I originally posted this over on the TLF forum, but since it is not nearly as active as it once was, I decided to post it here too to get a wider set of opinions.
Admittedly, it has been years since I played Pendragon, and even then I didn't ever play a significant amount of it. So this might come from a romantic remembrance instead the reality of the game.
That said, I have always liked the idea of the game's Personal traits passions – virtue v vice. 13 different balanced virtue/vice pairs on a scale from 1 – 20 with 10 being balanced/neutral on that set. Now the virtues are things like Chaste v Lustful, Energetic v Lavy, Honest v Deceitful etc. Some of them are tied to 'good' v 'evil' but what tends to be good v evil is broken down in part in the virtue v vice
To do something significantly counter to your virtue/vice or avoid doing something significantly in line with your virtue vice, you have to make a check. The mechanic is roll below your value . Say your courage is 14 and you are in a fight, you see an opponent striding through the battle field mowing down any and all common men-at-arms he faces, and you know his crest & realize he is significantly more powerful than you are. You not wanting to risk your PC to a bad dice roll want to avoid that opponent and maybe find someone more at your skill level .... toss the dice and see if are more drawn to standing and fighting or like Brave Sir Robin slink away and find easier pickings.
Now how can that be morphed into a D&D based game ? The mechanic fits for their rules of all check are a d20 and roll below the target. However, it as written does not fit D&D games .
Also, can it / should it replace the D&D based alignment, or can it be used to supplement alignment . A brave religious etc (but worshiper of an evil deity, so say LE) would have applicable high virtues, and possibly only a few vices, but be 'evil' in how they apply those virtues. Similarly a 'good' knight that is a drunk lazy etc like the good Sir Falstaff has more than normal vices but is still good ....
I'm of two minds when it comes to this sort of thing. In general, I'm Not a fan of any mechanics that quantify a character's personality. For a bad roleplayer they can be a useful crutch, but for a good one, they often limit rather than expand character depth.
On the flip side, there's no denying that even good roleplayers tend to play their characters as much more rational than people in their circumstances probably would be. No matter how invested, a player can't really feel the terror of battle, or the conflicting fear of being seen as a coward, or the lust engendered by the dryad's charm offensive, so they tend to do the rational (or sometimes the narratively satisfying) thing, rather than what might be the most strictly in character.
I do suspect that the majority of players would be quite upset if their character got seduced by a dice roll, despite that being something players do to NPCs all the time. But I suppose you could argue that if it's ok to have a willpower check or a fear check, why not a horny save?
EDIT: on the flip flip side, that kind of emotional control is one of those unspoken "hero's edges" like being able to function perfectly fine on one meal of the exact same rations each day and never catching a cold. It's unrealistic, but we tend to accept it because trying to simulate it realistically would be a pain in the ass, and might make the game less fun.
I don't like the idea of having to stop playing the game and check all my values to make sure I'm roleplaying my character "correctly".
Alignment works for me because it's just the right level of complexity. Good - Bad, Order - Chaos. Easy peasy. Plenty of room for nuance. (So internet nerds can argue about alignment until the sun burns out)
Quote from: ForgottenF on May 18, 2024, 04:02:44 PMOn the flip side, there's no denying that even good roleplayers tend to play their characters as much more rational than people in their circumstances probably would be. No matter how invested, a player can't really feel the terror of battle, or the conflicting fear of being seen as a coward, or the lust engendered by the dryad's charm offensive, so they tend to do the rational (or sometimes the narratively satisfying) thing, rather than what might be the most strictly in character.
I agree that players don't play out their character passions well. Even aside from seduction, just something as simple as putting up with the discomfort of sleeping in armor - players will often choose that trivially.
However, the real question is whether adding in random passion rolls will make characters more believable. In my experience, if the player isn't role-playing well, then adding in random passion rolls makes the character even less believable. (I've only played a little Pendragon, but there are similar rolls in Ars Magica and other games.) It comes across like the character is randomly jumping from passionate to rational, which isn't how real people behave.
While it might help with game balance or flavor, I don't think they improve character believability.
