Player problem - opinions ....

[Storn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Sir William, I'm trying to see your side too.

 

but this got to me:

 

#3 IMO, no Paladin, would cut down an unarmed person no matter what they had done. That's what that Code of Honor (Total) is all about. (Please note that the vow that you've been hotly debating was a moderate)

 

He is NO LONGER A PALADIN WHEN YOU TOOK HIS OPPORTUNITY TO TURN DOWN THE STRUMPET. In his mind, it is quite easily concieved that the PC had been stripped of his divine charter.

 

And paladin by what cultural standard? What he did was extremely samurai-like. NO one would blink an eye at this happening in L5R. Now who is being constrained by MMMORGs and WoW and D&D?

 

Why can't one be a paladin with a samurai ethic?

 

 

But I think one of the missed warning flags that you guys made is that you allowed a PC to come to the table who has very little interaction built in with other players. The I pray, I kill, I worship thing is great for a monk in a cave... an NPC. But this would have sent my radar a' pingin' immediately.

 

And I would have started negotiating... "Is there a way for the Paladin to have a passion in a social context.. chess? cards? storytelling and story gathering? Singing and performing?" Paladins do not have to be this dour, stuffy person.

 

Most of th holy men I've met have great senses of humor. The Templars were known for their banking, libraries and the beginning of the modern hospital (the HOspitalars)...pretty social beings... those our historic analogs... but a Paladin who is also a doctor/healer and then you slip in, oh "Famous Dr. so-n-so is going to be at the party and would love to trade ideas!"

 

And if he wants to just play the stoic... and y'all are okay with that. Let him. Don't blow his character-view based on one die roll. And you say that he "wasn't in character"... how do you know?

 

It is his character. Maybe he wasn't playing YOUR version of a Paladin. And what a freakin' missed opportunity. The best way to get tot he root of another person's button-tight character is to ASK QUESTIONS... not manipulate him into being a laughing-stock.

 

Hell, in my opinion, you dropped the ball as a courtier/spy/face man. If you had honestly gone up to him and asked, in character, "why does your God feel the need to bar you from Sex? From Drink?"... you would have FORCED HIM to think about an answer and, gosh!, roleplay an answer. Even if he gave you no answer, that was a roleplaying CHOICE.

 

And if you were deadset on doing the social manipulation that you did, you should have broken character and said: "Listen man, I'm doing this to have some fun with your character. I fully expect you to turn down the woman. I fully expect it to generate some heat between our PCs. " and not even LET it become a die roll. Its the classic wink-wink while WE, the BOTH of US, screw our own characters... let's have fun together.

[input.jack]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

In general it is best to NEVER make a roll that can be roleplayed.

If the PC wants to smart talk their way out of a situation - let them. If they don't want to, use a roll. At worst give a modifier to the roll based on how well they roleplay it.

And in general NEVER make a roll that effects the personality of the PC. What a PC does is what the player thinks they should do.

 

I dont necessarily agree with the first statement here. Our group tends to RP when we can (have time, the situation is interesting, etc). We dont RP buying shoes. Often. But when we -do- RP a situation that involves a social interaction, we have the Player make a die roll, and the GM factors in how well the Player rolled with how well they RP'ed, as well as what the PC's interaction roll is on. There are a couple of Players in our group who are great people, but not good at being orators or smooth-talkers. If they are playing a character with Conversation on a 16-, the GM takes that into account when they try to finesse info out of the Latverian ambassador

 

The last two sentences, about never making a die roll that affects the core personality of the PC, well, I couldnt agree more! Absolutely true.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Just read the opening post, so if something else came to light later, so be it.

 

However from the OP Im siding w/ the player of the paladin on this one -- you and your GM were being extremely immature and passive agressive with this new player, and it sounds to me like he reacted in character as a response to your inappropriate actions.

 

As far as him not knowing your character was behind it, don't be a simpleton. Even assuming he didnt have some of the standard paladin options such as detect lie available to him it sounds as if there was plenty of available in-character evidence that your character was a hedonist and prone to thumbing his nose at the characters principles and it wouldnt take a brain surgeon to connect the dots and arrive at the conclusion that your character was behind it.

