roll Temperance to work with an Anathema, but wouldn't have to roll to employ slaves because it's permitted for Dragon-Blooded to do so. But an Outcaste Dragon-Blooded from the scavenger lands might work the opposite way.
