Hatred + Enraged

[Alcamtar]

I have a player who is proposing (for his PC):

 

-15 Psych Lim: Hatred of Orcs and Goblins (com, strong)

-20 Enraged: when facing Orcs and Goblins (com, 11-, 11-)

-20 Hunted: by Orcs and Goblins (8-, mo pow, public id)

 

My question: Does hatred of orcs and goblins overlap with being enraged by orcs and goblins? It seems to me that both disadvantages are going to result in this character attacking goblins on sight. I'm not sure it's worth 35 points...

 

Also, if he is HUNTED by orcs and goblins, he has a good incentive to fight -- self defense! Does he really need extra points for attacking them too?

 

I'm looking for opinions. He's getting 55 points for this, and it all seems to result in "fighting orcs." Also, with this many points, I'm gonna have to stick orcs into virtually every session!

 

Does this count as a "single category of disadvantages?"

 

What do you think? Can these disadvantages work together reasonably? Could this be a "cool thing" in the campaign? These are all appropriate for the PC in my campaign, but I'm not sure about the combo.

 

Mike

[Ndreare]

For my standards double dipping would be an understatement for this guy. Lets look at how much a 30 point limitation should inhibit the character

 

 

Takes Double Stun From Metal Weapons

-30; Vulnerabilaty: Metal Attacks (Verycommon) (X2 Stun)

 

Now he has squeesed -55 points out of freeken orcs

[Tasha]

Re: Hatred + Enraged

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I have a player who is proposing (for his PC):

 

-15 Psych Lim: Hatred of Orcs and Goblins (com, strong)

-20 Enraged: when facing Orcs and Goblins (com, 11-, 11-)

-20 Hunted: by Orcs and Goblins (8-, mo pow, public id)

 

My question: Does hatred of orcs and goblins overlap with being enraged by orcs and goblins? It seems to me that both disadvantages are going to result in this character attacking goblins on sight. I'm not sure it's worth 35 points...

 

Also, if he is HUNTED by orcs and goblins, he has a good incentive to fight -- self defense! Does he really need extra points for attacking them too?

 

I'm looking for opinions. He's getting 55 points for this, and it all seems to result in "fighting orcs." Also, with this many points, I'm gonna have to stick orcs into virtually every session!

 

Does this count as a "single category of disadvantages?"

 

What do you think? Can these disadvantages work together reasonably? Could this be a "cool thing" in the campaign? These are all appropriate for the PC in my campaign, but I'm not sure about the combo.

 

Mike

 

I think that this is reasonable. Hatred of ______ doesn't mean that the character will automatically attack. It just means that the character won't trust, talk to or be see with the object of the hatred. Personally I don't like to see enrages on heroic characters, but the enrage does work. It is the I automatically attack.

Then it is perfectally reasonable that this hateful unreasonable person is hated back by the object of his hate.

 

So to mess with this character, I would make the Orcs and goblins more than the cannon fodder of the week for the characters to kill. Have tribes of Orcs and Goblins that are more civilized and who trade and are mostly lawful folks. Make sure that some NPC that the characters trust see these tribes as good folks.

 

Make these disadvantages count. If you are just going to use Orcs and Goblins in the D&D video game hack and slay sense then these disads are gleaning many points for doing something that the characters are going to do anyway.

 

Tasha

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Hatred + Enraged

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I have a player who is proposing (for his PC):

 

-15 Psych Lim: Hatred of Orcs and Goblins (com, strong)

-20 Enraged: when facing Orcs and Goblins (com, 11-, 11-)

-20 Hunted: by Orcs and Goblins (8-, mo pow, public id)

 

My question: Does hatred of orcs and goblins overlap with being enraged by orcs and goblins? It seems to me that both disadvantages are going to result in this character attacking goblins on sight. I'm not sure it's worth 35 points...

