Negative passion during character creation

[Nukenin]

Being new to RQ we started out with a situation, that confused us.
During character creation, our Praxian gets the "Loyalty (tribe)" passion, but not "Loyalty (clan)".
While rolling for family history, that same character stole food from her clan during the second year of the Great Winter, which gives -20 to Loyalty (clan). Does she get a new passion with Loyalty (clan) 40 now? Or is that actually subtracted from Loyalty (tribe) or how else is it handled?

[svensson]

Yes, when you acquire a new passion, it begins at 60%. Whatever modifications begin there, in your Praxian's case, 'Loyalty [Clan] 40%'

And welcome to the board!

[Jason D]

Your Praxian begins with Loyalty (tribe) at 60% as specified by adventurer creation, unless modified further.  

You can always add a new passion such as Loyalty (clan) at 60%. 

If your adventure's background specifically states that they have a -20% to Loyalty (clan) then yes, you should start with it at 40% (base 60-20=40).

Their Loyalty (tribe) is unmodified.

 

[Joerg]

Does a passion at 40% make sense (you'd normally not augment with a skil that low), or would a differently named passion (love family over clan, distrusted by clan) at 60% be the result?

[French Desperate WindChild]

20 hours ago, Joerg said:

Does a passion at 40% make sense (you'd normally not augment with a skil that low), or would a differently named passion (love family over clan, distrusted by clan) at 60% be the result?

in my opinion no sense or it would mean that a traitor has 40% chance to obtain something from his clan....

 

As you said, depending on who knows (or think) what :

the thief thinks the clan doesn't know: no clan loyalty.

the thief is fearful and, without evidence, thinks someone could know :fear clan (60%)

the thief think the clan know or is paranoid: fear clan (80%) fear tribe (60%) (and no more loyalty to)

and I would reduce the devotion to any praxian cult (or remove it if the result is less than 60%) that is a taboo he broke i think ?

 

now if the clan realy knows, this guy should be designed as outlaw, or maybe destinated to morokanth activities

[Shiningbrow]

On 1/4/2023 at 9:19 PM, Joerg said:

Does a passion at 40% make sense

Yes. You'll steal from the clan, be rude to its members, get regularly kicked out or beaten up.. but when push comes to shove, they're still your kin, and you'll defend them from Chaos - not that you'll be thanked for it!

[hipsterinspace]

On 1/4/2023 at 8:19 AM, Joerg said:

Does a passion at 40% make sense (you'd normally not augment with a skil that low)

In the core rules your loyalty passions are what you use to secure support from a patron or group, so it reflects that it would be more difficult to secure their support

[Ian Absentia]

1 hour ago, hipsterinspace said:

In the core rules your loyalty passions are what you use to secure support from a patron or group, so it reflects that it would be more difficult to secure their support

Which makes Loyalty (Clan) 40% better than no Passion at all.  So crime does pay.

Which I believe is at the heart of the original question.  It's clear that every Praxian begins play with Loyalty (Tribe) by default, but not Loyalty (Clan).  How do you damage a reputation that doesn't exist?  We've had discussions elsewhere about the point at which a low Passion is effectively a flaw, but the problem being that this sort of approach suggests default Passions for anything and everything at 60%.

!i!

[Eff]

6 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

Which makes Loyalty (Clan) 40% better than no Passion at all.  So crime does pay.

Which I believe is at the heart of the original question.  It's clear that every Praxian begins play with Loyalty (Tribe) by default, but not Loyalty (Clan).  How do you damage a reputation that doesn't exist?  We've had discussions elsewhere about the point at which a low Passion is effectively a flaw, but the problem being that this sort of approach suggests default Passions for anything and everything at 60%.

!i!

I feel like, if Loyalty (Tribe) is supposed to replace Loyalty (Clan) for Praxians, then this really should be -20% to that Passion. But perhaps it's meant to be the case that Praxians have no culturally instilled loyalties to clans, only to the ethnic group of the tribe and their immediate families, in which case this entry makes no sense, they're stealing from fellow clan members already. And perhaps it's just the case that because Praxians have Hate(Chaos) as a default cultural Passion, they got Loyalty (Clan) cut from their defaults because that way every homeland gets three. That last can't be the case, of course, because I have been assured that Runequest is deliberately not balanced and so there must be some other reason why Praxians don't have any clan loyalty. By default. If only we knew the reasoning involved, though. 

