Question: Can a Scion with Assess Health use it on himself by looking in a mirror or other reflective surface?
Question: Hey, I noticed on your Health purview write-up that you restrict its use in some ways. While I understand the need to make it a non-spammable asset for the PCs, I still wonder about how you explain that restriction in-game.
A double-header! Two questions that are really asking about the same thing.
The first one's easy: no. As it says clearly at the beginning of the Health purview, "no Health Boon may ever be used by a Scion on himself unless it explicitly states otherwise." Mirrors will not somehow circumvent this rule any more than bending over to look at one of your body parts would.
As for the second question, I assume you're also referring to the rule that Health boons can't be used on yourself, and there are reasons for that: the Health purview is geared only for healing others because that's how it works in mythology. Gods of healing or medicine almost invariably heal others and bestow blessings or curses on their people, but they never doctor themselves, which is why Dian Cecht, doctor extraordinaire, died of a plague, or Shennong, master of all medicinal herbs, died of poison. Healing gods heal others, but they seldom heal themselves; their legends are all concerned with saving other important gods, curing the plagues of humanity or visiting pestilence on those who anger them. Apollo is always on deck to heal the other gods, but there is no story of Apollo saving himself from death's door; Sekhmet visits disease on humanity like nobody's business, but she never gets sick herself.
Mechanically, this is also important because affecting your own body and health is covered by Epic Attributes and knacks rather than by a purview. Mastery over the bodies of others falls under Health; mastery over your own body falls under Stamina, for healing yourself, armoring yourself against disease and so forth, and Appearance, for sculpting your looks and body into whatever form you please. If Health were also usable on yourself, it would be one of those indispensable skills that every PC would want to take just to use on themselves, and the end result would be a bunch of people with Health who didn't actually use it to heal anyone but themselves - the exact opposite of how healing power generally appears in mythology.
So Health is restricted to use only on others because it's both more mythically resonant and more mechanically balanced. Gods of Health are doctors, healers, scientists and plaguerats that spread their gifts to others, not themselves; that's what Stamina, open to any character, is for.
(Of course, there are the two exception boons in Health - Virility/Muliebrity and Blessing of Health/Curse of Frailty - which get to be used on the Health Scion as they don't break the above rules. They're the only powers of their kind in the game, and even if they weren't, gods of Health often are associated with fecundity as illustrated by their own offspring, not just the babies they help others out with.)
Friday, November 30, 2012
Demigods in the YA Section
Question: What is your opinion on Percy Jackson and the Olympians series of books? What is your opinion on the new Runelight series of books that deal with the Norse gods?
This will probably disappoint you, but we haven't read either. We do most of our pleasure reading in the nonfiction section, and added to the fact that John's running classes and I'm maintaining a review site elsewhere, and we don't have a lot of extra reading time lying around. We did see the Percy Jackson movie in one of our Bad Myth Movies Marathons (along with Legion and the new Clash of the Titans), and while it had some cute moments, we weren't very impressed. It suffered from a lot of the problems that modern mythological movies have, most notably projecting modern values and theology onto ancient religions that didn't include either (but it still came in above Clash of the Titans!). We have even less background in the Runelight department, though I've heard some vague good things about it.
But we couldn't really judge either since we haven't read them, and both have premises that are definitely in line with Scion's, so more power to you if you're a fan! Inspiration comes from all kinds of places, and I know some of our players do really enjoy the Percy Jackson books as well as Rick Riordan's other mythology-based series.
This will probably disappoint you, but we haven't read either. We do most of our pleasure reading in the nonfiction section, and added to the fact that John's running classes and I'm maintaining a review site elsewhere, and we don't have a lot of extra reading time lying around. We did see the Percy Jackson movie in one of our Bad Myth Movies Marathons (along with Legion and the new Clash of the Titans), and while it had some cute moments, we weren't very impressed. It suffered from a lot of the problems that modern mythological movies have, most notably projecting modern values and theology onto ancient religions that didn't include either (but it still came in above Clash of the Titans!). We have even less background in the Runelight department, though I've heard some vague good things about it.
But we couldn't really judge either since we haven't read them, and both have premises that are definitely in line with Scion's, so more power to you if you're a fan! Inspiration comes from all kinds of places, and I know some of our players do really enjoy the Percy Jackson books as well as Rick Riordan's other mythology-based series.
Hit Me Again!
Question: With the knack Never Say Die, do you use pre-soak damage successes or post soak damage successes to establish the Willpower restored?
Never Say Die grants Willpower equal to the damage taken, as it says pretty clearly; that's the damage the character actually suffers, not the raw pre-soak damage that mostly won't make it through his defenses. You're impressing and uplifting others with your ability to take a licking and keep on ticking; they're only impressed by the licking you actually take.
Never Say Die grants Willpower equal to the damage taken, as it says pretty clearly; that's the damage the character actually suffers, not the raw pre-soak damage that mostly won't make it through his defenses. You're impressing and uplifting others with your ability to take a licking and keep on ticking; they're only impressed by the licking you actually take.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
He Who Originates
Question: Could you tell me about Orgos? I've tried looking everywhere for some details about the guy but the closest I get is being redirected to Argus. As 'an ancient Titan of Sorcery and Darkness', he sounds like a pretty good fit for a ruling Avatar in a Fate Titanrealm, but I can't find a single reference to him anywhere that doesn't double back to the Nemetondevos supplement.
It's not you; it's the scarcity of Gaulish myth again.
Orgos' sole written source is Julius Caesar's account of his campaign against Gaul. In it, he mentions in a throwaway line discussing the religion of the Celts that the Gauls claim to be descended from Dis Pater, his interpretation of the figure the Gaulish people call Orgos. There are very few inscriptional attestations of Orgos' existence, and even those are sketchy; the Romans didn't leave much of the Gaulish culture behind during their campaign of conquest and assimilation, and the Gauls themselves, being no fools about the consequences of being the conquered, began referring to their own gods by Roman names pretty early on, thus preventing us from really knowing who or what they were talking about half the time. Even for a Gaulish god, though, Orgos is exceptionally sketchy; if it weren't for that line or two of Caesar's, we probably wouldn't even know he existed.