Are Orcs and Goblins conjoined in your setting? They arent in all settings. If they are, then its reasonable to take them as a group, if not its a judgement call on your part -- if individually the two groups are not worth much of a Dis, you could allow them to be combined into a single entity to aggregate up to enough of a Disadvantage to be worth noting.

 

The real question here is: does the character's Hatred of Orcs Disadvantage them in some way greater than the Enraged vs them. If the 2 Disadvantages both Disadvantage him in the same way, then he can take one or the other but not both. Each Disadvantage should be meaningful in and of themselves -- if they are all basically the same Disadvantage noted over and over again in slightly different ways its the old PhysLim for each Missing Finger rather than the whole hand scenario.

 

To my eye (and it sounds like to your's too) it looks like all three Disadvantages could be summed up as: "When I see Orcs/Goblins, there will be a fight".

 

If the PsyLim does provide some further Disadvantaging circumstances on the character beyond the Enraged, then it's valid, although Common seems a bit frequent. Uncommon might be better unless the entire planet is populated in just humans and Greenskins in roughly equal numbers.

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

Also, if he is HUNTED by orcs and goblins, he has a good incentive to fight -- self defense! Does he really need extra points for attacking them too?

Make them as Powerful (when encountered in reasonable groups), and Hunter is Limited to Certain Geography (as Orcs have problems in "civilized" lands in most settings), down grade the frequency to 5- for -5 Points as a GM Fiat -- I do this all the time. Even 8- is too frequent for most non-Supers games IMO -- it forces your hand as the GM.

 

As an aside, I interpret Hunted Frequency as a "when it benefits the game" type of thing. I never actually ROLL for a Hunted. If its appropriate for them to show up they do, otherwise not.

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I'm looking for opinions. He's getting 55 points for this, and it all seems to result in "fighting orcs." Also, with this many points, I'm gonna have to stick orcs into virtually every session!

Bump everything down to Uncommon -- from the hip thats 10 fewer points.

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

Does this count as a "single category of disadvantages?"

IMO, Yes -- from a thematic standpoint

 

Personally, I would allow either the Enraged or the PsyLim. The Hunted is only meaningful if Orcs are literally going to come looking for this guy, which seems a little skewed, but that might be appropriate in your setting.

 

I once had a background NPC in my GreyHERO campaigns from the printed Greyhawk cannon -- Turin Deathstalker. He was an Assassin that hated Orcs and would go 250 leagues out of his way for a chance at killing some. I had a back-story sub-plot where a power Orc warchief put a price on his head, and basically an Assassin shadow war broke out, with those members of the Assassin's Guild loyal to Turin and those who were trying to collect on the bounty went at it. This was all backstory for an NPC the PCs had some dealings with, Lethroc Mur Lavore; he sided with Turin and accepted a contract Turin paid for out of his own pocket to hunt down the war chief that put the price on his head and kill him. With the Orc war chief out of the way, there was no one to pay the bounty, so the Assassination attempts petered out. All interesting stuff for exposition and background, but I dont know if it would be very fun as the focus of the PC's game unless they were all tapped into the story. Might make an intriguing micro-campaign......

 

Anyway back to the point, I think its double dipping, whether intentional or not. Offer to let the player take it for no points and see what he says If its "flavor" he wont mind. If its "cheese" he'll opt not to....

[Toadmaster]

I'd say this is legal but a bad idea.

 

As GM I would play up the hatred by making it hard on the character, if he hates orcs he should not go along with plans to avoid killing orcs or in general causing mischief for them. So the party has other plans but the opportunity comes up to kill orcs, the player should forcefully resist following the other goals and try to go after the orcs, if it is tactically unsound (vastly outnumbered) the player should be the one arguing to go anyway, if it is inconveniant such as being sent out to bring back a specific orc alive for questioning or punishment, the player should try to kill him anyway forcing the other characters to have to guard the orc. None of these should be absolute but everytime orcs come up the other players should should be groaning, not again, why orcs.