[Akhôrahil]

On 1/4/2023 at 2:19 PM, Joerg said:

Does a passion at 40% make sense (you'd normally not augment with a skil that low), or would a differently named passion (love family over clan, distrusted by clan) at 60% be the result?

Almost always, you should be able to just erase any passion that goes below 50% - it no longer really does anything. But keeping it for flavor purposes is fine, too.

Honor might be an exception, as if you want to raise it in the future, you might have to dig yourself out of a bad score first.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Bill the barbarian]

37 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Almost always, you should be able to just erase any passion that goes below 50% - it no longer really does anything. But keeping it for flavor purposes is fine, too.

Honor might be an exception, as if you want to raise it in the future, you might have to dig yourself out of a bad score first.

That is how I thought, and would have played until @Shiningbrowand @hipsterinspacein space piped up with their comments. I will go with their well reasoned posts. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by Bill the barbarian

[Shiningbrow]

7 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

We've had discussions elsewhere about the point at which a low Passion is effectively a flaw, but the problem being that this sort of approach suggests default Passions for anything and everything at 60%.

Also confusing is that it's bi-directional. Which I think makes it worse as far as logic is concerned.

Let's take the almost hero Mello-yello. he would have a very high Loyalty (Yelmalio Temple), and probably one to the local priest (and others) too. Yet, they clearly didn't share that loyalty. So, it would make no sense to assume that Mello's 90% loyalty should translate into 90% chance of getting help or equipment.

Same with Harrek - I'm sure many of the Wolf Pirates would have a high loyalty to him... but would that ever get reciprocated? And to anywhere near the same extent if it was?

 

So, I think Passions shouldn't not go below 60%, and that they really need to be on both sheets to be effective/meaningful. The official releases have the PCs doing things for Leika, and so the PCs will develop their Loyalty to her. Surely, since she is trusting them so much, she should also have a Loyalty (PCs), albeit at a lower rating??

 

Low Passion ratings would indicate (to me) contempt, but tolerance. If to a clan or tribe, then different feelings amongst and between the different members

[Joerg]

At the risk of thread  meandering:

8 hours ago, Eff said:

But perhaps it's meant to be the case that Praxians have no culturally instilled loyalties to clans, only to the ethnic group of the tribe and their immediate families, in which case this entry makes no sense, they're stealing from fellow clan members already.

The Praxians as presented in Nomad Gods take their identification as Praxians from the three tribal deities: Founder, Protectress, and Ancestors. If there is a divine representation of clans inside these ethnic groups, it has to be in the Ancestors section.

Regardless what the rules say, any personal interaction of the character with a group of peeople will create a relationship that the GM might give a rating. All interactions may be tested in the course of a game, but few such interactions need dice rolls, if such rolls are to be reserved for critical (possibly life-or-death or quest-relevant situations).

On the other hand, if a player wants to roll dice, maybe the GM should find out whather the player thinks this will define the character in a lasting way, or whether this is just for creating a memorable situation (establishing a minor plot element) or a small benefit towards an expected future challenge (such as equipment). The FATE rpg has (for my taste way too many) mechanisms towards this end where a RuneQuest GM usually just juggles the NPCs and background situation without much in the way of written preparation or taking down notes. And in a fast-paced, task oriented situation little of that might be wanted.

 

 

8 hours ago, Eff said:

And perhaps it's just the case that because Praxians have Hate(Chaos) as a default cultural Passion, they got Loyalty (Clan) cut from their defaults because that way every homeland gets three. That last can't be the case, of course, because I have been assured that Runequest is deliberately not balanced and so there must be some other reason why Praxians don't have any clan loyalty. By default. If only we knew the reasoning involved, though. 

IMO the reasoning simply is that RQ already juggles way too many skills on the core rules character sheet. with a lot of "nice to have" information that is non-essential most of the time. The simulationist world builder in me cries out to leave a data trail for each and any interaction of the characters with the world, creating a robust set of data points that may be drawn on later on. The narrator wants to push on the story, providing enough chrome to provide both context and immersion while handing out plot points. The enabler seeks to give the players room (and posibly a currency) to leave their mark on the story and in the world.

[jajagappa]

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

he would have a very high Loyalty (Yelmalio Temple), and probably one to the local priest (and others) too. Yet, they clearly didn't share that loyalty. So, it would make no sense to assume that Mello's 90% loyalty should translate into 90% chance of getting help or equipment.