And, unfortunately, that means we don't know the slightest thing about him. Like much of Gaulish mythology, scholars have to reconstruct any idea of what Orgos was about from the Roman myths of Dis Pater, the theory being that, since Caesar conflated them as the same figure, the two gods must have been similar. Dis Pater was the founder and progenitor of much of the world, a god of beginnings and generation as well as of agriculture and wealth. Orgos, if he was indeed similar enough to Dis Pater to be conflated, might also have been associated with these things, but the fact is that we honestly have no idea if that hypothesis is true.
The writeup of Orgos in the Nemetondevos supplement is an example of the problem the whole book suffers from: there's no really solid information on him, so the writers basically had to make it up as they went. They clearly latched onto the idea of him as the progenitor of the Gauls and blew it up into an idea of him as the Titanic father of the Gaulish gods; it's not a bad idea, but it's also not one they got from any source because there are no sources on Orgos.
If you want to use Orgos and need to figure out what he'd be about, I'd suggest doing what most scholars do: go look up Dis Pater, pare away the later associations that came from his conflation with Hades, and use him as your template. It's probably where most of the associations the writers of the Nemetondevos supplement came from anyway, and while it won't necessarily be accurate, at least you know you won't be wrong, either. If you're going to keep Orgos in the game, then as the Storyteller you'll just have to invent him (from the ground up, so to speak).
It's not you; it's the scarcity of Gaulish myth again.
Orgos' sole written source is Julius Caesar's account of his campaign against Gaul. In it, he mentions in a throwaway line discussing the religion of the Celts that the Gauls claim to be descended from Dis Pater, his interpretation of the figure the Gaulish people call Orgos. There are very few inscriptional attestations of Orgos' existence, and even those are sketchy; the Romans didn't leave much of the Gaulish culture behind during their campaign of conquest and assimilation, and the Gauls themselves, being no fools about the consequences of being the conquered, began referring to their own gods by Roman names pretty early on, thus preventing us from really knowing who or what they were talking about half the time. Even for a Gaulish god, though, Orgos is exceptionally sketchy; if it weren't for that line or two of Caesar's, we probably wouldn't even know he existed.
And, unfortunately, that means we don't know the slightest thing about him. Like much of Gaulish mythology, scholars have to reconstruct any idea of what Orgos was about from the Roman myths of Dis Pater, the theory being that, since Caesar conflated them as the same figure, the two gods must have been similar. Dis Pater was the founder and progenitor of much of the world, a god of beginnings and generation as well as of agriculture and wealth. Orgos, if he was indeed similar enough to Dis Pater to be conflated, might also have been associated with these things, but the fact is that we honestly have no idea if that hypothesis is true.
The writeup of Orgos in the Nemetondevos supplement is an example of the problem the whole book suffers from: there's no really solid information on him, so the writers basically had to make it up as they went. They clearly latched onto the idea of him as the progenitor of the Gauls and blew it up into an idea of him as the Titanic father of the Gaulish gods; it's not a bad idea, but it's also not one they got from any source because there are no sources on Orgos.
If you want to use Orgos and need to figure out what he'd be about, I'd suggest doing what most scholars do: go look up Dis Pater, pare away the later associations that came from his conflation with Hades, and use him as your template. It's probably where most of the associations the writers of the Nemetondevos supplement came from anyway, and while it won't necessarily be accurate, at least you know you won't be wrong, either. If you're going to keep Orgos in the game, then as the Storyteller you'll just have to invent him (from the ground up, so to speak).
When You're Good to Mama
Question: Which pantheon is the most cohesive (who has the least infighting and comes to each others' aid no strings attached)? I'm going for the Greeks as the most dysfunctional and the Pesedjet as the most cohesive.
It does seem hard to compete with the Greek gods for most dysfunctional, it's true, but John and I both went a little cross-eyed at the idea of the Pesedjet as the most "cohesive" pantheon out there. Sure, they have Order and Harmony, and that helps, but this is a pantheon in which Tefnut ran off to be crazy in the desert and had to be found and dragged home by Thoth, Shu separated Geb and Nut, Geb overthrew Shu and had to be put down by Wadjet, Isis poisoned Ra in order to steal his power, Osiris slept with Nephthys, Set murdered Osiris, Isis ran around fighting with Set for years, Horus, Isis and Set all got into a roiling mess of a continual fight over the succession to the throne, Anubis killed his wife after she hit on his brother, and Ra occasionally tries to take a nap and end the world so he can start a new one tomorrow. Oh, and Sekhmet tried to eat everyone. So we're probably not going to vote for them in the Most Cooperative Pantheon Competition any time soon.
But that's how things go when you're a god; gods are fucking crazy. They have the same problems with their families that humanity has, but they also have the tactical nukes of enormous powers to levy at one anothers' faces, thus making everything blow out of proportion very, very quickly. One of the common themes across all mythologies is the idea of the dramas of the human world played out on the great cosmic scale of the gods; even if we couldn't create a crazy magical trap to capture Ares and Aphrodite in because we are not Hephaestus, we can still recognize the situation and empathize with the character and events, because it is at its core a very human story of wife cheats on husband, husband gets embarrassing revenge. If it weren't, we wouldn't remember and care about it so much.
As far as who has the least infighting, the Yazata are probably the most cooperative Scion pantheon by far; sure, Sraosha might be a little overprotective of his sister, but all in all they don't really have arguments among themselves much, a function of the religion they come from viewing them all as representatives of goodness rather than images of humanity. Everybody else is a fucking mess; the Amatsukami have banished one another so many times nobody knows where they live anymore, the Shen have to build elaborate god-traps to keep their most fractious members under control, the Loa literally encourage one another to murder each other, the Aesir can't go a day without dangerously malicious pranking, the Anunna sometimes have full-scale wars over whether or not to wipe out mankind because it's bothering them that day, the Bogovi are constantly breaking their own laws and then trying to be the first to tattle on each other, the Devas are engaged in continually jockeying for position and comparing penis sizes, the Tuatha are out stabbing one anothers' offspring and/or setting them on fire, the Dodekatheon and Elohim just make it a normal practice to constantly murder each other and the Aztlanti have fought amongst themselves so hard that they have literally destroyed the world four times. Infighting is a way of life among the gods; with that many volatile personalities and great power levels, there's no way to avoid it.
