NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6112971" data-attributes="member: 4937">To a certain extent I wonder why.  There is a certain confusion in this.  Let's say we are playing in setting inspired by Greek Myth, and a characer rides a horse to death in order to reach some destination for some reason.  Later, the character is shipwrecked and offers a sacrifice to a priest seeking an Oracle, and the priest Communes and comes back and says, "You have illly treated a horse, and in doing so you have offended Poseidon who is wroth with you for taking so lightly the gifts he has provided of you.  You must atone for your crime against the Sea God, or you will always have misfortune on the seas."  In what sense does this confirm that the character was absolutely in the wrong and committed evil by riding the horse to death?  Is Poseidon in a position of absolute priviledge with regards to morality?  Which of the Greek gods is so unswervingly just, good, and true that their opinion as to what is just, good, and true is absolutely sure?  Regardless of how we define thier philosophy or the label the character of such beings, is there not grounds to quibble with thier judgments (if of course, dangerously)?I guess that depends on what you mean by 'all the choices'.  If you mean 'about his character', then that doesn't make BW particularly unique and if you don't mean that how is the GM to provide pressure without making choices?   Beyond that, strictly speaking that is not true, as you've already concurred that BW empowers the GM to alter the players character sheet if in the GM's opinion the player is not valuing his beliefs or playing the character in a way that suggests different traits than those selected.  And this is not clearly less authority than a GM would have who altered a character's alignment in a D&D game.In so far as that goes, I was too, but for perhaps different reasons.I don't think I'd have any trouble presenting Hussar with desired scenes either.   It's presenting Hussar with desired outcomes that I think would get us bumping heads.I think that first that's a matter of opinion, and secondly there is nothing contridictory between a player reporting his/her epistemic state and signaling and intended focus of the game - ei my belief, "I will regain my honor", implies I have a background and maybe even a trait which implies 'dishonor' and I have a belief that implies I want to make gaining an 'honorable reputation' a focus of play.I again think you are confusing backstory and forestory.  As far as play is concerned, there is no foreordained outcome nor no set in stone answers for the player or the character, but that doesn't mean that there are no preordained truths.   A character who is 'The True King' in fact may never convince everyone of this fact.  He may never claim his rightful throne.  Or he may decide to relinquish his claim afterall.  Or he may claim it without the rightfulness of his claim being recognized.  Or he may claim it and lose it again.  We won't know until we play.I don't know if that would be the worst, since I'm reluctant to use such extreme words, but I personally wouldn't enjoy it.   However, there is only a limited extent to which the GM can fend off players from disaster.  If players are determined the throw themselves from cliffs, they'll eventually fall hard.  A player with the conviction, "I am the true King", who commits an act of High Treason in full public view as the first thing that they do may well lack the resources to survive the results particularly if we've already established certain facts.  A player who with their first act seeks out the lair of a great wyrm and decides to attempt a coup de grace is not owed success.  There is only so much padding and hand holding a GM can do before ultimately he's just rail roading the player as surely as the one who forces disaster on the PC regardless of what they do.Harold was.  William's claim was dubious and he obtain the throne by right of Conquest (hense the title), but do note that not even William attempted to usurp the monarchy without asserting the fiction that he held the throne by right of birth (and all his ancestors would of course maintain the beliefs).  And for all we know, William even believed he held the throne by right of birth, and certainly his conquest was seen as proof of his claim and not merely the surety of it.   I invite you to analyze the scene in which Henry V is presented evidence that by right he is King of France.  And my point has been all along is that it is not at all clear what the player has in mind, as I think I have finally got some formal concession on.  And I think we've just about got you to agree that it does indeed matter what the setting is when interpretting this belief, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up example settings.Once again, I don't think these two things are in contridiction.   Besides, ALL heroic fiction is almost by definition a fable for teaching children good manners.  That's what 'heroic' means - narratives intended provide examples to live by.  Just because the manners and moral judgments are alien, in this case Chinese, doesn't mean that the author was making an indefinite point.  You just may not understand it. I didn't find Hero to be particularly moving, but I also am uncertain that your interpretation of the author's intent is spot on.  Besides, the judgment that all serious works of art have indefinite statements about morality, even if that was the authors point, is making a very definite moral point.</blockquote>

Verification