I think that it can help for there to be social positives to showing personality and even weakness. NPCs can be more sympathetic to characters who show human feeling and vulnerability, and this can be positive help to the PCs.
I have some old reflections on it here. I might want to update that.
https://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/personality.html
I am not a fan of either for PC. Alignment makes cosmological sense in the setting but is often a crutch, or irrelevant at the character level. If you want to play a "good guy," play a good guy, it doesn't need to be written on the character sheet and acting like a jerk when playing a good guy will make it harder to do good guy things if the fords responds in a believable and consistent fashion to such behavior.
I think a passion-vice scale makes more sense for NPCs to generate a more natural range of responses. PC decisions are driven by players and the outcomes of actions are driven by dice. What does effect player decisions is mechanical bonuses. If a villainous PC gets to add a villainy modifier to rolls for dastardly deeds, it would effect the player's decision on how to act without dictating it.
Alignment makes sense when you have literal gods aligned with Law and Chaos (and Evil/Good) who are essentially waging a war against each other. Either LOTR style or Michael Moorcock style or Poul Anderson style.
If you don't, it really doesn't.
I think the passions things only really works for Pendragon, because you are supposed to be playing (and simulating, really not just playing) a knight from the Arthurian romances who gets tested with various things. And there was an inherent clash between the original pagan nature of the stories (or at least some of them) and the later Christianized versions (and the Courtly love stuff as well)
Tried importing passions/traits into both D6 Fantasy and OSRIC; you can make it work but in my opinion it did not feel right, my player core is 1e and 2e types, half of which loved/hated 3e, the whole sample didn't like it (it being the importing of this particular pendragon mechanic). Some said it felt like being tracked or monitored too closely, they felt stifled by it, others simply that they'd rather track encumbrance. Unless the campaign is very knightly focused and you've got a murder hobo problem i think it hinders more than helps.
All, thanks for the replies
Considering only one was at best 'I'm of 2 minds' and all the rest were negative, I'll write it off as a no joy.
Without a doubt, if I ever did it, the game would have to be more focused on morality being tested than normal D&D leans toward. I think it could be fun, but it would have to be the correct group in the correct mindset. Then, if it gets played, might as well jut play Pendragon and not mess with HRing other systems to include it.
Again thanks
My players only loosely pay attention to their alignment. Basically its a guide on how to treat prisoners. Passions seems like a fun idea to read about but I doubt it'd be used much in practice, at least not by my set of players.
Greetings!
Yes, I think that the Passions System is excellent--for Pendragon. We must remember, the Passions System is there really to help simulate playing the internal and personal flaws, strengths, and conflicts of heroic KNIGHTS. While the system can be used with other characters, the Passions System, like Pendragon, mostly assumes you are playing a heroic Knight. The Players are not assumed to be playing Druids, or Wizards, or morally shifty Rogues, or Rangers--but heroic KNIGHTS. D&D assumes a very different composition of Players than what is assumed for Pendragon. I have contemplated porting over systems like the Passions System from Pendragon, but after actually playing Pendragon, and really analyzing it, the system works optimally for Pendragon. I think trying to port it into other game systems is likely to be an exercise in frustration.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I simply changed the names of the Holmes/1E Monster Manual Alignments and left it at that:
Allegiance (instead of Alignment)
Order
Freedom
Indifference
Hedonism
Chaos
That way there is a little more wiggle room and no chances of Palatines (my Paladin-types) from getting ass-fucked by idiot DMs that think 'Lawful Good means Lawful Nice'.
Quote from: Lurker on May 21, 2024, 08:08:33 PMConsidering only one was at best 'I'm of 2 minds' and all the rest were negative, I'll write it off as a no joy.
I don't think you explained how the system works very well. Passions and Traits are two separate rules.
Passions are things like Love, Hatred, or Loyalty. Basically they are similar to Inspiration or other various mechanics. You can call upon your passion when the object of your passion is involved in the current adventure to gain a bonus to help them. For example, if you Hate (Orcs) and you see orcs, you can summon your hatred for a bonus to combat. Or if you have Loyalty (Party) and the party is in danger, you can use your passion to help save them. Failing the roll can cause negative effects so it shouldn't be spammed.
