Questions on spiritual attributes

[Mokkurkalfe]

1) I have some problems coming up with different situations and examples where the SA can come into play(e.g. conscience bonus if knocking down instead of killing). Any suggestions?

2) Passion and Drive can be very similar(Passion: Hate villain & Drive: Kill villain). When should wich one be chosen? Does it matter?

[Jaif]

I would suggest that when the target is a person or entity you call it a passion.  Entity meaning something like an office (e.g. the King, regardless of who it is).  I tend to think of Drives as something bigger.

As for the other question, I don't think I'm much help there. I'm still getting my sea-legs as well. :-)

-Jeff

[Mokkurkalfe]

Interesting.

Another suggestion might be that a Passion is towards someone or something(i.e. love her, hate him), while a Drive is more personal(i.e. becoming skilled, fameous or whatever).

But what about greed? Should it be Passion: Money or Drive: get rich?

[Jaif]

The word "passion" has a much larger role in english than the game.  The game is very specific that it's a person or an entity.  As a rule of thumb, I think the object of a passion can a) be destroyed relatively easily, and b) actively affects you in return.  Are you loyal to the throne of Gondor?  That's a passion.  Do you hate Mordor?  I'd suggest the latter as a drive.  Do you hate Sauron? Are you kidding me, how'd you meet Sauron? <g>

Greed? I'd do that as a drive.  Frankly, though, I wouldn't allow that drive in my campaign.  A flaw? Certainly, but not as a primary character motivation to be a focus of activity.  I'm not interested in making greed a major motivator in my games.

All IMO, of course.  It's a style thing versus my interpretation of "passion", which is pretty much straight from the rules.

-Jeff

[Mokkurkalfe]

Greed? I'd do that as a drive.  Frankly, though, I wouldn't allow that drive in my campaign.  A flaw? Certainly, but not as a primary character motivation to be a focus of activity.  I'm not interested in making greed a major motivator in my games.

-Jeff

True, but that was just an example of how easy it is to make a drive into a passion and vice versa.

[Casey Goddard]

I have person in my gaming group who is playing a thief style of character.  His drive is "To become rich" but his passion is "to collect gemstones."  Kind of an intresting combination.

[Jaif]

You're obviously entitled to run your games as you wish, but both that drive ("To become rich") and that passion ("to collect gemstones") are very obviously against the rules.  To review:

Passion - "entails a specific love, hate, or loyalty - to a single person or entity - that occumpies your character's thoughts and actions constantly." (pg. 10)

Drive - "Someone with Drive has a worthy cause that they would die for (and probably will)." (pg. 9)

Exactly how is becoming rich a "worthy cause"?  How are gemstones "a single person or entity".

Again, I'm not disputing your right to run your games as you wish.  Furthermore, I'm not going to say that a character with those traits (greed, desire to collect) isn't interesting.  I'm just saying that those traits aren't Drives and Passions, by the rules.

-Jeff

[Bob Richter]

You're obviously entitled to run your games as you wish, but both that drive ("To become rich") and that passion ("to collect gemstones") are very obviously against the rules.  To review:

Passion - "entails a specific love, hate, or loyalty - to a single person or entity - that occumpies your character's thoughts and actions constantly." (pg. 10)

Drive - "Someone with Drive has a worthy cause that they would die for (and probably will)." (pg. 9)

Exactly how is becoming rich a "worthy cause"?  How are gemstones "a single person or entity".

Again, I'm not disputing your right to run your games as you wish.  Furthermore, I'm not going to say that a character with those traits (greed, desire to collect) isn't interesting.  I'm just saying that those traits aren't Drives and Passions, by the rules.

-Jeff

You're right concerning the Passion (it's really a Drive,) but a worthy cause is whatever the character thinks it is...anything worth dying for.

I think those two drives (you can have multiples of drive, can't you? I forget.) are perfect central motivations for a thief-type. I also think thief-types probably won't live very long. :)

[Jaif]

Two passions (love Gwennie, loyal to her husband<g>); only one drive per customer.

As for the rest, I know it's childish and stupid to play the white hat when you can be a dark and complicated anti-hero, but "To become rich" is not a drive in game terms.  I only quoted part of the paragraph, but it goes on to say "...or those that serve great and noble causes or ideals at great personal cost."  Please tell me how getting rich is a great & noble cause, or in anyway matches the paragraph.

And just in case - I repeat again that this is your game, feel free to play how you wish.  I'm just commenting on the rules as they're written.

-Jeff

[Lance D. Allen]

The book is written to encourage heroic stories, ala Conan and his ilk, and so the wording of things will illustrate this.. But to require someone to have all of their Drives and Passions be "noble or worthy" is, IMO, placing unnecessary limits on character creation.

I'm not against this so much for the sake of the player characters, as I prefer to run stories where the PCs are heroes, even if they're not pillars of virtue. The grounds on which I object to limiting Passion, Drive and even Conscience to "noble and worthy" is more for my major NPCs. I prefer to create my major NPCs as fully realized characters in their own right. In TRoS, that would mean that they'd have Spiritual Attributes just the same as the PCs. If the NPC happens to be the uber-evil baddie I'm using to make the PCs' lives interesting, I don't want to have to limit him/her/it to Good SAs.

