Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8531054" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Alright, back to the "are Adventurers scum" question!So I think the lines of evidence I put together against the "scum" descriptor are as follows (the Noble Scion entry is something I look to as supporting evidence actually):* So I would differentiate between the Scoundrels of Blades in the Dark protagonism and "scum."  A scoundrel is an unscrupulous character who works outside of the fabric of societal conceits to improve their lot.  But (a) they aren't intrinsically wicked/vile nor (b) worthless.  Both of those traits are riders for the "scum" descriptor I would think.  In all cases, BitD PCs can't be tarred with "worthless" and in some cases they are the opposite of wicked/vile or at least very conflicted.  Their starting position within the social strata of the game is low for sure (Tier 0 just like Adventurers start at Precedence 0 in TB), but lowness within social hierarchy is necessary but not sufficient for "scum-dom."  The other traits are necessary.* I think the Noble Scion entry is the most instructive entry available to us; regular people who are down on their luck and forced into a series of bad choices.  But, again, that doesn't connote intrinsically wicked/vile and it certainly doesn't ordain worthlessness.  Even level 1 Torchbearer characters have considerable means:- They have belief and a goal.  This is a pretty big deal in my opinion.  "Worthless people" (insofar as that is a categorization that someone would use against another person) are almost definitionally listless, without the energy and direction for the prospect of upward trajectory. Having a belief and a goal are the minimum requirements to transcend that state.  TB2 characters have that (and the mechanical teeth of them give them actual propulsion toward their ends).- They have a level 7 mentor.- They have friends (including the other PCs), family, home, all of which can assist your plight and your trajectory.- You also have a nemesis.  Worthless people typically aren't worthy of being opposed.- Circles 4, Might 3, Nature 4/5, Wises, Traits, a non-fragile set of Skills (and Beginner's Luck rules aren't hostile to progression at all), and sufficient resources in Tools, Supplies, and Gear to call upon to help them transcend their initial conditions (at the outset of play).So all told, I think Precedence 0 at the outset does some work to inform the nature of the PCs.  But when you look at them holistically, I think the Noble Scion entry with a reasonable upward trend is the best way to look at them.  Further, when you consider that much of the tropes of play rely upon a ruined, desperate orientation of the bulk of the people and the state of the setting, there is a sort of flattening of the social lower strata from Precedence 3 and below that makes epithets/descriptors of "scum" somewhat difficult.  Now that doesn't change the Precedence mechanics (*), but it does give some ground for abstracting out the orientation of the setting toward groups and individuals away from "scum" if you're an Adventurer (and again...particularly with Might 3...you are a dangerous person of means).Anyone have thoughts on all of that?</blockquote>

Verification