But in answer to the second part of your question, the real answer is nobody. Nobody comes to one anothers' aid, among the gods, with no strings attached. A few might out of genuine love - for example, Isis will probably always help Horus when he needs it, and Frigg is unlikely to leave Baldur twisting in the wind - but for the most part, a pantheon of gods who helps each other for free just because they're in the same pantheon is not a thing that exists. Why would they do that? What on earth would motivate a god who didn't have a strong relationship with another god to rescue him and say, "That's fine, I was just in the neighborhood!" instead of "No problem, dude, you're just going to owe me one"? Favors from other gods are vastly important and powerful. It would be insane to turn the chance for them down, even if they're from someone you like. Sure, maybe Ryujin will help you out with something you want if you just ask nicely, but he's just as likely to say that he can't right now, because, just like you, he's in a war against several Titans and has his own shit to do, and just like you don't want to spend a bunch of time and Legend on other peoples' problems, he doesn't, either, even if he thinks you're a nice guy. Gods almost never help one another for free, because they know there will be a time in the future that they'll need help themselves, and they want to be sure they can get it instead of relying on the ephemeral goodwill of other gods who might just shrug it off and do their own thing instead.
Divine politics are serious business, and no one is immune to them. You can count on some gods to aid others free of charge, but only once in a while, and only for people they absolutely love and couldn't bear not to save (and shit, if the problem isn't lethal, they might let it go anyway). Being one of the Pesedjet simply isn't enough to make Horus blow a bunch of time, energy and valuable resources on helping you if you're not giving him something back to make it worth his while.
It does seem hard to compete with the Greek gods for most dysfunctional, it's true, but John and I both went a little cross-eyed at the idea of the Pesedjet as the most "cohesive" pantheon out there. Sure, they have Order and Harmony, and that helps, but this is a pantheon in which Tefnut ran off to be crazy in the desert and had to be found and dragged home by Thoth, Shu separated Geb and Nut, Geb overthrew Shu and had to be put down by Wadjet, Isis poisoned Ra in order to steal his power, Osiris slept with Nephthys, Set murdered Osiris, Isis ran around fighting with Set for years, Horus, Isis and Set all got into a roiling mess of a continual fight over the succession to the throne, Anubis killed his wife after she hit on his brother, and Ra occasionally tries to take a nap and end the world so he can start a new one tomorrow. Oh, and Sekhmet tried to eat everyone. So we're probably not going to vote for them in the Most Cooperative Pantheon Competition any time soon.
But that's how things go when you're a god; gods are fucking crazy. They have the same problems with their families that humanity has, but they also have the tactical nukes of enormous powers to levy at one anothers' faces, thus making everything blow out of proportion very, very quickly. One of the common themes across all mythologies is the idea of the dramas of the human world played out on the great cosmic scale of the gods; even if we couldn't create a crazy magical trap to capture Ares and Aphrodite in because we are not Hephaestus, we can still recognize the situation and empathize with the character and events, because it is at its core a very human story of wife cheats on husband, husband gets embarrassing revenge. If it weren't, we wouldn't remember and care about it so much.
As far as who has the least infighting, the Yazata are probably the most cooperative Scion pantheon by far; sure, Sraosha might be a little overprotective of his sister, but all in all they don't really have arguments among themselves much, a function of the religion they come from viewing them all as representatives of goodness rather than images of humanity. Everybody else is a fucking mess; the Amatsukami have banished one another so many times nobody knows where they live anymore, the Shen have to build elaborate god-traps to keep their most fractious members under control, the Loa literally encourage one another to murder each other, the Aesir can't go a day without dangerously malicious pranking, the Anunna sometimes have full-scale wars over whether or not to wipe out mankind because it's bothering them that day, the Bogovi are constantly breaking their own laws and then trying to be the first to tattle on each other, the Devas are engaged in continually jockeying for position and comparing penis sizes, the Tuatha are out stabbing one anothers' offspring and/or setting them on fire, the Dodekatheon and Elohim just make it a normal practice to constantly murder each other and the Aztlanti have fought amongst themselves so hard that they have literally destroyed the world four times. Infighting is a way of life among the gods; with that many volatile personalities and great power levels, there's no way to avoid it.
But in answer to the second part of your question, the real answer is nobody. Nobody comes to one anothers' aid, among the gods, with no strings attached. A few might out of genuine love - for example, Isis will probably always help Horus when he needs it, and Frigg is unlikely to leave Baldur twisting in the wind - but for the most part, a pantheon of gods who helps each other for free just because they're in the same pantheon is not a thing that exists. Why would they do that? What on earth would motivate a god who didn't have a strong relationship with another god to rescue him and say, "That's fine, I was just in the neighborhood!" instead of "No problem, dude, you're just going to owe me one"? Favors from other gods are vastly important and powerful. It would be insane to turn the chance for them down, even if they're from someone you like. Sure, maybe Ryujin will help you out with something you want if you just ask nicely, but he's just as likely to say that he can't right now, because, just like you, he's in a war against several Titans and has his own shit to do, and just like you don't want to spend a bunch of time and Legend on other peoples' problems, he doesn't, either, even if he thinks you're a nice guy. Gods almost never help one another for free, because they know there will be a time in the future that they'll need help themselves, and they want to be sure they can get it instead of relying on the ephemeral goodwill of other gods who might just shrug it off and do their own thing instead.
Divine politics are serious business, and no one is immune to them. You can count on some gods to aid others free of charge, but only once in a while, and only for people they absolutely love and couldn't bear not to save (and shit, if the problem isn't lethal, they might let it go anyway). Being one of the Pesedjet simply isn't enough to make Horus blow a bunch of time, energy and valuable resources on helping you if you're not giving him something back to make it worth his while.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Hog Wild
Question: Why did you ditch Guardian and Animal on the Dagda for Sun and War? Just because he held the sun in place for nine months shouldn't give him power over the purview!
I seriously promise you that we are not trying to be mean to you, person asking this question, but we both laughed out loud when we opened it. Something about the way it's phrased seriously tickled us.
It's a legitimate question, though, so let's ignore our outbursts of glee and answer it! As for removing the first two purviews, those were pretty easy ones.
Animal (Pig) was a completely ridiculous association for the Dagda to have; the only reason it was there at all is the fact that the Dagda famously possesses two pigs, one of which is always cooking while the other is always ready to eat. But these pigs are not doing anything but being ready-made pork; they're examples of the Dagda's association with food, prosperity and plenty, not suggestions that he's some sort of god of pigs, which he obviously is not. He never speaks to pigs, calls on pigs, turns into a pig, or in any way uses pigs for anything except eating, which is frankly not an exceptional thing to be doing with pigs. The magical pigs themselves are very fancy, but they're clearly a Birthright he possesses, not evidence of his link to all swine.
