Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="superstition" data-source="post: 7367033" data-attributes="member: 32866">There's a reason satire is protected speech. Satirizing a noble is not a character flaw. It's a political inconvenience. This is one of the examples of the designer(s) not differentiating between baggage a character carries with them and actual character defects.I can see that implication but it's not a flaw, as written, though, so it needs to be revised.I also think you're giving it more detail than it has (note your use of simile with the word "like") and more credit as a result. It shouldn't be necessary to use simile to explain the wording. It should be very clearly-worded in the first place. Here is a revision that suits your desired flavor better than the original:"I feel quite inclined to embarrass and harass people of higher status with satirical heckling, even when it's arguably unwarranted. Not only do I relish the laughter some provide when I do this, some take themselves and their station too seriously."This one is a flaw because it implies, more clearly, that the person is doing something that's probably unwarranted (and thus not just in good fun but implying mean-spiritedness), because he/she likes the attention.Remember, these are character flaws. Flaw = defect. They are not positive character traits. "Oh, he likes to joke, especially to poke fun at the aristocracy. Sometimes he takes it a bit too far, considering his social position — but he's really a good guy" is pretty weak, if we want to believe his penchant for joking is truly a character flaw, when compared with the other flaws in the Flaws list. A very lawful person would likely see it as a flaw but someone who is chaotic could see it as a strength. Regardless, if that quality is something you'd like to see in a character then it could certainly be added to that character's description. It is not a bad idea to have neutral qualities for characters, not just positives and flaws.I am not trying to say my revisions are perfect. I am mainly saying that the originals have problems that need to be resolved with editorial changes, either by me or by others. You were on that path by interpreting the "flaw" to be better than it is as written. I think I did a good job with the revisions considering I am unpaid, did it in one evening, and, especially, considering the shabby state of so many of the originals. I also wrote copious notes to explain things but didn't post them because I wasn't sure if all of that would be too distracting. I think Wizards can do better. Look at this, for instance:“There's no room for caution in a life lived to the fullest.”If this statement is used, like any other mechanic, with a face value reading, then this character would never be strategic. At all. People can try to excuse the developer(s) by "interpreting" (changing the wording in the mind to something more usable) but there's no good reason why it wasn't written the right way the first time. This is not highly-difficult stuff like complex mechanical balancing. Better:"There's usually less room for caution than for expediency in a life lived to the fullest.”or"There's usually less room for caution than for bravery in a life lived to the fullest.”or"There's usually less room for caution than for impulsiveness in a life lived to the fullest.”</blockquote>

Verification