 

Even if that were not the case, I'd say the player delivered a pretty clear message to you that the game is not a venue for you to hassle or otherwise screw around with him by deliberately going out of your way to mock and embarrass or otherwise destroy his character concept.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

If you want to take of a PC' date=' you are turning them into an NPC and you may as well not have any of your friends round at all, just write a story and roll dice all by yourself.[/quote']

 

By that token, you may as well let the players take exactly whatever characters they want, because GM input to keep their characters in line with what is in your world is also limiting the player's right to play a character that exists as they think it should

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Just so we're clear on a couple of points:

 

#1 I was not "hazing" him by any stretch of the imagination. I was playing in-character, and I've related about 20 minutes of a 4+ hour session. So a lot of this lacks context.

 

Well you did rape his character. As in you the player, not you the character. Not litterally but in the broader sence.

 

"But your Honour, we were in the house for 4 hours, but we only spent 20 minutes ***** slapping Grandma"

"Oh well in that case, I must instruct the jury to find you non guilty"

 

 

Personally I would of had the character walk out. To blame the seducer is like those idiots on Jerry who when they get cheated on blame not their partner but the skank the partner did. If you break your vows, the number one person to blame [ignoring idiotic use of skill rolls] is yourself. Unless you are under magic or power compulsion. That being said I can't seem him every being on good terms with your character again.

 

However Your screwing with his character >> his responding in an extreme manner

 

 

 

To sum up.

 

1:He could of probably reacted better roleplaying wise, but was prob placed in a hightened emotional context by the BS that happened to his character.

2:Considering his temper problem, one should avoid at all costs working against a *players* psych disads.

3:Your GM needs to learn how to use the rules better and avoid railroading.

4:You should avoid makeing character that screw with other PCs unless you have cleared it with the other player BEFORE the game starts.

 

If you can't walk away from this having learned these three points then there is no hope for you.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I agree with this only if it extends to major NPC's. To say "PC's are immune to interaction skills' date=' PRE attacks (move up the chain to Mind Control, maybe?) but they can use these against similar characters who aren't PC's" gives a special "PC bonus". If we make it a "mook rule", it's fair across the board.[/quote']

 

Agreed 100%. I have this exact rule in my campaign; the thing is that the players start out with mooks. After they make it to "PC" status, I have another system to switch from the Dying Earth to. Of course, now that I'm converting to the HERO system, I'm not at all sure how that part will go . . .

[atlascott]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

There are an awful lot of guys who like to play 'joker' characters. And then, use that as an excuse to humiliate other players and their PC's, with the catch-all shield of "hey, I was just joking...playing my character..."

 

How are you supposed to play a serious, chaste character in a game like that?

 

I this kind of stuff is allowed in a campaign, then a serious-minded paladin who takes his faith dead-seriously is also an option. Curse my god? I am honor-bound to slap your face. Blaspheme by tempting me with the ways of the flesh for your personal amusement and as a slap in the face of my faith and god? Get ready to be beaten to within an inch of your life--or beyond.

 

In real life, go to most bars. You'll usually find a smart-mouthed joker. By the end of the night, he offends a meathead, who then promptly pounds the **** out of him. Then, the smart-mouth learns his lesson.

 

I agree with the fellows who pin alot of the junk on the GM. Bad ideas are fine for PC's--but when one is making a campaign-ending or ill-considered move, it is a good GM's job to ask the player--not the PC--the player--whether they really want to do "that"--and follow it up with some observations that the PC would know or consider.

 

A whore's seduction roll trumps at least 2 Psychological Limitations that would make the paladin immune to her guiles? I hope the GM rolled a "3" after weighing these factors, before deciding that the paladin bangs the chick.

 

Frankly, I do not know if the paladin's actions are so out of line. The suicide is noble and in character. Murdering the wise-*** is pure gravy--and likely is metagaming revenge for ruining his fun. Of course, he could have just committed suicide, and them built a total sadist character with Psych Lim "Hates Jokesters" and "Loves torturing the insultingly-clever."

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

We actually had some Seduction-related events in our last game. We had one NPC seduce a PC (with a psych lim that put him in the same class as Sir William's) with a chance for the PC to refuse. He shrugged and went along with it.