Guardian was less ridiculous, but it also didn't really have any evidence to support it. The Dagda doesn't do much in the way of guarding; he's great at busting some heads on the battlefield, but he isn't the patron or protector of any place, the defender who saves others from danger, the figurehead who represents a guardian of his people or otherwise demonstrating any embodiment of the Guardian purview that we could see. Sure, people are being protected as a side effect of his awesomeness at killing enemies, but you could say that about the Morrigan, too, and she definitely doesn't have the Guardian purview in any dimension. It's Nuada who functions as the protector of his people and the benevolent ruler who sees that they're safe; the Dagda, while awesome in his own way, doesn't do any of that. He has no more need of the Guardian purview than anyone else.
Which brings us around to things he does do, and War is one of those things. There are few gods and fewer enemies who can match the Dagda on the field of battle, where it took Cethlenn herself to defeat him (and even she had to do it on a sort of time-delayed basis); and while just being very badass is not usually enough to make us think a god has the War purview, the Dagda is also strongly associated with the leading of armies (commanded by his magical harp) and the formulation of tactics (which he is even ready to bang the Morrigan to get hold of, because he is serious about this stuff). The Dagda is a leader and a frontline soldier when it comes to the famous pitched battles of the Tuatha, so War seemed a natural fit for him.
And, finally, Sun, which is where John and I started giggling. Again, we're not meaning to pick on you, but - seriously, if a guy holding the sun in place for nine freaking months isn't an example of him having the Sun purview, what the hell is? That's classic power over the sun, very literally changing the span of days and the natural order of the heavens with his own power; it's not even something that he could have been doing with a little Sun, because that right there is some stuff you need The Glory to pull off. He's not one of the charioteering kinds of sun-gods, true, but they're not the only kind of sun-god out there. We can't think of too many better examples of someone having ultimate power over the sun than a guy who refused to let it set for nine straight months until he felt like it. That's mightily epic use of Sun.
So there's our reasoning; the Dagda has nothing to do with pigs and doesn't really bother with guarding much, but he's a badass war commander and is capable of making the sun his bitch for indefinite periods of time.
I seriously promise you that we are not trying to be mean to you, person asking this question, but we both laughed out loud when we opened it. Something about the way it's phrased seriously tickled us.
It's a legitimate question, though, so let's ignore our outbursts of glee and answer it! As for removing the first two purviews, those were pretty easy ones.
Animal (Pig) was a completely ridiculous association for the Dagda to have; the only reason it was there at all is the fact that the Dagda famously possesses two pigs, one of which is always cooking while the other is always ready to eat. But these pigs are not doing anything but being ready-made pork; they're examples of the Dagda's association with food, prosperity and plenty, not suggestions that he's some sort of god of pigs, which he obviously is not. He never speaks to pigs, calls on pigs, turns into a pig, or in any way uses pigs for anything except eating, which is frankly not an exceptional thing to be doing with pigs. The magical pigs themselves are very fancy, but they're clearly a Birthright he possesses, not evidence of his link to all swine.
Guardian was less ridiculous, but it also didn't really have any evidence to support it. The Dagda doesn't do much in the way of guarding; he's great at busting some heads on the battlefield, but he isn't the patron or protector of any place, the defender who saves others from danger, the figurehead who represents a guardian of his people or otherwise demonstrating any embodiment of the Guardian purview that we could see. Sure, people are being protected as a side effect of his awesomeness at killing enemies, but you could say that about the Morrigan, too, and she definitely doesn't have the Guardian purview in any dimension. It's Nuada who functions as the protector of his people and the benevolent ruler who sees that they're safe; the Dagda, while awesome in his own way, doesn't do any of that. He has no more need of the Guardian purview than anyone else.
Which brings us around to things he does do, and War is one of those things. There are few gods and fewer enemies who can match the Dagda on the field of battle, where it took Cethlenn herself to defeat him (and even she had to do it on a sort of time-delayed basis); and while just being very badass is not usually enough to make us think a god has the War purview, the Dagda is also strongly associated with the leading of armies (commanded by his magical harp) and the formulation of tactics (which he is even ready to bang the Morrigan to get hold of, because he is serious about this stuff). The Dagda is a leader and a frontline soldier when it comes to the famous pitched battles of the Tuatha, so War seemed a natural fit for him.
And, finally, Sun, which is where John and I started giggling. Again, we're not meaning to pick on you, but - seriously, if a guy holding the sun in place for nine freaking months isn't an example of him having the Sun purview, what the hell is? That's classic power over the sun, very literally changing the span of days and the natural order of the heavens with his own power; it's not even something that he could have been doing with a little Sun, because that right there is some stuff you need The Glory to pull off. He's not one of the charioteering kinds of sun-gods, true, but they're not the only kind of sun-god out there. We can't think of too many better examples of someone having ultimate power over the sun than a guy who refused to let it set for nine straight months until he felt like it. That's mightily epic use of Sun.
So there's our reasoning; the Dagda has nothing to do with pigs and doesn't really bother with guarding much, but he's a badass war commander and is capable of making the sun his bitch for indefinite periods of time.
Enter the Dragon
Question: Do you have any advice for someone wishing to play a Scion of Ryujin? Specifically, what kind of parent would he be (from what I’ve gathered, not a good one)? I have already read your post about what kind of relics he might give, but do you have any more suggestions? And I don’t know if you’ve gotten to the Amatsukami rewrite, but if you haven’t, what associated powers would you give Ryujin (and why do you think he has Moon)?
That's a big old bucket of dragony questions! One thing at a time:
1) Ryujin, as a parent, is a multi-faceted ball of twine. Traditionally, he has a strong interest in his offspring - at least in the story of his daughter's marriage to Hoori - and is likely to be protective of them and cranky if anyone else messes with them without his permission. At the same time, he's notoriously temperamental - see why the jellyfish has no bones - and not overly bright, so while he'll be up in arms if anyone lays a finger on his Scions, said Scions may not be able to expect him to be very nice to them in spite of his protectiveness. Asian sea-dragons - not just Ryujin but other similar figures throughout Japan, Korea and China - tend to be the sorts of dudes who don't really think things through very well and have trouble with complicated concepts, but who have no problem rampaging around murdering people and flooding the countryside if irritated. In short, he acts about like you'd expect a dragon to act, which means he probably isn't going to win any awards for Father of the Year.