[Bob Richter]

Two passions (love Gwennie, loyal to her husband<g>); only one drive per customer.

As for the rest, I know it's childish and stupid to play the white hat when you can be a dark and complicated anti-hero, but "To become rich" is not a drive in game terms.  I only quoted part of the paragraph, but it goes on to say "...or those that serve great and noble causes or ideals at great personal cost."  Please tell me how getting rich is a great & noble cause, or in anyway matches the paragraph.

And just in case - I repeat again that this is your game, feel free to play how you wish.  I'm just commenting on the rules as they're written.

-Jeff

"or"

In logical terms, "or" specifies a case such that if only one statement is true, the compond created by "or" is true.

If this is a cause I'm willing to die for, it satisfies the first condition. The second is meaningless. If I serve a higher good, but NOT to the expense of my own life, the FIRST is meaningless. Naturally, if both conditions are true in a traditional "or" the compound is still true.

A drive to accumulate wealth is not necessary well-reflected by the Greed flaw, since that requires the accumulation of wealth at ALL costs.

Conversely, DRIVE reflects it very well, so mechanically it fits, even if it's not precisely what the designers were looking for.

[Jaif]

I'm not going to get embroiled in a semantic argument over the exact meaning of the paragraph describing drives.  I don't think it was written as a legal sentance, and shouldn't be taken that way.  Instead, I think if you read the paragraph, the meaning is clear: characters are expected to be heros, white-hats, whatever you want to call'em, and their SAs are meant to reflect that.

Frankly, given the obligation an SA places on the GM, I really couldn't see how someone would let a PC take thievish SAs; you'd have to feed the PC a continuing stream of loot, in essence, and that'd just get dull (at least to me).  Said another way: do you want to reward a player who's primary goal is the acquisition of in-game wealth?

Woffen, to your point I agree.  All bets are off when we talk about NPCs.  My first major NPC was a minor sorcerer, and I gave him some, er, chaotic neutral SAs to flesh him out.

-Jeff

[Bob Richter]

I'm not going to get embroiled in a semantic argument over the exact meaning of the paragraph describing drives.  I don't think it was written as a legal sentance, and shouldn't be taken that way.  Instead, I think if you read the paragraph, the meaning is clear: characters are expected to be heros, white-hats, whatever you want to call'em, and their SAs are meant to reflect that.

Frankly, given the obligation an SA places on the GM, I really couldn't see how someone would let a PC take thievish SAs; you'd have to feed the PC a continuing stream of loot, in essence, and that'd just get dull (at least to me).  Said another way: do you want to reward a player who's primary goal is the acquisition of in-game wealth?

Woffen, to your point I agree.  All bets are off when we talk about NPCs.  My first major NPC was a minor sorcerer, and I gave him some, er, chaotic neutral SAs to flesh him out.

-Jeff

1) Never mistake logic for legalism. Semantics are important. Without them, you'd never understand a thing I said.

2) Characters (especially thief-characters) are not heroes, good guys, white hats, or anything else of the sort, they are PEOPLE.

You miss the most important passage when you just dive into the guts of the paragraph like that. "Drive defines an extra level of determination and a powerful sense of purpose."

And who says the accumulation of wealth isn't a worthy cause? I don't believe the system makes that kind of moral judgements.

Combining a Drive to accumulate wealth with a Conscience would make an often wonderfully conflicted and realistic character. :)

The real question to ask is: Does the CHARACTER consider the cause worth dying for, and if not, why ELSE are they putting their necks on the line to steal things?

[Valamir]

The real question to ask is: Does the CHARACTER consider the cause worth dying for, and if not, why ELSE are they putting their necks on the line to steal things?

Actually the real question is whether or not the GM thinks the player is picking that SA as a cheesy way of getting bonus points for a dungeon crawl mentality.

If the GM knows the player, and knows that an SA of "greed" is going to lead to some really interesting character interactions, and the player using the SA to put himself in compromising situations great.  If the GM knows the player and knows that he's just trying to find a cheap way of getting gold...than no.

[Bob Richter]

The real question to ask is: Does the CHARACTER consider the cause worth dying for, and if not, why ELSE are they putting their necks on the line to steal things?

Actually the real question is whether or not the GM thinks the player is picking that SA as a cheesy way of getting bonus points for a dungeon crawl mentality.

If the GM knows the player, and knows that an SA of "greed" is going to lead to some really interesting character interactions, and the player using the SA to put himself in compromising situations great.  If the GM knows the player and knows that he's just trying to find a cheap way of getting gold...than no.

The GM has final call on Spiritual Attributes, of course, but that's hardly unique to a Drive "to accumulate money" (which, BTW, is not the same as "Greed.")

Any SA (except, probably, Luck) can potentially be destructive to the campaign the GM might have in mind, which is why it's important to consult while creating.

There are good ways to beat a dungeon crawl mentality out of people, and a handful of bonus dice won't help much against that. As with any good Drive, it's going to be just a little asinine, and totally impossible to execute without a little planning and thinking.