 

Then, another NPC asked my character if she'd like to sleep with him. Now, I play a forthright barbarian who doesn't feel a need for the amount of clothing she DOES wear (see Keith's art thread to see what I'm talking about), so this was not entirely beyond the realm of possibility.

 

There were no rolls for this interaction. Instead, my character explained, in ways that sounded to everyone present like a veiled threat, why that would never happen. This sort of thing comes under the definition of "Honor Code". I can't say whether I bought it at Total or Major, but, in any case, this character has a strict honor code she abides by, and woe betide any who don't respect that.

 

Had Josh, rather than roleplaying out the interaction, rolled some dice and decided this NPC's Seduction was high enough, the session would've ended a LOT differently. Even though her Honor Code forbids her from picking on someone weaker than herself, that would be overridden long enough for her to retain her honor and kill the man who dared flout her Code. This would not be my reacting out of character, metagaming, or throwing a temper tantrum; I say with a completely clear mind that she'd kill the NPC, consequences be damned, kill anyone who tried to stop her, and kill anyone she thought might've helped him with it. For good measure.

 

But that would've been unneccessary, because Josh is an excellent GM, and would NEVER take such a decision out of my character's hands.

[SirWilliam]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Well I see the thread has exploded somewhat since I last posted, and no I haven't read even half of them that have been added. As I said I kicked back and waited for a response to the e-mail I sent.

 

Before I get to the results of the e-mail, there seems to be almost an assumption of malice on my part. I'm not that kind of guy, and the person in question is the son of a very good friend of mine although I don't know him as well as I do her. There's no way I would screw with him for fun.

 

Now, I've gotten an e-mail back from him and he explained his views and for his part he's sorry he flew off the handle. I think we've agreed to rewind to before the part where the wheels came off and go from there. I think I'll leave this at that rather than include the contents of the exchange because I don't think it would do any good.

 

I'm almost as surprised by some of the comments in this thread as I was by the incident. For those of you that made constructive suggestions, you have my thanks. For those of you who think I'm a terrible person and they are fortunate not to know me, well everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I have to say I've rarely been judged more harshly with regards to my personal character on less grounds than in this thread. JMO but if I was really the kind of person I was being judged to be, I would not have started this thread as a question of what went wrong, instead I would have bragged about how I screwed over the new guy. Regardless, you may carry on with other threads, and for my part I shall be careful of what I post and always wear my flame-retardent undies.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Noting above that Seduction is, in fact, reserved for PC to NPC, and is generally not to be used for NPC to PC interactions, I had a bizarre thought.

 

This would have been a perfect scenario - under slightly different circumstances - for Robyn's Heat of the Moment thread concept. Let's say - f'rinstance - that this was not this particular Paladin. Let's say... who's a Paladin I can relate too easily... I dunno... Lord Captain Thia Halmades. Sure. I can pick on that clown. He won't mind. (Thia: HEY! I heard that!)

 

Right then. So Thia - who's about 45 - and has spent most of his life in prayer or at war, goes to a party. He isn't a womanizer - there's no law against it, he just... isn't. He's also quite funny given the chance, a strong humanitarian and has aged rather well (a decent COM and a massive PRE score). At said party is Ryn, a rogue who likes to see how people react. Ryn slips one of the girls fivecrown to go 'chat up' the man who looks like he has a longsword for a spine, he's standing so straight.

 

So she meanders over, grabs a pair of drinks, splashes a little wine on her chest for effect and sidles up to Thia. Conversation ensues. She gets suggestive. Thia gets vaguely uncomfortable, simply because he's used to rallying troops to war, not being led into a bed by a strange woman with mighty powerful pheromones and a clear willingness to satisfy.

 

I glance at my sheet. I glace at the GM (who'd be me, but for effect, is Robyn). I glance at my sheet. I glance at Robyn. "Screw it. I have NO CLUE what Thia would do in this case. Part of me says he's human, he's been through war, and he deserves a break, even for one night. Part of me says he's one half Priest and one half Soldier, and wouldn't drop his guard. Part of me says he's too embarrased to admit he doesn't know what to do, and would likely, thusly, endear himself that much more. I'll roll."