2) We did already do a post about Ryujin relics, but if you want specific ideas for stats, we happen to have just statted up a Tide Jewel in our new Reliquary, so feel free to check it out. The Impenetrable Approval of the Ministry of Waters in the same supplement, while intended for use by Chinese Scions, could also be reflavored and used by a Scion of Ryujin.
3) We have not actually done the Amatsukami rewrite yet, so there are still weird associations on his page that came from the original writeup in Scion: God. Moon is a good example; there's no reason whatsoever for Ryujin to have Moon and we're entirely baffled about why it's there, except maybe that whoever wrote him up was thinking that the moon controls the tides and so does Ryujin. But since every sea god is not also a moon god (in fact, very few are both), that's some pretty lame reasoning. Animal (Turtle) is probably similarly a wash - sea turtles are important in Japanese myth, but Ryujin himself seldom appears as one - but the dragon-god's powers of shapeshifting and appearing as various creatures might be best served by Epic Appearance instead. We usually don't like giving sea-gods Animal (Fish) just for living in the ocean, but since Ryujin uses fish as messengers and servants and has been known to do things like summoning every fish in the ocean, he might legitimately be said to have it (perhaps also Animal [Snake], as they're considered his emissaries on earth?). The book gives him all three physical Epic Attributes, doubtless because he's a dragon and dragons are huge, but considering that he was outrun by a human woman in one myth I'd have to say Epic Dexterity isn't his high point, and while he's probably more than formidable in Strength and Stamina, I can't think of any time that he really proves he's a God Of those things, so I'd probably leave them out as well. Of course, Water goes without saying.
This is all pretty conjecture-y, though. As I said, we haven't done our Japanese rewrite yet, and we'll want to do some immersive research on Ryujin and his fellow deities before we make any final calls on associations, so those suggestions above may not be the best possible ones out there. You can definitely make bank on the fact that he does have Water and does not have Moon, though.
4) Our advice to Scions of Ryujin is to be prepared for life to be large and in charge at all times. Your father is a dragon; sometimes that's going to be awesome, but at other times it's going to suck like everything that has ever sucked, and it's never, ever going away. Whether you follow in his toothy footsteps or decide to be the more human face of the seas, the shadow of the vast sea serpent will always be right behind you.
That's a big old bucket of dragony questions! One thing at a time:
1) Ryujin, as a parent, is a multi-faceted ball of twine. Traditionally, he has a strong interest in his offspring - at least in the story of his daughter's marriage to Hoori - and is likely to be protective of them and cranky if anyone else messes with them without his permission. At the same time, he's notoriously temperamental - see why the jellyfish has no bones - and not overly bright, so while he'll be up in arms if anyone lays a finger on his Scions, said Scions may not be able to expect him to be very nice to them in spite of his protectiveness. Asian sea-dragons - not just Ryujin but other similar figures throughout Japan, Korea and China - tend to be the sorts of dudes who don't really think things through very well and have trouble with complicated concepts, but who have no problem rampaging around murdering people and flooding the countryside if irritated. In short, he acts about like you'd expect a dragon to act, which means he probably isn't going to win any awards for Father of the Year.
2) We did already do a post about Ryujin relics, but if you want specific ideas for stats, we happen to have just statted up a Tide Jewel in our new Reliquary, so feel free to check it out. The Impenetrable Approval of the Ministry of Waters in the same supplement, while intended for use by Chinese Scions, could also be reflavored and used by a Scion of Ryujin.
3) We have not actually done the Amatsukami rewrite yet, so there are still weird associations on his page that came from the original writeup in Scion: God. Moon is a good example; there's no reason whatsoever for Ryujin to have Moon and we're entirely baffled about why it's there, except maybe that whoever wrote him up was thinking that the moon controls the tides and so does Ryujin. But since every sea god is not also a moon god (in fact, very few are both), that's some pretty lame reasoning. Animal (Turtle) is probably similarly a wash - sea turtles are important in Japanese myth, but Ryujin himself seldom appears as one - but the dragon-god's powers of shapeshifting and appearing as various creatures might be best served by Epic Appearance instead. We usually don't like giving sea-gods Animal (Fish) just for living in the ocean, but since Ryujin uses fish as messengers and servants and has been known to do things like summoning every fish in the ocean, he might legitimately be said to have it (perhaps also Animal [Snake], as they're considered his emissaries on earth?). The book gives him all three physical Epic Attributes, doubtless because he's a dragon and dragons are huge, but considering that he was outrun by a human woman in one myth I'd have to say Epic Dexterity isn't his high point, and while he's probably more than formidable in Strength and Stamina, I can't think of any time that he really proves he's a God Of those things, so I'd probably leave them out as well. Of course, Water goes without saying.
This is all pretty conjecture-y, though. As I said, we haven't done our Japanese rewrite yet, and we'll want to do some immersive research on Ryujin and his fellow deities before we make any final calls on associations, so those suggestions above may not be the best possible ones out there. You can definitely make bank on the fact that he does have Water and does not have Moon, though.
4) Our advice to Scions of Ryujin is to be prepared for life to be large and in charge at all times. Your father is a dragon; sometimes that's going to be awesome, but at other times it's going to suck like everything that has ever sucked, and it's never, ever going away. Whether you follow in his toothy footsteps or decide to be the more human face of the seas, the shadow of the vast sea serpent will always be right behind you.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
A for Average
Question: About the ambiguity of a score of 2 in an Attribute: in mental Attributes, does 2 mean that a person is relatively smart (not a dumb as a level one, and not as brilliant as a level three?), and how does the 2 translate in the other attributes?
According to Scion's system, an Attribute score of 2 is the human average. That means that a Scion with 2 in an Attribute is about at the level of a normal human; if he has Intelligence 2, he probably graduated from high school or even college and can complete a crossword puzzle if he wants to, but has no grasp of high-level physics and doesn't speak more than a language or two. A Charisma score of 2 means he can make friends normally and people generally listen when he's talking about something they're interested in, but he can't snap an entire room full of people to attention and probably has to date someone for a bit before they might fall in love with him. A Strength score of 2 means he can move his couch and TV into a new apartment with the help of a friend, but he can't bench-press his own weight, and so on.