Traits, OTOH, are pairs of opposite world views. These are rarely rolled against and, mostly, are used to track the players behavior. If the PC constantly behaves in a Reckless manner, than the slider will gradually move towards Reckless trait. The Traits will, eventually, conform to how the character acts in-game.
The primary purpose of this in Pendragon is to satisfy Religious requirements to see if you are living up to your cultural ideals. Christians, for example, favor Chaste, Forgiving, Merciful, Modest, and Temperate while a Wotanic knight would idealize Generous, Proud, Worldly, Indulgent, and Reckless. Otherwise, these traits are rarely rolled for and only in dramatic moments and only if the player is trying to do something that goes against how the character has been consistently acting.
The best way to translate this to a D&D-type world would be to specify different gods that value different ideals. And if you follow the ideals you would be more likely to gain some sort of Divine Intervention or small bonus. Even similar gods could have different ideals. For example, a god of war would favor Reckless behavior while a god of hunting would favor Prudent (or cautious) behavior.
Similarly, they could be used to specify general cultural ideals, increasing your standing within a group if you follow those ideals or being treated as an outsider if you don't.
For example, Ferengi would value Lustful, Lazy, Selfish, Deceitful, and Indulgent. While Klingons would value Vengeful, Honest, Proud, Reckless, and Valorous.
So I think that overall the main complaint for the system is the idea that players are randomly rolling to see what their character is going to do. But that's not really how the system works.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on May 23, 2024, 11:59:02 AMQuote from: Lurker on May 21, 2024, 08:08:33 PMConsidering only one was at best 'I'm of 2 minds' and all the rest were negative, I'll write it off as a no joy.
I don't think you explained how the system works very well. Passions and Traits are two separate rules.
Passions are things like Love, Hatred, or Loyalty. Basically they are similar to Inspiration or other various mechanics. You can call upon your passion when the object of your passion is involved in the current adventure to gain a bonus to help them. For example, if you Hate (Orcs) and you see orcs, you can summon your hatred for a bonus to combat. Or if you have Loyalty (Party) and the party is in danger, you can use your passion to help save them. Failing the roll can cause negative effects so it shouldn't be spammed.
Traits, OTOH, are pairs of opposite world views. These are rarely rolled against and, mostly, are used to track the players behavior. If the PC constantly behaves in a Reckless manner, than the slider will gradually move towards Reckless trait. The Traits will, eventually, conform to how the character acts in-game.
The primary purpose of this in Pendragon is to satisfy Religious requirements to see if you are living up to your cultural ideals. Christians, for example, favor Chaste, Forgiving, Merciful, Modest, and Temperate while a Wotanic knight would idealize Generous, Proud, Worldly, Indulgent, and Reckless. Otherwise, these traits are rarely rolled for and only in dramatic moments and only if the player is trying to do something that goes against how the character has been consistently acting.
The best way to translate this to a D&D-type world would be to specify different gods that value different ideals. And if you follow the ideals you would be more likely to gain some sort of Divine Intervention or small bonus. Even similar gods could have different ideals. For example, a god of war would favor Reckless behavior while a god of hunting would favor Prudent (or cautious) behavior.
Similarly, they could be used to specify general cultural ideals, increasing your standing within a group if you follow those ideals or being treated as an outsider if you don't.
For example, Ferengi would value Lustful, Lazy, Selfish, Deceitful, and Indulgent. While Klingons would value Vengeful, Honest, Proud, Reckless, and Valorous.
So I think that overall the main complaint for the system is the idea that players are randomly rolling to see what their character is going to do. But that's not really how the system works.
Rgr, I'll be the first to admit I didn't give them justice in the original question. I'm not an expert in the system and I didn't want to go to indepth in the question and give everyone a wall of text to wade through. Plus I assumed (and that is always dangerous) the most of us at least has a passing idea of the rules.
