So we are assuming that our hypothetical code of honor is also good, and that the entire population generally believes in the same code of honor?
We are assuming that these are possibilities not to be treated as nonexistant.
Well if we're talking about being what a good christian does in theory, he doesn't do anything that PCs do because killing and taking shit that don't belong to you is wrong.
There are "good Christians" who fought people. I hate to be repetitive, but Bayard was regarded as very pious as well as honorable and coruageous.
We're not discussing a game about romance, we're discussing a game about stabbing people.
And that's it? Nonflashy fighters means we don't have anything to do with anything other than combat?
Do you really even care in Magical Teaparty or amateur theater hour? It's not like Hamlet gets to not die at the end. You're slave to the story in those situations.
The reason I don't like those two is because I do care, so I'm not sure what those who like Magical Teaparty think.
Exactly. You are not your code of honor. You are not your noble sacrifice. You are not your 25th level paladin. You are not your heroic deeds. You are not your fucking character.
And when saying that your 25th level paladin does something, it should be based on what the paladin would do with the knowledge he has of what is right and wrong and what is effective and ineffective and what is important.
Your character should be built accordingly if based at all on "what Sir whatever would do".
Is this discussion about Arturius? Are you trying to make it Arturius-friendly so you can just port it over to that thread whenever we get anything polished out with this?
No. Is it an example of something designed for a specific subset of players and with a desire to be built by people who like that sort of thing?
Yes. Thus being mentioned. If you want a game where characters are all bastards, doing what I did with Arturius in regards to "those not interested need not do anything here" from the goddamn start would be appropriate.
So if you want a nonflashy fighters game where refusing to use the best tactics possible is the same as shooting yourself in the foot (literally), make one - but don't insist that this project being discussed here and the other thread gets to be your project because you don't want to have refusing to use poison or whatever actually limit anyone in any way.
You know, deciding that you don't need to give any credence to the minority preference is a method of dealing with it. We don't have to work with you.
Either this is a group project including different viewpoints on what's desirable to produce, in which you have to accept that the majority is not the only part of the group and not just say "We don't like this so fuck off." or it isn't a group project including different viewpoints.
And unless the OP of the other thread has changed, this is a group project involving different viewpoints.
Breathlessly expounding upon the adventures of one's character is a horrible thing to do to another human being. You are a horrible person for endorsing it and should crawl back to your cave in shame, you troglodyte.
No more horrible than explaining how if you own $300 worth of books that you can make a character able to do 13% more damage than the designers intended is.
I really doubt that.
Why, because we don't want to have "optimal" be the baseline for PCs?
Because we want a game where what our characters do is interesting and fun and cool whether or not our kill count is the highest?
See what I don't get is this - you constantly emphasize that people should look past the mechanics, and that if you're a good roleplayer you shouldn't care about a less-than-crippling mechanical disadvantage. Ok, fine.
But then, you also insist that the character making a sacrifice has to have mechanical effects, or it doesn't count. Your code of honor has to mechanically disadvantage you. Why? I thought we were supposed to be looking past the mechanics?
Let's say I vow never to use poison. That vow directly relates to the mechanics. It says "my character will not use this even though it is useful and I may avoid being noticed."
On the other hand, a vow of chastity, however important it may be (and one would assume any game where we care if you made one at least has it worth remembering - it may never be a weakness, but it is different.) may have no mechanical impact at all.
Essentially - if mechanics are so important that a vow is meaningless without giving you a mechanical disadvantage, then they're important enough that said disadvantage is a bad thing. If mechanics are secondary and we shouldn't worry about being optimal or not, then they're secondary and we shouldn't worry about vows having a mechanical effect.
Not necessarily such a bad thing as to make your character a loser, however.
Let's say you win 75% of the time without poison and 85% with.
Assuming no other consequences mechanically, you're at a 10% disadvantage - compared to the people dishonorable enough to use poison.
If the game is set up with most people using poison, that is something of a problem.
If most people don't, but vowing and commiting yourself before God to not do so on peril of your soul is unusual because it means that on the occasions most people would rationalize it in some way you -will refuse to do so-, it may not be.
Now the impression this is going to give to people is roughly "Evil will always win, because Good is dumb." ... or the honor equivalent. Is that really what you want?
What I want is for Good to be perfectly fucking capable without cheating and yet actually forfeiting something that isn't a nonpenalty in refusing to do so.
And for that matter, if the disadvantages of being honorable are mechanically represented, shouldn't the advantages be as well?
Depends on the thing in question.
"I vow never to use poison."
- I never get the benefits of using poison.
Now, let's say Generic Poison does something equivalant to Strength ability score damage a quarter of the time vs. an average opponent.
Mechanical penalty.
+ I am regarded as a noble knight.
If I request food and lodging for myself and my horse (in a group game, "and my friends as well"), I might well get it offered for free, payment turned down even if I can fully afford to pay for it.
Nonmechanical bonus.
Let's take another example.
I show mercy in a joust and let my opponent withdraw honorably.
- I don't gain his stuff.
Mechanical penalty of some relatively mild sort - I already have good stuff or I wouldn't be competing. But its still a good prize.
+ He considers himself to be obligated to do the same to me.
If he beats me on some later occasion, he'll return the favor.
+ I will be regarded as a merciful knight.
What exactly this does could be mechanical (bonuses to some rolls) or not. Maybe it has some limitations (a knight renowned for being merciful making an Intimidate check may be worse off) as well - but those are things I decided I wasn't going to focus on anyway, so its a limitation rather than a "you are penalized and subpar." overall.
Finally, let's take courage/commitment.
- I put myself in more danger than most and continue on at greater sacrifice to myself.
Obvious effects.
+ I can fight harder, not just smarter.
I
can summon up the "last of my strength" for one final blowwhich ignores injury and/or fatigue - at of course the cost of slumping to the ground spent afterwards, or close enough, but that one blow might make a difference.
The whole
point of cheating is
to gain an unfair advantage.
If it doesn't do that, there's no motivation.
Conversely, the whole
point of being honorable is that it is the right thing to do and
will make the world better.
If I save an Italian virgin from her wicked Turkish uncle (/reference), but it turns out she's a witch and he was a cleverly disguised Inquisitor (and we're assuming the Inquisition is a good thing for purposes of this statement), I just got fucked. Up the ass. With a barbed penis. (/reference)
Does this make sense?