 

The enraged should eventually lead to the characters distruction, properly played the character will eventually go to his doom fighting against the odds, the other players may follow when the enraged character won't accept the need to surrender or flee.

 

The hunted should lead to many problems, eventually this character should gain a reputation because villages will get tired of orcs tramping through a day behind looking for this guy. Also another chance to hinder his party, given the opportunity for a truce the orcs should insist on bad things happening to the character before accepting any quarter.

 

So while this character is "legal" in my opinion it is also a perfect case of other characters disadvantages bleeding over to the party and would be a great example for the players of the hazards of taking so many specific realated disadvantages.

 

I'd try to get the player to change at laest one of these 2 of the 3 would be better and if he insists this is what he wants, make sure it eventually causes the party major headache, injury and maybe death, its a lesson and justified too.

[dugfromthearth]

first I have no problem with taking all 3 limitations.

 

but then:

 

-15 Psych Lim: Hatred of Orcs and Goblins (com, strong)

 

common is too common for this, should be uncommon, so -10 points (he is only hunted 8-).

 

-20 Enraged: when facing Orcs and Goblins (com, 11-, 11-)

 

I don't have Fred in front of me, but isn't Enraged only worth half of a berserk? And this also would be uncommon instead of common. So it is -15 at most, I think Enraged makes it less but I could be confused.

 

-20 Hunted: by Orcs and Goblins (8-, mo pow, public id)

 

Public ID doesn't count unless the character is actually famous. Public ID doesn't just mean your real name is known, it means you are easily located just by asking around. And definitely a limited area for hunters would apply. So I would drop this to -10.

 

So the result would be:

-10 Psych Lim: Hatred of Orcs and Goblins (uncom, strong)

-8 Enraged: when facing Orcs and Goblins (uncom, 11-, 11-)

-10 Hunted: by Orcs and Goblins (8-, mo pow, limited area)

 

for -28 points of limitation

[Farkling]

Heh. Now for a few words on letting him dig his own grave.

 

You as GM are under no obligation to keep the character alive.

 

This fellow has set himself up as a racist slime. He hunts Goblins and Orcs for fun. His background history should be most traumatic... if HE THOUGHT IT UP I would say it is acceptable. maybe the Hatred and Enragement is from watching his family slain by Orcs/Goblins before his eyes.

 

Order him to BUY the perk "Reputation:: Orc Slayer" See if he complains.

 

Write a few scenarios around him. Have orcs show up looking for him in force. Elfish/Dwarfish ambassadors demand that the humans restrain his actions because the Orc states are pressuring them. Have the Orcs and Goblins declare he be brought to justice for his brutal treatment of their race.

 

Heh. Hunted on an 8- by more powerful...have an orcish shaman track him and an army show up at the castle/keep/town demanding he be turned over to them. Drive the party batty with his points...perhaps he will show more restraint next time. Run a couple scenarios where the orcs manage to kidnap and haul him away for trial...and see if the party goes after him...

 

He seems to be a one dimensional racist...straight out of DnD dwarf society.

[Galadorn]

Re: Re: Hatred + Enraged

 

Originally posted by Tasha

I think that this is reasonable. Hatred of ______ doesn't mean that the character will automatically attack. It just means that the character won't trust, talk to or be see with the object of the hatred. Personally I don't like to see enrages on heroic characters, but the enrage does work. It is the I automatically attack.

 

I agree. What if the player doesn't become enraged? Then the psych limitation kicks in and the character treats the orcs badly.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Farkling

Heh. Now for a few words on letting him dig his own grave.

 

You as GM are under no obligation to keep the character alive.

 

This fellow has set himself up as a racist slime. He hunts Goblins and Orcs for fun. His background history should be most traumatic... if HE THOUGHT IT UP I would say it is acceptable. maybe the Hatred and Enragement is from watching his family slain by Orcs/Goblins before his eyes.

 

Order him to BUY the perk "Reputation:: Orc Slayer" See if he complains.

