Swashbuckling definitions

[Sykora]

Once my Unknown Armies game wraps up, I'm planning on finally biting the bullet and running Sorcerer. Inspired by Day of Dupes in #Soul, I've decided to run some swashbuckling Sorcerer (with the exact type of Swashbuckling up to my players - i.e. realistic, cinematic, or even some wacky hybrid like Arabian Nights). As a bit of pre-game prep, I've been trying to decide on the relevant definitions for the various facets of Sorcerer.

Humanity is Honor. There's even a nice little definition in Day of Dupes. However, depending on what my players want to do, that definition may get changed around a little. A Humanity check could be called for to maintain and defend social status, as well.

At 0 Humanity you are, disgraced, fit only for shipping to the colonies.

Where I'm running into trouble is the definition of demons. The opposite of honor would be duplicitousness and backstabbing. However, it's pretty clear from the source literature of the time that much backstabbing and underhanded dealings were honorable. So then I thought about making demons tied to the superstitions of the peasants of the era, Sidhe and all that European nonsense. But then I remembered that even the nobles of the time were a superstitious lot.

So, I'm still wrestling with this question. Anyone who's run Day of Dupes have any insight into this?

Of course, a lack of a definition here kind of screws up the rest of the process, like figuring out what a Lore score actually represents and the actions that take place during the various sorcerous rituals. The only one I've thought of was Banishing, which would involve reminding yourself of your superioirity, your noble lineage, and then informing the demon in no uncertain terms of its lowly place.

[Bailywolf]

Well... how about several Orders to your Demons?

The Nobility's favored sorcery might be that of Secret Societies and Mystery Cults... anchient traditions of occult dealing...part social event, part dark pack with the Beyond.  These demons would be your old school Demons (capitalized)- beings of infernal power and great sophistication.  Daling with them will erode your Honor from within- you may be able to present the apearance of honor, but inside you are eaten away with vice and debachary.  You would betray your own sworn brothers for the primise of pleasure or even slight advantage... people may percieve you as honorable, but you are as corrupt as a 12 day old corpse left to lie in the sun.

The Peasants favor the Old Ways- folk magic, hedge wizardry, and the magics of the harsh old understanding of nature- a nature which could be called into personified form, but not wihtout the placation of sacrifice.  This order of sorcery overtly erodes your honor.  You must consort with low peoples and your habits and seeming will refelct your moral and ethical decay... your loss of Honor will be visible to all.  Your Demons will be Pagan Things, Dire Beasts, Faerie creatures, nature spirits...and in the foulest sorts of peasant magics, the souls of the unquiet dead.


Anyhow, my initial riff.

[Sykora]

The Nobility's favored sorcery might be that of Secret Societies and Mystery Cults

This is an idea I hadn't considered, one which I like a lot. Hmm...

The Peasants favor the Old Ways- folk magic, hedge wizardry, and the magics of the harsh old understanding of nature- a nature which could be called into personified form, but not wihtout the placation of sacrifice. This order of sorcery overtly erodes your honor. You must consort with low peoples and your habits and seeming will refelct your moral and ethical decay...

This was sort of what I was going for with even the Noble sorcerey, the consorting with those you would never normally be seen in public with. Translating this to demon terms is where I'm stuck, however.

[Bailywolf]

Hmmm.... perhaps a better, more precise definition of Humanity-as-Honor will show the way...

Some potentialy useful links I googled up:

http://web.sau.edu/RichardsRandyL/business_ethics_filing_cabinet_ups_and_downs_of_honor.htm

http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/dueling/3.html

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/manuals.html


What exactly do you mean by honor?



One core concept which is common to most codes of honor is the concept of fedelity to one's word.  Once sworn, an oath or vow is an obligation.  Some such obligations (the Noblesse Oblige for example) are implied by one's social station... others are obligations one takes upon one's self- oaths, debts, and vows.  

Perhaps the breaking of vows plays some role in sorcery?  One violates an earthly obligation in order to acquire service from otherworldly forces?  You cast out the serving maid you get pregnant rather than see her taken care of and married in order to bind (and obligate) a powerful demon...

The mutual obligations of a Binding can conflict strongly with the onligations of station or the sworn word.  You have a demon which demands you indulge in sexual excess... yet you have sworn to your wife to be faithful until she bares you a son.  Imagine the conflicts here- the demon hungers for your sexual excesses and desires your damnation, so it will try and prevent you impregnating your wife to whom you have sworn an oath on your honor, at the same time making demands on you to provide for its need...