It looks a little counterintuitive for the 2 to be the average instead of the 3, but keep in mind that you're playing a Scion, not a normal human, so what's "average" for you quickly leaves what's average for humanity behind. Most Scions are generally above average in at least some areas just thanks to their divine blood, even if they haven't been Visited yet.
A useful chart, for those that like useful charts:
Once you get to six regular dots, you've passed the point where even the most incredibly talented humans could compare to you and have moved on into the realm of the supernatural and the divine. And, of course, Epic Attributes speed that up; the usual rule of thumb is that a single success from Epic Attribute is equivalent to two dots of a regular Attribute, so someone with three regular Charisma and one Epic is already at the pinnacle any human could possibly achieve, and if they get a second Epic have left humanity in the dust just as if they had 7 regular dots.
According to Scion's system, an Attribute score of 2 is the human average. That means that a Scion with 2 in an Attribute is about at the level of a normal human; if he has Intelligence 2, he probably graduated from high school or even college and can complete a crossword puzzle if he wants to, but has no grasp of high-level physics and doesn't speak more than a language or two. A Charisma score of 2 means he can make friends normally and people generally listen when he's talking about something they're interested in, but he can't snap an entire room full of people to attention and probably has to date someone for a bit before they might fall in love with him. A Strength score of 2 means he can move his couch and TV into a new apartment with the help of a friend, but he can't bench-press his own weight, and so on.
It looks a little counterintuitive for the 2 to be the average instead of the 3, but keep in mind that you're playing a Scion, not a normal human, so what's "average" for you quickly leaves what's average for humanity behind. Most Scions are generally above average in at least some areas just thanks to their divine blood, even if they haven't been Visited yet.
A useful chart, for those that like useful charts:
| Attribute Score | Approximate Skill Level | 1 | Poor. For physical stats, relatively frail, weak or slow. For social stats, generally ignorable, unnoticeable and unconvincing. For mental stats, dense, slow-witted and unobservant. |
| 2 | Average. For physical stats, can perform normal tasks. For social stats, can function in human society. For mental stats, able to grasp basic concepts and normal ideas easily. |
| 3 | Above average. For physical stats, athletic or physically fit. For social stats, noticeable, convincing and handsome. For mental stats, agile, bright and observant. |
| 4 | Exceptional. For physical stats, a bodybuilder, professional athlete or wilderness survivalist. For social stats, a powerful public speaker, famous model or successful politican. For mental stats, a genius scientist, professional guru or FBI profiler. |
| 5 | Absolute maximum human capability. For physical stats, Arnold Schwarzenegger/Anna Pavlova/Michael Phelps. For social stats, Brad Pitt/Adolf Hitler/Marilyn Monroe/Lord Varys. For mental stats, Albert Einstein/Sherlock Holmes/Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. |
Once you get to six regular dots, you've passed the point where even the most incredibly talented humans could compare to you and have moved on into the realm of the supernatural and the divine. And, of course, Epic Attributes speed that up; the usual rule of thumb is that a single success from Epic Attribute is equivalent to two dots of a regular Attribute, so someone with three regular Charisma and one Epic is already at the pinnacle any human could possibly achieve, and if they get a second Epic have left humanity in the dust just as if they had 7 regular dots.
The Power in the Blood
Question: How do you handle the non-blood sacrifices (precious stones, flowers, etc.) made by the various Mesoamerican civilizations in regards to Itztli?
Though the blood sacrifice is what everyone always remembers, there were various non-human sacrifices throughout ancient Mesoamerica as well, from foodstuffs to flowers to precious metals and stones to artwork. Like the cults of gods in other parts of the world, the worshipers of the Aztec gods knew various little gifts that their deities appreciated, and they were offered up regularly to the gods who were most identified with them. Sometimes this involved burning them; sometimes it just involved donating them to the temple. Echoes of these practices live on even in the modern-day, where distinctly Mesoamerican-flavored Catholic shrines may see many, many offerings of small trinkets or flowers at the feet of various saints and martyrs over the course of a year.
But, aside from the obviously more spectacular nature of blood sacrifice, there's a second reason that the non-human sacrifices are usually less important, and that's the existence of something called chalchiuatl. Loosely translated as "precious water", chalchiuatl is the substance that animates life and it flows through each person's veins; it is literally the power of life, and in the Aztec religion it was believed to only exist in blood (which they understood to be the substance that directly kept living things alive). When the ancient Aztecs engaged in blood sacrifice, they did so in order to offer up the chalchiuatl of that person's blood to the gods, literally giving them some (or all) of that person's power to use for their eternal duties as the sustainers of the universe. Essentially, it's not the act of making any old sacrifice that's most important to the Aztecs, though the concept of sacrifice is certainly deeply ingrained in the culture; it's the act of sacrificing to the gods to give them the power to support their people and the universe, and that power comes only from sacrifices of blood.
So, while there are certainly non-blood sacrifices to the Aztec gods happening, they serve a different purpose from the blood offerings. Like the sacrifices made by many other ancient cultures, non-blood sacrifices are given to gods to please them; they're offered up as a request for blessings, as a way of giving thanks for blessings already granted, or just as a nice measure to tell a god or goddess that they're awesome. Flowers might be offered to Xochiquetzal simply because she likes flowers and the gesture would be appreciated; jade might be given to Tlaloc because he's a rain-god and jade, being strongly associated with rain and water, is sort of "his" anyway. But blood sacrifice is all serious business. It's the sacrifice that powers the world; it's the thing that feeds the gods their power.
So, to answer your question: we don't. Non-blood sacrifices cannot be used with Itztli, because the purview is specifically about drawing on the inherent power of blood sacrifice. It is literally converting chalchiuatl to Legend for Aztlanti gods and Scions, and since non-blood sacrifices have none of that divine energy in them, they can't be used with it. Other sacrifices can still be made by Scions who want to impress their parents or make friends with their pantheon, however, and might be a good opportunity for stunting and fun Mesoamerican flavor.
Though the blood sacrifice is what everyone always remembers, there were various non-human sacrifices throughout ancient Mesoamerica as well, from foodstuffs to flowers to precious metals and stones to artwork. Like the cults of gods in other parts of the world, the worshipers of the Aztec gods knew various little gifts that their deities appreciated, and they were offered up regularly to the gods who were most identified with them. Sometimes this involved burning them; sometimes it just involved donating them to the temple. Echoes of these practices live on even in the modern-day, where distinctly Mesoamerican-flavored Catholic shrines may see many, many offerings of small trinkets or flowers at the feet of various saints and martyrs over the course of a year.