 

I then, as a player, have elected to let the dice determine my characters course of action ON MY OWN, without assistance from the GM. Dramatic moment that isn't life and death, but would clearly influence my view of the character? Sounds like the ideal solution. So I toss dice - result? Thia is feeling the 'man' in human - he can't turn that down, no matter how righteous he is. Shocked as I may be, he spends the rest of the party indisposed.

 

Had the dice gone another way: "Forgive me, Wyatt. You are an oak." "Yeah. I'm an oak, all right."

 

Point being - this is a fine example of how not to tell a character how to behave, but to put the option to choose in their hands. If I, as the player, say "Huh. No clue. I'll roll." I'm content with the decision of the dice for my character. Let the dice surprise me (and Thia). That's a huge leap from "HA! Dice say you nail her! Yee-hah!" and "Huh! Dice say I nail her. Yee-hah!"

 

The difference? You, declarative, and I, declarative.

[incrdbil]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Just a thought on the Vow of Chastity in this scenario--what a cool limit. He should have taken it as a total limit to get more points since a gross violation apparently had no repercussions--just a mild act of penance, and all is good. So the paladin walks into a brothel, says 'keep your hands off me trollop', then tosses the rogue a gold coin with a wink, and saves another gold for the poor box outside the confessional after his hangover the next day. what a disadvantage!

 

Ok, maybe it takes a little more work, but a 5 minute come on by a common tramp trumps a moderate Vow of Chastity, then you've set a standard where it wont take long to trump a strong one, or maybe even a total one. It's not that her roll overcame him--only if the player wanted to do it in the first place should it have happened, and even then, as a moderate limitation, he may have had to make an EGO roll (with a bonus as its only a moderate limit).

 

Imagine a superhero game. Code vs Killing, Strong. Two players. Which scenario seems right to you?

 

NiceMan "I have CaptainMeanie ready for arrest."

Blood N. Guts "Captain Meanie sucks. He left a whoopee cushion in the base and made you look silly. Kill him, and save us from false flatuence syndrome in the future!" (Dice roll) Woohoo, made it by 10.

NiceMan (after failing ego rolll) "Well, I guess you are right. Death to CaptainMeanie!: stabstabstab:"

 

Next adventure: 20 years in Stronghold, also known as "I want to buy Clinging for my soap!"

 

 

or

 

Enraged NiceGuy, finding CaptainMeanie who killed his favorite sidekick, has to make an ego roll TO kill him. If he doesn't make it, he can't do it, even with Blood N. Guts telling him to do so.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm being absurd. But so was the starting point (The vow is overcome against the PC's will by a simple roll.)

 

 

A character can have strong, very strong beliefs , codes of honor, or personality aspects that are not defined by a limitation. If a PC states he has a strict belief in not killing, then he should be roleplayed that way, and efforts to overcome that reluctance to kill via mind control or persuasion should reflect the difficulty of changing that belief, even if its not statted out as a disadvantage. Not every facet of a personality has to be established, or its strength verified by a disadvantagte.

 

In a first session, where many characters boundaries are being established, a players declaration is pretty much all you have to go on--no other prior play experience exists to set an example. Overriding a PC's simple decision via an NPC roll is a bad idea, but in this first, initial session where so much is defined about a character, its ludicrous.

 

Gah. Sudden rant attack. Better now.

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Now' date=' I've gotten an e-mail back from him and he explained his views and for his part he's sorry he flew off the handle. I think we've agreed to rewind to before the part where the wheels came off and go from there. [/quote']

As I said, he's a better man than I am and I wish all of you well.

[Curufea]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I have to admit I'm not as adamant on my stated viewpoint in this thread. I exaggerated somewhat ;-p

 

However - I am more of an interactive storyteller in gaming, and treat it more like a theatre sport. It's more collaborative, and less adversarial for me.

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

One thing I don't understand is how a vow of chastity if really a disad. In many many years of roleplayings I can think of perhaps 2 or 3 characters who have actually had sex, and in all cases it was more as a side point between adventures and not a must have... and in one case the character would of been better off being chaste

 

If a disad dosen't hurt the character, yadda yadda yadda.

