forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Sometimes, you roll a hazard. And that hazard makes you miserable. You might then roll an Eye, despite your best efforts to avoid rolls and auto everything.

Now you have a flaw, and by RAW, there's no way to get rid of it.

But say you reject that flaw, (Brutal, for example) by being as gentle and compassionate as you know how.

If there were a path to redemption, how would it be adjudicated?

The flaw is often not played by the player at all, but rather by the LM, who invokes that flaw whenever it would reasonably apply.

By RAW, a character is redeemed when they die a fitting, heroic death. Otherwise, I'd say the LM ought to dictate a penance of some sort.

If a character in one of my games gained the Brutal flaw and wished to expunge it, this is how I'd handle it. I'd wait until the flaw kicks in at least once, I wouldn't allow attempts at redemption before the flaw actually manifests itself. Ideally, I'd wait for a particularly bad invoking of the flaw, like if the character accidentally kills a person who turns out to be innocent of all wrongdoing. After that, I'd allow a quest of redemption. I'd have the character try to somehow right the wrong, or at least pay the price for their crime. It'd be a tough and probably costly adventure.

After that, I'd get rid of the flaw, but not the permanent shadow. Their past misdeeds have left their stain already. I'd be particularly harsh in doling out future shadow points relating to the removed flaw, as well. And if they gained a new flaw, I think I'd have them jump right to the next flaw, rather than regaining the one they removed.

Rather than outright remove the flaw, I might allow a character who is actively trying to work at redemption the ability to start resisting my invoking the flaw by means of a wisdom or valor role (as appropriate according to the trait). That way the flaw is always present as a temptation for that character - which I feel is very thematic to Middle Earth - but it would give the player a little more room for agency in that flaw.

The LM could of course alter the TN for the test based on circumstances. For instance, let us say a Woodman has suffered a bout of madness and gained the 'Brutal' flaw. I don't view this as the Woodman suddenly becoming heartless, but rather it becomes a temptation for him to take his idea of 'justice' too far. It might be easier to resist this temptation when dealing with a group of Viglundings in a squabble over turf, so the TN would be relatively easy. However when faced with a surrendering Hillman from the tribe that killed the Woodman's family the TN would be quite severe.

Anyway, a good topic for discussion and consideration.

Well, it does relate back to Calling too.

The Curse of Vengeance in particular is the Slayer curse. So if the TN is variable, it'll be highest when confronting the enemy he's designed to kill. That is, Brutal's more likely to go off for an Orc Slayer hunting Orcs then when he's fighting men or spiders. It might also go off if somebody's trying to convince him he's got something better to do then hunt orcs.

Angelalex242 wrote:Sometimes, you roll a hazard. And that hazard makes you miserable. You might then roll an Eye, despite your best efforts to avoid rolls and auto everything.

You know, Hazards that produce this state on failure are terrifying. I mean the condition means someone is "Temporarily Miserable for the length of journey" which could be weeks of travel. I'm not sure having that condition applied just for a failed Hazard is something I'm actually going to apply in my game. As an aside, I'm seriously considering the one that causes Weariness too.

I don't know, I still think there is a place for the hazard trigger or even an always on type situation (like I discussed in my other thread), but I do agree it does seem terrifying.

I think as a playing group it may be best to decide - do we want our heroes to be 'gawd darn heroes' or are they vulnerable to the miseries and terrors of the world.

In a way embracing the second option could be highly beneficial from a story point of view (if you have a mature group).

All heroes are flawed, it is how they rise above those flaws that make them heroes. I don't mean that in a game way, I mean that in a real life way.

So I say, don't be so quick to dismiss the idea of embracing the flaws picked up along the way, redemption come from deeds not house rules

They're not being removed from the game though as they exist when Hope is overturned by Shadow (for the Miserable condition) and when Endurance is overturned by Fatigue (for the Wearied condition) and these are very specific, very baked in, elements of the game. I really don't see the need of attaching them to a Hazard, particularly when other Hazard types result in gaining Shadow or Hope loss or the loss of Endurance or increase in Fatigue - which can also lead to those states; so the risk is there anyway. The addition of specific Hazard types which circumvent these base rules is unnecessary in my opinion.

Angelalex242 wrote:Well, it does relate back to Calling too.

The Curse of Vengeance in particular is the Slayer curse. So if the TN is variable, it'll be highest when confronting the enemy he's designed to kill. That is, Brutal's more likely to go off for an Orc Slayer hunting Orcs then when he's fighting men or spiders. It might also go off if somebody's trying to convince him he's got something better to do then hunt orcs.

We were coming at the same idea from two directions. I was thinking Curse of Vengeance, so the TN would be higher when in a position to take revenge. Also I don't really expect my players to show mercy to orcs in the first place, so it didn't work for my example. But yes that would be a perfectly reasonable way to apply it too.

Weary in particular shows up pretty frequently in combat. After all, the number one cause of lost endurance is an orc trying to stab your face off. And weary does not go away on its own after combat. It can stick with you for quite a while, because you need to rest in a safe place to get rid of it.

But sometimes, to get to a safe place, you have to negotiate with whoever owns the safe place. And due to the way weary works, it seems that people who own safe places are very reluctant to help people who've just been in battle and got very tired (because weary penalizes encounters too.) My character phrases it as 'a tired tongue often speaks ill.'

He's been denied sanctuary before that way. Didn't matter another party member was wounded, either. Once you're tired, nobody gives a rat's hindquarters if you need help or not.

But that's the weary condition.

I made this thread for adjudicating redemption...

"Great, I suffered a bout of madness, rolled an eye, and now I want to redeem myself before I go any further down the dark path. By RAW I'm screwed. Is there a decent houserule for removing flaws?"

Angelalex242 wrote: "Great, I suffered a bout of madness, rolled an eye, and now I want to redeem myself before I go any further down the dark path. By RAW I'm screwed. Is there a decent houserule for removing flaws?"

You* are not screwed. It's part of the game. Embrace it.

*(or the hypothetical speaker you are quoting)