He probably has to overcome their Despise (Baboons) 95% to get any support.

[Eff]

11 hours ago, Joerg said:

At the risk of thread  meandering:

The Praxians as presented in Nomad Gods take their identification as Praxians from the three tribal deities: Founder, Protectress, and Ancestors. If there is a divine representation of clans inside these ethnic groups, it has to be in the Ancestors section.

Regardless what the rules say, any personal interaction of the character with a group of peeople will create a relationship that the GM might give a rating. All interactions may be tested in the course of a game, but few such interactions need dice rolls, if such rolls are to be reserved for critical (possibly life-or-death or quest-relevant situations).

On the other hand, if a player wants to roll dice, maybe the GM should find out whather the player thinks this will define the character in a lasting way, or whether this is just for creating a memorable situation (establishing a minor plot element) or a small benefit towards an expected future challenge (such as equipment). The FATE rpg has (for my taste way too many) mechanisms towards this end where a RuneQuest GM usually just juggles the NPCs and background situation without much in the way of written preparation or taking down notes. And in a fast-paced, task oriented situation little of that might be wanted.

 

 

IMO the reasoning simply is that RQ already juggles way too many skills on the core rules character sheet. with a lot of "nice to have" information that is non-essential most of the time. The simulationist world builder in me cries out to leave a data trail for each and any interaction of the characters with the world, creating a robust set of data points that may be drawn on later on. The narrator wants to push on the story, providing enough chrome to provide both context and immersion while handing out plot points. The enabler seeks to give the players room (and posibly a currency) to leave their mark on the story and in the world.

I think that the reasoning is that Pendragon starts PKs with the Passions of Loyalty (lord), Love (family), Hospitality, and Honor, as befits a knight in Late Antiquity in Britain, and then when this was imported into RQG, the lack of a feudal context meant an awkward bit of fumbling with Loyalty to the various political entities that ought to be relevant to player characters. The end result was a potential proliferation of Passions and thus the apparent lack of loyalty to clan in Prax, the apparent lack of any intermediate entity between clan and "city" in Esrolia, etc.

Perhaps what should have been done is to set up a set of default Passions that tug PCs in opposing directions in common situations, like Hospitality and Honor or Loyalty and Love do for Pendragon. But this road was not taken.

[Akhôrahil]

20 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Also confusing is that it's bi-directional. Which I think makes it worse as far as logic is concerned.

Let's take the almost hero Mello-yello. he would have a very high Loyalty (Yelmalio Temple), and probably one to the local priest (and others) too. Yet, they clearly didn't share that loyalty. So, it would make no sense to assume that Mello's 90% loyalty should translate into 90% chance of getting help or equipment.

Yes, there’s this tension in the rules that’s not really resolved - by rights, a ”Passion” should be all about your own state of mind, but it also doubles as a relationship or social status meter. I don’t like it - it makes it quite unclear exactly what it’s supposed to be. If Stickpicker Vargast is fanatically loyal to his clan but widely disparaged and disliked, doesn’t he still have a sky-high Loyalty without being able to get anything done politically?

Edited January 8, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Squaredeal Sten]

42 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Yes, there’s this tension in the rules that’s not really resolved - by rights, a ”Passion” should be all about your own state of mind, but it also doubles as a relationship or social status meter. I don’t like it - it makes it quite unclear exactly what it’s supposed to be. If Stickpicker Vargast is fanatically loyal to his clan but widely disparaged and disliked, doesn’t he still have a sky-high Loyalty without being able to get anything done politically?

• But Rules As Written, loyalties are reciprocal -  so he won't be widely disparaged and disliked.    The fault is not in the Loyalty, it's in writing up the character with a contradiction ( if he is indeed disliked).
• And maybe he can work using that Loyalty to get his clan to give him a break.

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

But Rules As Written, loyalties are reciprocal -  so he won't be widely disparaged and disliked.    The fault is not in the Loyalty, it's in writing up the character with a contradiction ( if he is indeed disliked).

The fault is in the RAW mechanic. It shouldn't be reciprocal (at the same %).

Writing up a character with a contradiction makes for good RP, and ye olde "MGF" that we keep hearing about.

[Eff]

13 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

The fault is in the RAW mechanic. It shouldn't be reciprocal (at the same %).

Writing up a character with a contradiction makes for good RP, and ye olde "MGF" that we keep hearing about.