 

Perhaps I've had GM's who don't push the sexuality thing.

 

 

 

As for SirWilliam, I can buy perhaps the fact that you were not trying to nail the character, but it boggles me that you can't see that you did do so. That does reflect badly on yourself. It is difficult to do when under attack, but perhaps there is something you can take from the negitive comments to improve yourself. Regardless of if you are a meanie, you acted as such and seem more concerned with not comming across as a meanie then fixing the situation.

 

Boot to the head!

[Enforcer84]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

So... I was right AND wrong? COOL! Seduction is not for PCs. I can handle that. In which case the GM is dead wrong. Did dude have a short temper? Yep. Was his fun & trust violated? Yep!

Curse you for playing both sides of the debate.

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

A character can have strong' date=' very strong beliefs , codes of honor, or personality aspects that are not defined by a limitation. If a PC states he has a strict belief in not killing, then he should be roleplayed that way, and efforts to overcome that reluctance to kill via mind control or persuasion should reflect the difficulty of changing that belief, even if its not statted out as a disadvantage. Not every facet of a personality has to be established, or its strength verified by a disadvantagte.[/quote']

 

Repped for the same reason I tried to with Hugh Neilson.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

One thing I don't understand is how a vow of chastity if really a disad. In many many years of roleplayings I can think of perhaps 2 or 3 characters who have actually had sex, and in all cases it was more as a side point between adventures and not a must have... and in one case the character would of been better off being chaste

 

If a disad dosen't hurt the character, yadda yadda yadda.

 

Perhaps I've had GM's who don't push the sexuality thing.

In the case of my character, her code of sexual conduct doesn't come up half as often as her code to not go after unarmed, defenseless people. Hence why it's all lumped under one big disad, "Honor Code".

 

HOWEVER, the GM DID allow this player to play these disads, worth points and everything. Whether they SHOULD be worth points or not, at that point, is his call to make. That he let them through, then completely ignored them, well, that's bad form.

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

...

 

HOWEVER, the GM DID allow this player to play these disads, worth points and everything. Whether they SHOULD be worth points or not, at that point, is his call to make. That he let them through, then completely ignored them, well, that's bad form.

I just wonder how chastity would be a disadvantage outside of a Jerry Springer world, or unless you are playing in a James Bond world where the only way to gain information is to shag it out of a bird.

 

I have this vision in my head of the Simpsons bullys going "Hey! He dosen't have sex, lets get him!"

 

Nothing wrong with 0 point disads of course, or putting in as part of a bigger disad, as you suggested.

[Jhereg]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

"Hey! He dosen't have sex' date=' lets get him!"[/quote']

 

Oooo, can I use that one?

[Robyn]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Nothing wrong with 0 point disads of course' date=' or putting in as part of a bigger disad, as you suggested.[/quote']

 

Except there's no EGO roll for a 0-point Disadvantage.

 

Come to think of it, there's no EGO roll for a Physical Disadvantage, either.

 

I may be on to something here. Either that or we start separately keeping track of the Strength of the Disad's "resistance factor" for EGO rolls. Maybe long-term convictions have to be permanently changed, via a Mental Transform or accordingly higher Mind Control result?

 

That sounds about right.

[McCoy]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I have this vision in my head of the Simpsons bullys going "Hey! He dosen't have sex' date=' lets get him!"[/quote']

HA-ha!

[input.jack]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

One thing I don't understand is how a vow of chastity if really a disad. In many many years of roleplayings I can think of perhaps 2 or 3 characters who have actually had sex, and in all cases it was more as a side point between adventures and not a must have... and in one case the character would of been better off being chaste

 

If a disad dosen't hurt the character, yadda yadda yadda.

 

You and I are in very different games. Most of the games Ive been in have had at least one couple form a relationship. Usually fantasy games are the least involved for "personal relationships", mostly due to lack of opportunity. Although there are often unspoken feelings in fantasy games, so I guess that counts.

