Honor and ambushes

[French Desperate WindChild]

12 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

How does this differ from the modifiers shown on page 241 of RQ:RiG?

 

My point is the honor in rqg is only a warrior ethic when some here are discussing about honor in a larger sense. Page 241 described warrior ethic not what could be a good reputation among the black fang, the guild of fonrit merchant etc…

Edited May 23, 2022 by French Desperate WindChild

[Akhôrahil]

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

You are confusing me.... You're basically agreeing with me, except I point out that the deeds are recorded as Reputation grows, and you're saying the GM would do the recording.

The point is that the Reputation score doesn't measure what people think about you - it measures your fame, for good and ill. It's about whether you get recognized. It's of course possible to note what someone is famous for, but this is outside the rules mechanics themselves.

Honor, on the other hand, says something about your personal qualities.

[Eff]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

The point is that the Reputation score doesn't measure what people think about you - it measures your fame, for good and ill. It's about whether you get recognized. It's of course possible to note what someone is famous for, but this is outside the rules mechanics themselves.

Honor, on the other hand, says something about your personal qualities.

Right. And even if you do record every source of Reputation, on the character sheet it's still a single number that everything adds up to. 30% Reputation from 30 separate +1d3% additions from local deeds is the same as +30% Reputation from poisoning a well in terms of how the player can use it.

[SonyBlack]

6 hours ago, Eff said:

Right. And even if you do record every source of Reputation, on the character sheet it's still a single number that everything adds up to. 30% Reputation from 30 separate +1d3% additions from local deeds is the same as +30% Reputation from poisoning a well in terms of how the player can use it.

I think noting the sources can help the GM react accordingly to your actual deeds.

 

The book states that somebody who earned their reputation with violence, outlawry etc. might not get a good reception if recognized, as somebody known for better deeds (page 241). And there are also reputation modifiers depending on how close or far away from the clan somebody, who tries to recognise them, is.

 

So the number is the same, and is used to see, if somebody has heared of the adventurer, no matter the source of the reputation. But their reaction to knowing them is determined by where the reputation came from.

 

A very dishonerable deed might not change the passions of an adventurer, who doesn't have the "honor" passion, but can certainly add to reputation in a way that is negative to anybody who does have a high honor passion

[JRE]

If I wanted to do it mechanistically, I would roll reputation. A simple success means they have heard the name. Then I would use a Lore to see what they know, and the information would depend on the Lore used (Orlanth Lore could show that they is a Wind Lord from the Colymar temple, while Sartar Lore could bring that they were at all the main battles with the Colymar, or with a better result, that they are part of Leika's inner circle or troubleshooting / diplomatic envoys. A Lunar would know they are an enemy, part of the Colymar. I would also tell the highest Passion (unless they have no passion over 70). So Hrjalmar, known for his honor, or his hate of Lunars, or his loyalty for the Colymar. 

A Special in reputation might bring a particular deed, possibly circulating in song, but it could be good or bad. How they did not lift a finger to help Kallyr, or how they died for the Prince of Sartar, but unlike her, they came back.

A critical would have most deeds known, possibly because someone close passed through and  gossiped about the character for hours.