But, aside from the obviously more spectacular nature of blood sacrifice, there's a second reason that the non-human sacrifices are usually less important, and that's the existence of something called chalchiuatl. Loosely translated as "precious water", chalchiuatl is the substance that animates life and it flows through each person's veins; it is literally the power of life, and in the Aztec religion it was believed to only exist in blood (which they understood to be the substance that directly kept living things alive). When the ancient Aztecs engaged in blood sacrifice, they did so in order to offer up the chalchiuatl of that person's blood to the gods, literally giving them some (or all) of that person's power to use for their eternal duties as the sustainers of the universe. Essentially, it's not the act of making any old sacrifice that's most important to the Aztecs, though the concept of sacrifice is certainly deeply ingrained in the culture; it's the act of sacrificing to the gods to give them the power to support their people and the universe, and that power comes only from sacrifices of blood.
So, while there are certainly non-blood sacrifices to the Aztec gods happening, they serve a different purpose from the blood offerings. Like the sacrifices made by many other ancient cultures, non-blood sacrifices are given to gods to please them; they're offered up as a request for blessings, as a way of giving thanks for blessings already granted, or just as a nice measure to tell a god or goddess that they're awesome. Flowers might be offered to Xochiquetzal simply because she likes flowers and the gesture would be appreciated; jade might be given to Tlaloc because he's a rain-god and jade, being strongly associated with rain and water, is sort of "his" anyway. But blood sacrifice is all serious business. It's the sacrifice that powers the world; it's the thing that feeds the gods their power.
So, to answer your question: we don't. Non-blood sacrifices cannot be used with Itztli, because the purview is specifically about drawing on the inherent power of blood sacrifice. It is literally converting chalchiuatl to Legend for Aztlanti gods and Scions, and since non-blood sacrifices have none of that divine energy in them, they can't be used with it. Other sacrifices can still be made by Scions who want to impress their parents or make friends with their pantheon, however, and might be a good opportunity for stunting and fun Mesoamerican flavor.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Storytellers and Tall Tales
Two vlogs in a row! It's like poorly-lit Christmas!
Question: What I love about all the stuff you guys have up here is the fact that you stick to the myths and don't just make things up willy-nilly. But there are some cases where there is no solid answer in myth, such as who the previous eight generations of the Tuatha were. How do you guys deal with things like that when they come into your game? Do you try to deflect inquiry, or do you make the most educated guesses you can?
Question: What do you think happened with Cuahuitlicac? The Centzonhuitzhanua and Coyolxauhqui are probably not happy with him.
Question: There was a scenario on the White Wolf forums about gods of different pantheons but the same purviews (the Morrigan and Ares, Apollo and Amaterasu) having children together. From your point of view, is this possible, especially from the more sexually free gods/goddesses of each pantheon?
Tune in next week, when John's rage will have finally abated. Probably.
Question: What I love about all the stuff you guys have up here is the fact that you stick to the myths and don't just make things up willy-nilly. But there are some cases where there is no solid answer in myth, such as who the previous eight generations of the Tuatha were. How do you guys deal with things like that when they come into your game? Do you try to deflect inquiry, or do you make the most educated guesses you can?
Question: What do you think happened with Cuahuitlicac? The Centzonhuitzhanua and Coyolxauhqui are probably not happy with him.
Question: There was a scenario on the White Wolf forums about gods of different pantheons but the same purviews (the Morrigan and Ares, Apollo and Amaterasu) having children together. From your point of view, is this possible, especially from the more sexually free gods/goddesses of each pantheon?
Tune in next week, when John's rage will have finally abated. Probably.
The Pitter-Patter of Little Feet
Question: False Footsteps - isn't that supposed to be a roll of Dexterity or Wits + Survival? Generally rolls should be Attribute + Ability, and your site lists it as Stealth + Survival...
Ah, hilarious! You're right, that's totally a typo. The roll should actually be Dexterity + Stealth or Survival, reflecting that you can use either depending on the terrain you happen to be covering.
Thanks for the catch; it's been fixed!
Ah, hilarious! You're right, that's totally a typo. The roll should actually be Dexterity + Stealth or Survival, reflecting that you can use either depending on the terrain you happen to be covering.
Thanks for the catch; it's been fixed!
Yezhibaba Rides Tonight
Question: You mention in the Slav sidebar that STs can use the Scion: Companion if they did decide to create a Scion of Baba Yaga, but a lot of the purviews & associated Attributes still seem to contradict the actual myths of Baba Yaga. Seriously, Animal (Chicken)?
We're not going to lie here. We really hate the Slavic material in Scion: Companion.
It's not really the fault of the writers. Slavic mythology is very difficult to find good material on in English; there's a ton of misinformation and modern pagan invention out there muddying up the waters, and since most of the Slavic material was written as example fluff for pantheon-building rather than as a proper pantheon, it probably wasn't a project that had a lot of deep research go into it. There's also the issue of the writers being forced to follow the previously released god-awful adventure in Scion: Demigod, and of the restrictions of the Soviet pantheon in the same supplement forcing a lot of modern imagery and ideas onto the Slavic gods. In short, it's a hot mess that we're not sure anyone could have done a lot better with.
But, like most of the inaccurate writeups, odd fringe god-choices and PSP-clearly-based-on-a-Neil-Gaiman-novel stuff surrounding Scion's "official" treatment of the Slavs, Baba Yaga's writeup and stats in Companion (page 243) really don't make a lot of sense. A lot of her fluff is actually great stuff pulled straight from folklore, but she's been shoehorned into the miserable mess of the Soviet pantheon with a bunch of other figures that she doesn't really belong with, and whomever statted her was clearly just on a mission to give her as many associated powers as possible. Animal (Chicken) is perhaps the most ludicrous choice, and is probably there solely because her hut has chicken feet, but since Baba Yaga herself is horrible but not distinctly poultry-esque, the association is wildly sketchy. Similarly, the association of her with Sky is probably because of her habit of flying about in a mortar and pestle, but since she has little to nothing to do with weather, storms or the air itself, that looks like a pretty clear case of a magical flying relic, not a purview. Baba Yaga's name might be obscurely etymologically connected to a term for illness, but while she does occasionally seem to have connotations of disease, the association is much too light to hand her The Scourge. And while we get the Epic Appearance for her horrible visage, what's with giving the hag who can be outsmarted by normal mortals Ultimate Intelligence?