You did a great job on correcting/expanding my fly over of it. Thanks
It is a great point different cultures have different focuses, and that they are a sliding scale on the PCs actions and the rolls are not often called for .
I am still enamored with the idea, but again as it was pointed out, it fits a 'Pendragon' game where trials and testing of one's character and morals is an element of the game. I wish Pendragon did expand it out to more class types where you could have a non-knight man-at-arms, or bards, or rogues etc as PCs along wiht the knight.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 23, 2024, 01:32:14 AMI simply changed the names of the Holmes/1E Monster Manual Alignments and left it at that:
Allegiance (instead of Alignment)
Order
Freedom
Indifference
Hedonism
Chaos
That way there is a little more wiggle room and no chances of Palatines (my Paladin-types) from getting ass-fucked by idiot DMs that think 'Lawful Good means Lawful Nice'.
I like that break out, especially the Indifference (as opposed to Neutral) and Hedonism (which may or not be evilly focused/motivated)
I have always loved the Palladium break out of Alignments, but yours is really good !
Quote from: Lurker on May 23, 2024, 05:07:55 PMI have always loved the Palladium break out of Alignments, but yours is really good !
I actually prefer the late Erick Wujick's from
Revised Recon. They fit so much better with games like
Robotech.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 24, 2024, 04:25:37 AMQuote from: Lurker on May 23, 2024, 05:07:55 PMI have always loved the Palladium break out of Alignments, but yours is really good !
I actually prefer the late Erick Wujick's from Revised Recon. They fit so much better with games like Robotech.
I don't recognize that one, please enlighten me . If it is better than "Principled Scrupulous ... Aberrant Diabolic" I'd love to get it to start using in my home brews
As adapted (by me) for a revised version of Palladium's Robotech RPG:
IDEALIST
A combatants life requires killing and violence and that is okay as long as the cause is just. An idealist will try and only hurt 'the bad guys'. Seeing an innocent person killed, or worse yet, killing a bystander themselves, will cause an Idealist a great deal of emotional pain. Idealists will try to stop injustice by any means possible, even to the extent of threatening fellow military personnel including officers. Physical torture for the purpose of interrogation is not acceptable to an Idealist.
Goals: To do good, helping other people and to try and make the galaxy a better place.
IDEALIST-PACIFIST
This is the logical conclusion of the Idealistic mindset. Killing another sentient being is wrong! And it can be fairly easy to avoid killing. Often a Pacifist will only fire warning shots or disabling/crippling ones to enemy mecha during an entire firefight. A Pacifist will not kill to save their own life. The lives of their buddies, or even innocents, are another problem altogether. Sometimes, in extreme cases, a Pacifist may have to take the life of an enemy to protect the lives of their buddies. This will cause the Pacifist a great deal of personal anguish. Generally, officers and team leaders distrust and dislike Pacifists, often giving them the dirtiest jobs.
Goals: To avoid killing anyone.
OPPORTUNIST
Following orders is natural to Opportunists. They aren't in the military for their health. They likely enjoy the life they lead, but they wouldn't do it without being paid. Innocents get killed, non-combatants die in every war and you can't stand around crying for every poor alien who gets caught in the cross-fire. On the other hand, helping people feels better than hurting them. Staying alive means being an effective warrior. If you are good at your job you'll kill the enemy before he kills you.
Goals: Getting you and your buddies out alive is your main objective.
OPPORTUNIST-RIGHTEOUS
In the name of 'the cause', all things are justified. Killing or torturing the enemy is alright if it advances the cause. This is usually the ideologies of the leaders of most Robotech societies, even those that are opposed to one another. Righteous characters are willing to die at the drop of a hat. Charging into certain death or holding a position after it becomes hopeless is second nature. These characters also see nothing wrong in the deaths of innocents so long as the cause is advanced. Accidents happen but there is no reason to get upset about them. After all, some must suffer for the betterment of all.
Goals: Advancement of 'The Cause' is more important than anyone's life, including their own.