 

Most of the characters in our Supers games end up in relationships of some kind. Characters with total vows of chastity (Chastity is not habing sex. Celibacy is not getting married) end up running into difficult situations, deserving of RP, as a result of that.

 

In the one fantasy game Im in, there are two paladins in the PC group (and both are PCs). One is a very classic western-European type Paladin; knight in shining armor, and all that. The other is effectively a Nordic style Paladin. (If youve seen 13th Warrior, imagine if "Bolvaid" (Bulwyf) had a daughter).

 

Sir Torvan, the "English" Paladin, has apparently been pining after Dalla, the Norse Paladin, for some time now. In that time he has refrained from involvement with anyone else.

 

Especially the party's mage, who keeps trying to throw herself at him.

 

Dalla, conversely, has been rather "free" sexually speaking. She is -always- clear about the lack of strings involved, as she does not want to mislead anyone. But her people arent particularly hung up on sexuality, so it does not enter into her Code.

 

Both are perfectly valid ways of playing a Paladin, and having both in the same game has been a blast.

 

Now, if Torvan would only get off his.....horse...and let Dalla know how he feels, maybe she could finally get into a -serious- relationship.

 

...And dont get me started on the soap operas that are our Supers games ;D

[CBikle]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Meanwhile, at a festive gathering at Thronn Hall...

 

Sir William: "You know what this party needs ? A chaste, heavily-armed paladin with a hair-trigger temper. Yeah that'd be sweet."

[Enforcer84]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

Meanwhile, at a festive gathering at Thronn Hall...

 

Sir William: "You know what this party needs ? A chaste, heavily-armed paladin with a hair-trigger temper. Yeah that'd be sweet."

GiM the Mirthful: "Dude, that would rock!

[KA.]

Re: Player problem - opinions ....

 

I just wonder how chastity would be a disadvantage outside of a Jerry Springer world, or unless you are playing in a James Bond world where the only way to gain information is to shag it out of a bird.

 

I have this vision in my head of the Simpsons bullys going "Hey! He dosen't have sex, lets get him!"

 

Nothing wrong with 0 point disads of course, or putting in as part of a bigger disad, as you suggested.

 

Well, it all depends on the campaign and the circumstances.

 

In Heinlein's 'Glory Road' a man from Earth finds himself in another world where he ends up becoming a 'legendary Hero'.

He and his lady love accept the hospitality of a Lord.

After the feasting, they each go to their separate rooms.

A little later, the Lord's beautiful daughter shows up and wants to 'warm the Hero's bed'.

He politely turns her away.

After a bit, the Lord's beautiful younger daughter shows up with the same intentions.

Again, he politely turns her away.

Finally, the Lord's Wife shows up, making the same offer, and is also politely turned away.

 

Finally getting some sleep, the Hero and his love are surprised in the morning to find that they are no longer welcome at the castle.

 

After they hurriedly saddle their horses and start riding down the road, the Hero begins to explain his unusual night.

 

At which point his love, a native of this world, tells him that he is an idiot!

 

Basically, the conversation goes something like:

"Don't you realize that any Lord would be honored to have a Son of the Legendary Hero in the family?

It's not like they expected you to marry anyone!

First you refused his oldest daughter.

That was insult enough.

Then, thinking that you liked younger women, they sent her little sister, and you rebuked her too.

Finally he offered you his own Wife, and you refused her company.

You are lucky he didn't kill you for an insult like that!"

 

Sorry for the long example, but I am just trying to illustrate that something like a vow of Chastity can be as much trouble as the GM chooses to make it, based on the campaign.

 

For one thing, it could easily result in a 'Hunted', or 'Rivalry'.

(Princess Clarissa is madly in love with you, even though that love can never be consummated.

Evil Lord Rodney knows that as long as you are in the picture, he will never have a chance to win the heart of the Princess.

Evil Lord Rodney begins to figure out what sort of 'accident' you are going to have.)

 

There could also be the classic problem of:

"Cynthia is going to be sacrificed to the Volcano God in the morning.

They are sacrificing her because she is a virgin.

You and Cynthia are locked in the same cage awaiting your fate."

 

Even though it might not be an ideal solution, for those without a Vow of Chastity, there is a solution to this problem.

 

KA.