It's worth pointing out that in Pendragon Passions are very specifically emotions the PK has, and, for example, Love (family) is very much not reciprocal- eldest sons and daughters start with 15, but for younger sons they get a randomized value: between 7 and 17 (average 12) for the second son, 6 and 16 (average 11) for the third, and so on. Even though your siblings have a 75% chance of feeling inspired by their love for you, as a third son, likely to be sent for Holy Orders if you're lucky, you might only have a 45% chance of feeling inspired by your love for them  Loyalty (Lord) is 15 for a landed knight, 2d6+6 for a household knight, 2d6 for a landless knight bachelor, 3d6 for a new lord acquired through play... but Loyalty (vassals) starts at 2d6+6. Not only is it non-reciprocal, it's quite possible for a PK who knights a serjeant for valor to end up feeling more loyal to them than they to the PK.

Pendragon, of course, is Arthurian and derived most principally from Thomas Malory, and Malory himself was a knight in the Wars of the Roses and the questions of mixed and mercurial loyalties lurk under the surface of the Morte. This is a very appropriate system for inspiring dramatic tensions between PKs, as a consequence!

Of course, Runequest's own initial inspirations were sword-and-sorcery fiction most strongly, and while these characters tend to be very loyal to their friends and companions (I'm sure Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser have a suitably platonic Love for one another in a Pendragon-like system of Passions, as would Elric and Moonglum. Or perhaps less platonic.) they tend to be fairly mercenary towards superiors, in part because they are generally paid mercenaries.

In that sense, perhaps what makes more sense would be for the default Passions to be primarily horizontal ones, bonds between "equals", (even if not actually equals) and the game were aware of the player character group being some kind of, well, nascent Hero Band. Or perhaps RQG was reframed to put the player characters in the position of companions and servants to a heroic leader type, but even then, making that loyalty reciprocal by default is, well, an interesting choice.

[French Desperate WindChild]

On 1/8/2023 at 6:17 AM, Shiningbrow said:

The fault is in the RAW mechanic. It shouldn't be reciprocal (at the same %).

Writing up a character with a contradiction makes for good RP, and ye olde "MGF" that we keep hearing about.

well I don't know if "fault" is the right word (not because i m better in english than you huhu , but more because there is some "morale" judgement in my understanding of this word 🙂 )

however I agree, and I manage it differently

passions is (in my house rule) what you feel, what hurts you (malus to evaluate your dice success), what moves you (bonus)

it doesn't describe  anything about the "other" so loyalty is how much you are loyal, and that's all

And there is not loyalty score from the clan or any community to you in my game.

As a player you don't know what is the % that clearwine will support you or not. As a gm, I don't need to have a score.

The answer of the clan should be managed by :

- what the pc did,

- what are the relationships, ties, favors, ... between the pc  and a lot of actors who may influence the clan decision

- what is the impact to the clan

- what is the impact for all these actors who may influence the clan decision

- what is the impact on the campaign

- and of course what is the impact on the entertainment of the table (gm + players)

could it be modelized by a % ? in my opinion, no.

so there is no bidirection in this way

however I can understand than some players would be more confortable to know some score. But it means to me that anything then is considered by the player as a resource (how many silver ? how many weapons ? how many loyalty ... ?) And that's not my perspective, there are resources and there are free will... people have free will, gods too (img) etc...

 

[radmonger]

On 1/7/2023 at 5:28 AM, Shiningbrow said:

I'm sure many of the Wolf Pirates would have a high loyalty to him... but would that ever get reciprocated? And to anywhere near the same extent if it was?

Loyalty to Harrek means loyalty to Harrek as he is. Which means the expected level of support on a simple success is 'will not go out of his way to kill you'.

Perhaps what loyalties need is a mechanism to 'take them up a level', i.e. to take a numerically high but low-intensity passion and turn it into something more significant. so maybe Gunda has 'companion of Harrek 30%' and so has that chance of him actually listening a suggestion. 

by that logic, say Mello Yello has loyalty temple at 90%. Being a near hero they would normally have graduated a simple temple loyalty to something like 'temple champion'. That would let them ask for iron armour, or a squad of bodyguards. But instead they are still at the level where they need to roll the dice to get a bed for the night.

Note if you use questworld-style 'net successes' math for rolls, you don't need that. Gunda can just have a 'loyalty harrek; 130%' that will almost always get 1 success and commonly 2.