OPPORTUNIST-KARMIC
Some discover that the 'game of war' is more important than winning. This is the kind of character who will toss away a weapon to make the fight more even or who will let a particularly noble enemy escape. To their way of thinking, only a select few on each side of a war are true warriors. Karmic characters think of themselves more as Knights or Samurai than as modern warriors. In their worldview, the concept of 'fair play' has meaning. Killing lowly Invid drones, rogue Zentraedi or even Bioroid clones is unimportant. Even their own death is irrelevant so long as it is at the hands of a worthy opponent. The battles that are important are the ones where man and machine are pitted against the skill of another. This kind of character will stay in the military or become a Private Military Contractor so that they can continue to find battles worthy of their talent. Karmic characters are usually respected and feared by everyone. People seem to sense that they are no longer afraid of death and they will rarely be hassled by anyone.
Goals: To fight in challenging battles and prove oneself.
MALIGNANT
Anyone who happens to get in the way of a Malignant character is so much dirt to be scraped off their boot. Lives count for absolutely nothing. Getting paid and getting revenge are the only things that really matter. People will just naturally dislike Malignant characters. Their fellow soldiers will think of them as scum. This kind of character will often have traps deliberately set against them. Officers of this type, often martinets, have a nasty track record of being 'fragged' by their subordinates. Even teammates will be reluctant to save the life of a Malignant.
Goals: Stay alive and get ahead.
MALIGNANT-PSYCHOTIC
In every war there are people who are just plain nuts! These are the maniacs who just go kill-crazy. Since everyone is a potential enemy, they feel its best to kill them all before they do the same. Even their fellow soldiers are not to be trusted. In extreme cases, this character just lives for killing, demanding they be assigned to where they can kill the maximum number of hostiles. These characters generally have little or no regard for their own lives. They either know they are not going to die or else they know that death is inevitable. Either way, their the most dangerous people around. Psychotics are instantly recognized and feared by everyone. Since they are simply time bombs waiting to go off, most people will work stay out of their way.
Goals: Kill as many 'enemies' as possible.
I quite like the notion of mechanics informing roleplay (if handled correctly) to me a stat that gives you bonuses in combat, but also prevents you from leaving said combat such as Bravery sounds interesting, it implies a double edged stat, one you roll with for benefits, but also can screw you in the right moment.
Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on May 24, 2024, 11:27:30 AMAs adapted (by me) for a revised version of Palladium's Robotech RPG:
IDEALIST
A combatants life requires killing and violence and that is okay as long as the cause is just. An idealist will try and only hurt 'the bad guys'. Seeing an innocent person killed, or worse yet, killing a bystander themselves, will cause an Idealist a great deal of emotional pain. Idealists will try to stop injustice by any means possible, even to the extent of threatening fellow military personnel including officers. Physical torture for the purpose of interrogation is not acceptable to an Idealist.
Goals: To do good, helping other people and to try and make the galaxy a better place.
...
MALIGNANT-PSYCHOTIC
In every war there are people who are just plain nuts! These are the maniacs who just go kill-crazy. Since everyone is a potential enemy, they feel its best to kill them all before they do the same. Even their fellow soldiers are not to be trusted. In extreme cases, this character just lives for killing, demanding they be assigned to where they can kill the maximum number of hostiles. These characters generally have little or no regard for their own lives. They either know they are not going to die or else they know that death is inevitable. Either way, their the most dangerous people around. Psychotics are instantly recognized and feared by everyone. Since they are simply time bombs waiting to go off, most people will work stay out of their way.
Goals: Kill as many 'enemies' as possible.
Thanks !
Yeah, I do see how that fits a military / Spy game. I will keep that in my wheel house !
Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 28, 2024, 05:40:02 PMI quite like the notion of mechanics informing roleplay (if handled correctly) to me a stat that gives you bonuses in combat, but also prevents you from leaving said combat such as Bravery sounds interesting, it implies a double edged stat, one you roll with for benefits, but also can screw you in the right moment.
I'm right there with you on that ! The trouble is the "if handled correctly" . That can go wrong on both the DM & and the player side.