Originally, in the 9 Worlds playtest, if you declared one of these sacrosanct, the other attribute was put in danger. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't wrap my brain around the rationale for this, especially since the sacrosanct attribute couldn't be lowered or raised by the outcome of the conflict.

Has this changed? If so, how? If not, why not? Just curious.

Excellent question, especially in light of my playtests to date. I have been re-evaluating this issue, and I'll try to explain.

In the original edition -- in fact, in the playtest as it is currently available -- when you declare the virtue your character will be using (Arete or Hubris), that virtue becomes sacrosanct. Why? My reasoning was this: Because your character "chose" his fate, fate couldn't resist. That is, fate couldn't punish your character for choosing a particular attribute. It guaranteed that he wouldn't perish by losing that attribute.

A while back, Spooky Fanboy suggested that this should be precisely the opposite for the same reason -- that by choosing one of the virtues, you're placing that virtue "on the line." In effect, risking it to get what you want.

Either explanation makes sense to me. I can see it working both ways.

However, a different issue has revealed itself in play (and subsequent rules changes) to make me rethink the entire issue.

When a player makes The Choice -- that is, when he chooses to use either Arete or Hubris for a given conflict -- he now stands to gain trump points (Valor OR Pride).

For example, let's say Alexander is arguing with Hades. He does this using Arete, as his talent for "real" rhetoric is astounding. There's nothing magical going on; even Zeus would approve of his use of logic and argument.

If Alexander wins the argument (i.e. the conflict) then he checks off a point of Valor for any of his relevant Muses used in the conflict.

But what if it took him several phases to actually win the argument to his player's satisfaction? In the "old" rules, the player could alter between virtues in each phase. The player could choose to start with Arete, then maybe pump up Hubris (because it wasn't sacrosanct), then switch to Hubris to draw more cards. Neat!

But in the new rules, we've got a problem if that happens. If a player enters a multi-phase conflict, and then switches his virtues, how the heck does the player decide whether to "check off" Valor or Pride on his Muses?

I suppose there are many possible solutions to this, but the simplest (and the one I'm going to use) is: You can only use one chosen virtue for the entire conflict. You must stick with that choice throughout the scene, whether it lasts one phase or several phases.

Now, this alone doesn't mean that the sacrosanct / jeopardy rules are irrelevant. I can still see them making sense. However, I think the rules should probably be tossed altogether. In the old rules, you could pump up one virtue while using the other, then switch to reap the benefit. Now, you can't do that. So, I think it's better to allow the player to modify any of his virtues as he sees fit.

So, if Alexander enters the conflict using Arete with Cosmos in the first phase, he might use earned Tricks to increase his Arete. Next round, he is required to use Arete again, but now he gains the benefit of increasing the attribute in the previous round. (He couldn't have done this is the "old" rules, because Arete would have been sacrosanct.)

Quick question.

There are two virtues Arete and Hubris which seem IIRC to have identical mechanical effects, just getting there for different reasons.

If I have a very high Arete and a very low Hubris (or vice versa) is there any reason (or rather, any reason not extensively contrived) as to why I would ever not use my Arete for everything (or vice versa)?

In other words, instead of having two attributes...is what I really have effectively 1 attribute with a descriptor (Arete/Hubris) attached to it.

The old system seemed to provide some motivation for dabbling in both and using both (by switching between to enhance effectiveness). Without that, what's the motivation for not simply concentrating on one.

"Strategically" speaking, there's no reason NOT to focus on one attribute. That is, there is little stopping you from doing the "most effective" thing. Yeah, if Arete's higher, then use it all the time. Furthermore, it will lead to you earning more Pride points more quickly, which make you that much more effective against the Big Bad Wolves of the cosmos.

However, I raise three counterpoints.

First, you select your character's permanent abilities. If you create a character and choose, say, 7 Arete and 2 Hubris, then you're that much likelier to do exactly what you describe, Ralph. But if you select, say, 5 Arete and 4 Hubris, then it's a bit "fuzzier" on which path you'll chose. Also, since attributes "snap back" to their permanent values, you won't easily have an extraordinarily high attribute. (Of course, creating a Lock to keep your favorite virtue at a high value could change that!)

Second point: It's relatively easy to pump some tricks into your "lesser" virtue and then create a lock to make your character's virtues "equally" effective.

Third point -- remember, this is The Choice. It's narrativism. Choosing between Arete or Hubris isn't just color. Ultimately, it indicates where your character stands on authority in the universe. "Whose world do you want to live in? The one created for your or the one created by you?" If you choose the former, you'll tend to use Arete. If you choose the latter, you'll use Hubris more often.

Third point -- remember, this is The Choice. It's narrativism. Choosing between Arete or Hubris isn't just color. Ultimately, it indicates where your character stands on authority in the universe. "Whose world do you want to live in? The one created for your or the one created by you?" If you choose the former, you'll tend to use Arete. If you choose the latter, you'll use Hubris more often.

Doh, two things. I didn't mean that previous post to end so abruptly. I was going to say, "Does that answer is for you, Ralph? Not? Need something more?"

Anyway, YES, to your point:

Is there (or could there be), something that can ONLY be done with Hubris? No matter how excellent you are, Arete can never accomplish X. Similiarly something that can ONLY be done with Arete. No matter how much magical power you control, Hubris can never accomplish Y.

Just musing aloud here

Whaddya think, Ralph? Does that cover it sufficiently? Or, is the payoff to climactic and too far down the road? I very much like the distinction between the two, but I haven't yet been able to test the workings of this in actual play.

Yeah, it makes sense. I see what you're saying more so now. I have worked on a mechanic that does something very much like you're suggestiong.

Actually, it was a "finished" mechanic in the "old" version of the game. That is, once you resolved a Muse, you could receive a permanent bonus to Arete or Hubris.

But, with the new version of the game, Muses are resolved. They are judged, but I haven't yet figured out what/how that works. Clearly, this is the point at which I can do what you're suggesting. That's because once a Muse is "judged," it's clear which virtue should benefit. So, we can simultaneously grant some kind of balance-tipping change that, for example, increases Arete while descreasing Hubris by a like amount.

Also, in the older version, players could choose to earn that bonus, or instead acquire a Talisman.

Actually, you're hitting on the one thing last thing that I need to finalize for the game, and I haven't yet reached that solution. This came to light in our last playtest when one of the players earned 5 Pride checks, thus judging his Muse for the Hubris side of things. He therfore earned 5 points of Pride to use as trump. This was near the session's end, and we didn't yet decide what to do from that point.

For example, he might want to have a talisman rather than an attribute bonus. Or, maybe he does indeed want to permanently increase his Hubris at the cost of lowering his Arete.

Of course, I say this is the last frontier to solve for the game to finally be "complete," but inevitably some new issue will creep up as a result. This game design has been whack-a-mole that way as I try to nail it all down!