 

Write a few scenarios around him. Have orcs show up looking for him in force. Elfish/Dwarfish ambassadors demand that the humans restrain his actions because the Orc states are pressuring them. Have the Orcs and Goblins declare he be brought to justice for his brutal treatment of their race.

 

Heh. Hunted on an 8- by more powerful...have an orcish shaman track him and an army show up at the castle/keep/town demanding he be turned over to them. Drive the party batty with his points...perhaps he will show more restraint next time. Run a couple scenarios where the orcs manage to kidnap and haul him away for trial...and see if the party goes after him...

 

He seems to be a one dimensional racist...straight out of DnD dwarf society.

 

This is malicious manipulation. Trying to get the character to change his limitations because you have a vendetta against him, is the worst kind of roleplaying.

 

I think this characters disadvantages are justified. That's the way the game system works, if you don't like it, change it.

 

How about a better way? Sit down and talk to the player about it. See HIS point of view.

 

Secondly, Farkling seems to have the D&D vendetta mindset. We aren't enemies in Hero, we are hopefully friends, trying to have a little fun.

[Farkling]

This is malicious manipulation

 

How is this malicious manipulation? The character has taken almost 75% of his Disad points in this category. It should be a major story focus for him, and come up often.

 

Those were ideas...yes, used all in one blast at once it is malicious manipulation onto the GM railroad.

 

A character with his limitations contructed in that manner plans to kill Orcs and Goblins on sight. Can you deny that? If he had added "Casual Killer" to the package he would be a one man scourge upon the orcish race. *hack hack* *chop chop* the villains are dead.

 

I just feel that there should be real world repercussions for such strongly racist actions (unlike the standard DnD formula games). The hatred and constant attack on Orcs and Goblins should not be treated as "acceptable behavior" by the PC's unless the Goblin/Orcs are unmitigated evils of the world. Even the orcs and goblins of Mordor had lives they wanted to peacefully return to.

 

Perhaps I have played one too many games where the heroes actions impact the environment. I also reread "Coming of Age in Mississippi" recently, and find racism on my mind...I don't like racists in my game, and I WILL see them affected by their actions.

 

I don't particularly LIKE DnD, but I do play it on occasion, since I am the only HERO GM. If one of our PC's was THAT monomaniacal, he would have been turned over to the authorities after endangering us. If he endangered us in parley through those actions, at least two of our current PC's would have killed him on the spot and turned him over as a peace offering.

[austenandrews]

I might allow the Enraged and Hunted together, if I wanted to have orc plots be that much a part of my game. No way would I allow the Hatred and Enraged together. Unless it's set up with some unusual backstory, Enraged should automatically imply Hatred.

 

-AA

[Toadmaster]

Originally posted by Galadorn

This is malicious manipulation. Trying to get the character to change his limitations because you have a vendetta against him, is the worst kind of roleplaying.

 

I think this characters disadvantages are justified. That's the way the game system works, if you don't like it, change it.

 

How about a better way? Sit down and talk to the player about it. See HIS point of view.

 

Secondly, Farkling seems to have the D&D vendetta mindset. We aren't enemies in Hero, we are hopefully friends, trying to have a little fun.

 

Of course it is GM manipulation, the player is asking for it with that combo. Need I repeat the speel about a disadvantage which is not a disadvantage is worth no points?

 

The character hates orcs a strong psyc lim, I don't take this to mean he makes nasty faces at them in the bar.

 

The character becomes enraged by orcs, see above.

 

The character is hunted by orcs, do we need to guess why? I think 1 and 2 cover that pretty well. Now it may be that 1 and 2 are perfectly justified in character but this combination of disads will override much of the campaign. If orcs were already going to be a major part of it these disads may not be justified (everybody already has them by default).

 

I think these disads are legal but are a death wish for the character and party. This campaign will degenerate into a orc hunting festival because of this character otherwise the character is getting free points.