If you use a demon-sword to duel... imagine the inherent dishonor in such a contest?  Your oponent stands no chance...your superiority at the blade makes no difference in your victory- you have cheated.

In fact, this last is a major conflict with all uses of Sorcery and the concept of Honor.  Using demons to do your dirty work or give you unfair advantage over others is pretty damned dishonorable.  Unsporting old boy!  Quite unsporting.

A seduction made smiple with parasitic helper is no seduction you can be proud of.  An enemy slain by the fangs of a demon-wolf rather than in the heat of a hnorable duel... quite low indead.  A game of cards swayed in your favor by a spectral hand... dirty damned cheater!

Sorcery is cheating.  If you win by your advantages of Birth (God given), by merit (hard won), or Fortune (who may favor anyone) that is one thing.  If you win through the unnatural advantages stolen through Sorcery, and you betray your God Given Merits, your Station, and your Honor all in one.  Better not get caught...


"...did you hear Marquis?  The Count of Rutheridge was caught swaying spirits to win at Hearts!  Such bad form!..."

[Sykora]

What exactly do you mean by honor?

And that may be the problem. I wanted to let the definition of Honor be up to the players, to a certain extent. One example is in #Soul, while another would be your more typical Hollywood swashbuckling. At this point, it's a little undefined, on purpose. Perhaps a little too undefined.

As per the rest of it, I'm kinda digging on a Good Ol' Boy network of demon-summoning nobles intent on cheating at cards.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Welcome to the whole schmeer! I'm excited to hear about this game.

I think your stumbling block is to equate honor with fair play. As I tried to express in The Sorcerer's Soul, that's a pretty Victorian boys'-fiction approach to the topic, not the Dumas-style approach. Back-stabbing, blackmail, duplicitiousness, and finding verbal/legal loopholes in arrangements are not dishonorable in the musketeers-style or similar fiction - they are indications of cleverness and "coolness," which are virtues, neither honorable nor dishonorable, but desirable nonetheless.

The demons and the concept of failed Humanity, I think, are better served in this kind of setting by the reduction of value of a person, socially and internally, rather than focusing on "codes."

Best,
Ron

[Sykora]

I think your stumbling block is to equate honor with fair play

Actually, if that was not mentioned earlier, I do apologize, but my intention was that honor was NOT equated with fair play. As of right now, I'm working with the definition from Day of Dupes. Having done a fair bit of research on the subject myself, the hollywood approach has bugged me for quite some time.

The idea of reducing the value of a person is one I like and is 'gelling' with me a bit more. I'll have to ruminate on this...

...But I might be back with more questions!

(Like this one: Once this game gets to the character creation phase, would this go under Actual Play or still within this forum?)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Lookin' at your first post, here's your phrase:
"The opposite of honor would be duplicitousness and backstabbing."

That's what I'm calling into question.

Your latest post, on the other hand, states that you're aware of thsi already and are already oriented toward the explicit approach in the supplement and source fiction ... which is inconsistent with your first post, so it's hard to know how to answer. I'm not sure where you stand.

Well, with any luck we can leave that behind, and the "value as a person" approach will be helpful. Let me know how it goes. I'm always interested in the actual play of the game.

Regarding posting about the sessions, feel free to post here or in the Actual Play forum, as you desire. The difference is a matter of audience: less people see it here, but they're more likely to post responses, and they represent a pretty Sorcerer-suggestion-heavy crowd. In Actual Play, more people see it and responses will be more comparative, both to other games and to other groups. So the choice is yours; I'm happy either way.

Best,
Ron

[Sykora]

Ah hah! I think I see where the confusion lies:

Lookin' at your first post, here's your phrase:
"The opposite of honor would be duplicitousness and backstabbing."

That's what I'm calling into question.

Putting the quote into context, the first sentence was explicitly referring to my definition (or lack thereof) of demons and wrestling with that definition. My next sentence: "The opposite of honor would be duplicitousness and backstabbing" I think illustrates my feelings on Honor and Humanity. It's that damnable definition of demons that had me flustered and was confusing me. Basically, looks like I was talking about two different things but using the same words. How annoying.

But enough with the semantics. I tend to write these things at work inbetween doing other things, so sometimes my posts restate or directly contradict the previous sentence because I lost my train of thought. Apologies.

