No. When you said that making a decision for roleplaying reasons should matter only as much as those reasons and not one iota more, I took it to mean that... wait, I'm not sure what I took it as. Hmmm.... Oh yeah. That the effects should only affect things based on the roleplaying reasons. That roleplaying decisions shouldn't have mechanical or metagame effects. I think I got the wrong end of the stick there.
Looking at it from the other direction, it could mean that decisions should be based solely on roleplaying reasons. I think the statement was slightly confusing. This is infeasible because often the party and the campaign should affect the decision.
For example a character who refuses to use magic could go through a magic portal because otherwise the party would be split up and the game would get messy. Similarly a character who wants to use his fathers sword could use one abhorrent to him to make the party as a whole better.
It was confusing. I'm going to post an attempted clarification as a response.
Let's say you make a vow of poverty.
That should not be a some great advantage where abstaining from material posessions is actually beneficial to your temporal strength.
It should not be crippling - but if you vow to use no weapon but an ordinary staff, then you should not get the ability to make a staff a super special awesome weapon.
Now, the staff as is should be a pretty useful weapon - there's quite a bit of prescedent for this in the kind of source material we care about, even without Wheel of Endlessness (Robin Hood, for instance, is a pretty good case for quarterstaves as useful weapons)
So maybe there are mechanical effects, maybe there aren't. But they should not be made so that vows of sacrifice (poverty, chasity, obedience, conduct, etc.) actually make you stronger the more "severe" the vow is.
This is completely different from the DM being likely to twist the charging rules. If there are no guidelines then in a large proportion of the games a roleplaying decision will not count for anything.
Quite - which is why I'd say that if you have such things being something you'd reasonably expect a PC to make (in Arturius that will be the case, in D&D who knows, in L5R yes), you need to explain what that is supposed to mean -if the DM and players disagree they can work something else out, but (while not a Kantian) I would use the Kantian definition here.
What I meant was that the views of the DM can more easily affect the society of the game. If the DM is more of a Utilitarian then they will view refusing to give up your father's sword to save the mayor as less honourable than a Kantian seeing it as keeping your word as to using your father's sword.
This is completely different from the DM being likely to twist the charging rules. If there are no guidelines then in a large proportion of the games a roleplaying decision will not count for anything.
In what sort of ways should your behaviour count in the setting? You've given two ends of the spectrum but what sort of social effects would be seen by someone who is known for never hitting a prone opponent and letting them stand again for example?
Depends. But for instance, someone like that is generally going to be offered the same in return by opponents who have some sense of honor.
Someone like that is generally going to have a good reputation - in the sense that people will generally think more favorably of them and give them the benefit of the doubt.
It may impress some people, which may or may not inspire certain actions on their part - for instance, it might make someone think "oh, what a gallant knight." and do...whatever it is they want to do with gallant knights.
Up to and including activities that are usually not discussed in front of small children. : )
Sure produce an awful lot of little brats though...
That sort of thing.
"+2 to Diplomacy" - probably not. But being regarded as an honorable knight might get someone to offer you a roof over your head when you didn't expect one, to name something convenient and not just pleasing.
This is more like having reliable tactics. If the other players can predict your actions then they are capable of planning ahead further and using possibly better tactics. However this is just as useful as knowing that the wizard loves to use Solid Fog.
If you don't regard having someone you can trust pretty unquestioningly as a pretty damn awesome advantage in an ally...well, let's just say I consider it a bit more important than knowing the wizard loves to use Solid Fog.
And are you really saying that it is okay for one player to be a PC and another player to be a cohort? Because then one player really is twice as good as another and it would be one kill to ten.
Not with that design of how much of an advantage two levels is, no.
The extension of this is that you aren't really generous unless you are willing to give someone money you need to pay the rent. Obviously this isn't the case and there isn't a strict line so where does it start getting fuzzy between
- only being willing to give what you can afford and
- giving away what you need to live
Let's say you saved up to buy something you really wanted. It took you a lot of effort and some sacrifices/lean months/whatever. But now you have it.
You see someone in need.
You help them out, since they need the money.
Anything less than that may or may not be a nice thing to do, but its not doing very much.
Very rough, that - but its a reasonable approximation. If you can go home feeling that you're just as well off as if you hadn't done it, it probably wasn't very generous. It may be adaquete, but if that's the best you do, don't expect to be called the Generous as far as I'm concerned.
You don't need to give someone the clothes off your back, but if its just pocket change, I can't exactly say that you deserve anything more than a "That was nice of you."
Trust in the Emperor, but always check your ammunition.