[AnotherSkip]

While I don't think that every Enraged = a hatred ( after all you could change Enraged to Engaged in a scientist like Reed Richards and have him in his lab inventing/experimenting on an 11- recovering from the need to develop on an 11-) this character is kindof dedicated to "solving" the "problem" of Orcs. Part of whether or not this is a Just (not legal or acceptible) limitation for the player (not character0 to take is whether or not he is abusing or thinking along those lines. If you need to ask yourself whether or not he is trying to get something for nothing run a little one on one scenario with a few of the suggestions from the board and see how he reacts. an hour or two of three or four scenarios should tell you whether or not he is abusing the system.

[shinrin]

Re: Hatred + Enraged

 

Originally posted by Alcamtar

I have a player who is proposing (for his PC):

I'm looking for opinions. He's getting 55 points for this, and it all seems to result in "fighting orcs." Also, with this many points, I'm gonna have to stick orcs into virtually every session!

 

Is the character PC a Dwarf? Those Disads might be appropriate for a dwarf, but even so, it seems a little one dimensional and doesn't promote too much character depth or roleplaying. And unless orcs are going to be a common occurance in your game, (which by the nature of his Hunted, they may be), I would reduce the value of the Disads. It seems the player has chosen these Disads to generate nothing but combat with orcs and to justify future XP expenditures for combat skills because he is honing them constantly against a non-stop parade of orc fighting.

 

Of course you could allow him these Disads and really use it against him as is the perogative of a GM. That Hunted of his is going to make his life hell and will wreak havoc on the character's reputation when lets say the village he is travelling through gets attacked by orcs looking for him. The PC and his friends defeat the orcs and then they subsequently leave the area. Of course, the dead orcs' buddies may attack the village later in revenge for them aiding or rewarding the PC and his friends. So everywhere the PC goes, villages and towns are subsequently attacked after they leave and this will get around and soon nobody will want the PC coming into their town for fear of retribution.

 

The Enraged will make it difficult for the PC to leave combat if the combat somehow goes badly for the PC. After a while, the orcs are going to catch on that the PC has an insatiable battle lust for orcs and could set up a trap and use that to their advantage by spreading a rumor of where some orcs can be found nearby. His Hatred Disad will most likely send him looking for the orcs and they will have plenty of time to set up an ambush and have the advantage.

[shinrin]

Originally posted by Farkling

How is this malicious manipulation? The character has taken almost 75% of his Disad points in this category. It should be a major story focus for him, and come up often.

 

Those were ideas...yes, used all in one blast at once it is malicious manipulation onto the GM railroad.

 

I agree with Farkling on this. In the end it is the GM's duty to point out to the Player what may be in store for the PC who takes these Disads in this manner. If the Player doesn't change his mind, or make some changes, then he was warned of the consequences and is now at the mercy of a GM's plotline.

 

The great thing about Disads is that over time they can be bought off with good reason. If the GM has constructed a great story around the PC's Disads and if the PC really likes good roleplaying, maybe in the course of the story, the PC learns that maybe not all orcs are bad and not subject to his rage. If his parents were killed before his eyes as an infant, as one poster suggested as a possible motive for his rage, he may come to realize that only those orcs who did the actual killing are to blame and not the entire race. As he comes to self realizations, he may change his ways and buy off the Disads. And the player SHOULD roleplay this out.

[Vondy]

self destructive behavior, much?

 

While I wouldn't consider this double dipping (see below), I would recommend the player consider not taking both. A character with the combination of disadvantages would be termed "psychologically imbalanced" at best, and would be a monorail mind plot buster at worst.

 

Hatred: the character, while rational, will go out of their way to harm the object of their hatred in some way (not always violent), will have their ability to interact with said object colored by said hatred (makes negotiations hard, doesn't it), and may not believe factual information about said object even when they should (for instance, if the local orc tribe is set up by a group of brigands the character may not believe it when evidence surfaces and track them down for some warm axework anyways).