To reiterate: Honer (as defined by Day of Dupes) is Humanity. And I'm liking the social aspects of "value of a person" as tied into that.

[Bailywolf]

You might also define Humanity in such a setting as Social Standing (which be part and parcel to the Honor which Ron describes)... to loose Honor is to loose social standing... to fall in society.  In a Hindu derived Sorcerer setting (the possibilities are fantastic- my own ignorance of the culture and mythology keep me from exploiting it) then such a Humanity-as-class definition could work very well.  

It all depends on what kind of Honor you mean...

Honor/Humanity as Duty:  honor implies obligations...keeping obligations and making new ones makes you more honorable... breaking obligations & failing to make new ones looses it for you.  Duties can often conflict.

Honor/Humanity as Loyalty: honor implies loyalty & camaraderie.  Loyalty to your class, to your country, to your sworn brothers & boon friends, to your ideals, to your rank.  These can (and should) conflict as often as a Duty based humanity.

Honor/Humanity as Code: honor by the letter... obey the forms, be seen to obey them.  Honor is your adherence to a social code... such a chivalry

Honor/Humanity as Virtue:  how much you manifest those things your society values- cleverness, wittiness, confidence, humor, daring, trustworthiness, excellence, loyalty etc.  Honor is anything with reinforces the style of the game you want: anything which enforces a sense of swashbuckling adventure... blatant RPG-style advantage grabbing will certainly get you a humanity check here... doing the sensible thing is not the right thing.

Honor/Humanity as Nobility:  frequently seen in the reference fiction is the concept of inherent superiority, of nobility as a quality independent of noble birth.  Men of common birth can demonstrate more poise and nobility while covered in blood and filth than a corrupt king could possess decked out in velvet and diamonds.  Attached at the hip to this concept is Honor as Dignity or Pride.  

This last supports both the wily backstabbing seen in the source fiction, as well as the dueling culture which underlies all Swashbuckling... one's very Humanity is defined by Pride and Dignity... and insult to one's Pride is an insult against one's essential self....  and further, demons and sorcery can demand Humbleness, self degradation, and loss of Pride.  This might be a good direction to go in.  Sometimes sacrificing one's Pride (though painful and embarrassing) is necessary and good... such as when you must submit to the demands of a villain to protect the life of a friend.  Other times- such as allowing a demon-prince to use your sexually- sacrificing your pride isn't a good thing at all.  


 
I'd go with the last.  Humanity as Pride or Dignity.

[Mike Holmes]

Make it subtle. Honor refers to dignity, but demons promote false pride. It's interesting because, essentially the character thinks they're the same thing. The Humanity 1 sorcerer feels just as "Honorable" as the Humanity 10 sorcerer. But the first sorcerer is mistaken. He is not actually honorable, but has gotten there through acts which, if revealed, would destroy his sense of dignity. Something that the sorcerer realizes at Humanity 0 when, without honor or diginity he reverts to a bestial nature.

Demons essentially gain the character power and position and a feeling of self-worth; but they are all false.

But all this is speculation at this point. Have you talked it over with your players? Find out what seems cool to them.

Mike

[Sykora]

Mike is right. It's all speculation at this point. Not that this is bad, of course. I now have much more definite ideas to present to them. It was always my intention to give them input as to the definition of some of these 'sorcerous' terms. Getting a little tired of those games where the players and the GM have entirely different ideas about what type of game it's gonna be.

Needless to say, this has all been highly educational and the whole thread is becoming a pre-game 'cribsheet' for me. Still a little leery about that whole Sorcerer-narrativist-schtick, although it becomes increasingly obvious with further reading here and in the Sorcerer books that I and my players are pretty damn narrativist and have been playing the wrong games. The pressure's on to, not only run a fun little game, but to hopefully open their eyes as to what we've all been missing. ;)

*sniff* I love you guys.

[Bailywolf]

Always happy to riff on an idea.  Good luck with your game, and make sure to let us know how it goes in Actual Play.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Sykora,

Let us know how the game goes. I've always liked the idea of blending the personal zest, determination, and "cool" humor in the musketeers fiction with the very same factors in Sorcerer, and it sounds as if that's exactly what you're up to.

Best,
Ron

[Sykora]

As soon as these damnable scheduling conflicts get worked out, I'll be able to do that.

Looking forward to trying this thing out, though.