 

Enraged: specifically, in combat, the character will use their biggest, nastiest, closest in attack, and will hack, hack, hack, even if wounded, even if friends need immediate aid, even if a tactical retreat is called for, even if it means pursuing the enemy into what is otherwise obviously a trap.

 

Put the two together and you end up with a character who will compulsively seek out situations where they turn into a blood raging maniac who doesn't have their wits about them. Not a wise decision, IMHO.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by austenandrews

I might allow the Enraged and Hunted together, if I wanted to have orc plots be that much a part of my game. No way would I allow the Hatred and Enraged together. Unless it's set up with some unusual backstory, Enraged should automatically imply Hatred.

 

-AA

 

Written as is it probably implies hatred, but not all enrage lims imply hatred. It can also imply a lack of control in combat (i.e. enraged: takes body, or enraged: combat (bloodlust))

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Farkling

I just feel that there should be real world repercussions for such strongly racist actions (unlike the standard DnD formula games). The hatred and constant attack on Orcs and Goblins should not be treated as "acceptable behavior" by the PC's unless the Goblin/Orcs are unmitigated evils of the world. Even the orcs and goblins of Mordor had lives they wanted to peacefully return to.

 

 

This of course presumes the characters in this politically correct fantasy world with modern western social morays are post modern secular humanists...

 

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html

 

 

[Farkling]

That's GREAT!!!

 

Bwahahahahhaahahahahaahahhaaha

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by shinrin

I agree with Farkling on this. In the end it is the GM's duty to point out to the Player what may be in store for the PC who takes these Disads in this manner. If the Player doesn't change his mind, or make some changes, then he was warned of the consequences and is now at the mercy of a GM's plotline.

 

Tripe, rationalization, pure bunk. This is the way the game system works, if you don't like it make changes to the game system, but arbitrariness is not called for. If you can't figure out the subtle differences between disadvantages, that's your problem - not your players.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by D-Man

This of course presumes the characters in this politically correct fantasy world with modern western social morays are post modern secular humanists...

 

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html

 

Slightly amusing, thank God for conservatives.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by D-Man

Written as is it probably implies hatred, but not all enrage lims imply hatred. It can also imply a lack of control in combat (i.e. enraged: takes body, or enraged: combat (bloodlust))

 

I agree.

 

Another point to be made, is that the character bought Enraged: More Powerful, not Enraged: Destroys Character In One Fell Swoop And Demoralizes The Player.

 

"Doing injustice harms yourself internally." - Socrates

[austenandrews]

Just to point out, I did state that Enraged implies hatred unless some other backstory exists to explain an unusual case. The particulars of Enraged don't excuse double-dipping on what amounts to "hates orcs." Not in my game, anyway.

 

-AA

[Dog Soldier]

It's been a while since I've been in a fantasy game but isn't lumping Orcs and Goblins together a bit much? Also, shouldn't the hunted be a bit more specific? Perhaps hatred of orcs, enraged when facing goblins in combat and hunted by a particular tribe of orcs or goblins.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by austenandrews

Just to point out, I did state that Enraged implies hatred unless some other backstory exists to explain an unusual case. The particulars of Enraged don't excuse double-dipping on what amounts to "hates orcs." Not in my game, anyway.

 

-AA

 

It's not double-dipping, it's two different disadvantages. Because somewhat hates orcs, doesn't mean that person wants to destroy orcs every chance he gets - maybe he want's to impoverish orcs or dethrone their ruler.

 

I don't think his enrage is on an 18-. So at those other times, the character is looking to disenfranchise them, or create relational conflict (insulting, baiting, belittling). All this doesn't seem very heroic at all, but this issue with me is not the heroism, but whether these disadvantages can be taken together or not.

 

Bottom line, think through how these disadvantages are different, and see after you make a list of the differences you can see how they can be justified being bought together.

 

Well, I'm done with this conversation. Take care.