Basically, we suggested that Storytellers could use the writeup for Baba Yaga in Companion if they wanted to because we strive to keep our new pantheon supplements as compatible with the official material in the books as possible, so that players who don't use our crazy sprawling set of custom rules and powers can get as much use out of them as those who do. We didn't want to do a whole new writeup of Baba Yaga as a playable goddess because the official books already include one, and it seemed most fair to direct people there if they wanted to use it.
But yeah, our recommendation would be to not use it, or at the least to edit it until it makes enough sense to be used.
The Bogovi supplement's writeup on Baba Yaga (on page 30, for those interested) sets her as a Legend 11 goddess and therefore not a traditional choice for a divine parent; her Legend was certainly strong enough to survive to the present day, but she's remembered as a folkloric witch figure and has lost her once-divine background whereas the other Slavic gods are at least still considered deities, so it seemed appropriate to set her slightly below them. You could make the argument, however, that while the other Bogovi are remembered as gods, they have far fewer tales spun about their deeds than does Baba Yaga, so we could definitely see a Storyteller deciding to run with her as Legend 12.
If you did decide to run Baba Yaga as a divine parent, try this associated setup on for size: Manipulation for her powers of bewitchery, Appearance for her terrible visage, Magic for her skill with curses and enchantments and Psychopomp for her role as keeper of the borders between worlds. You might also consider Wits, which she sometimes demonstrates in her ability to snare her prey through quick thinking despite being demonstrably not overly bright, or Strength, for the stories of her ironclad grip and terrible physical prowess. Companion also suggests Chaos, which, while not one we would have chosen out of the hat, probably makes more sense than everything else it suggests. For abilities, I'd suggest Animal Ken, Athletics, Fortitude, Occult, Presence Survival. Or, if you're feeling particularly whimsical, Control (Mortar & Pestle).
We're not going to lie here. We really hate the Slavic material in Scion: Companion.
It's not really the fault of the writers. Slavic mythology is very difficult to find good material on in English; there's a ton of misinformation and modern pagan invention out there muddying up the waters, and since most of the Slavic material was written as example fluff for pantheon-building rather than as a proper pantheon, it probably wasn't a project that had a lot of deep research go into it. There's also the issue of the writers being forced to follow the previously released god-awful adventure in Scion: Demigod, and of the restrictions of the Soviet pantheon in the same supplement forcing a lot of modern imagery and ideas onto the Slavic gods. In short, it's a hot mess that we're not sure anyone could have done a lot better with.
But, like most of the inaccurate writeups, odd fringe god-choices and PSP-clearly-based-on-a-Neil-Gaiman-novel stuff surrounding Scion's "official" treatment of the Slavs, Baba Yaga's writeup and stats in Companion (page 243) really don't make a lot of sense. A lot of her fluff is actually great stuff pulled straight from folklore, but she's been shoehorned into the miserable mess of the Soviet pantheon with a bunch of other figures that she doesn't really belong with, and whomever statted her was clearly just on a mission to give her as many associated powers as possible. Animal (Chicken) is perhaps the most ludicrous choice, and is probably there solely because her hut has chicken feet, but since Baba Yaga herself is horrible but not distinctly poultry-esque, the association is wildly sketchy. Similarly, the association of her with Sky is probably because of her habit of flying about in a mortar and pestle, but since she has little to nothing to do with weather, storms or the air itself, that looks like a pretty clear case of a magical flying relic, not a purview. Baba Yaga's name might be obscurely etymologically connected to a term for illness, but while she does occasionally seem to have connotations of disease, the association is much too light to hand her The Scourge. And while we get the Epic Appearance for her horrible visage, what's with giving the hag who can be outsmarted by normal mortals Ultimate Intelligence?
Basically, we suggested that Storytellers could use the writeup for Baba Yaga in Companion if they wanted to because we strive to keep our new pantheon supplements as compatible with the official material in the books as possible, so that players who don't use our crazy sprawling set of custom rules and powers can get as much use out of them as those who do. We didn't want to do a whole new writeup of Baba Yaga as a playable goddess because the official books already include one, and it seemed most fair to direct people there if they wanted to use it.
But yeah, our recommendation would be to not use it, or at the least to edit it until it makes enough sense to be used.
The Bogovi supplement's writeup on Baba Yaga (on page 30, for those interested) sets her as a Legend 11 goddess and therefore not a traditional choice for a divine parent; her Legend was certainly strong enough to survive to the present day, but she's remembered as a folkloric witch figure and has lost her once-divine background whereas the other Slavic gods are at least still considered deities, so it seemed appropriate to set her slightly below them. You could make the argument, however, that while the other Bogovi are remembered as gods, they have far fewer tales spun about their deeds than does Baba Yaga, so we could definitely see a Storyteller deciding to run with her as Legend 12.
If you did decide to run Baba Yaga as a divine parent, try this associated setup on for size: Manipulation for her powers of bewitchery, Appearance for her terrible visage, Magic for her skill with curses and enchantments and Psychopomp for her role as keeper of the borders between worlds. You might also consider Wits, which she sometimes demonstrates in her ability to snare her prey through quick thinking despite being demonstrably not overly bright, or Strength, for the stories of her ironclad grip and terrible physical prowess. Companion also suggests Chaos, which, while not one we would have chosen out of the hat, probably makes more sense than everything else it suggests. For abilities, I'd suggest Animal Ken, Athletics, Fortitude, Occult, Presence Survival. Or, if you're feeling particularly whimsical, Control (Mortar & Pestle).
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Birthrights! Get Your Birthrights!
It's a day or two late for our Thanksgiving deadline target, but better a day or two late than never! The Reliquary is now available for download as a PDF.
It contains plenty of sample Birthrights in all categories, examples of how to upgrade Birthrights over the life of a Scion, and, of course, a few of the Great Big Relics of the mythological gods, just as requested. Hopefully it'll have something for everybody, since everybody certainly pulled together to give us suggestions and requests!
Our next project will be brushing up the Bogovi, our Slavic pantheon, and adding them to the site so that they're easy to access and readily available for anyone who would like to play with them. In the meantime, the poll for next project has been reset; go forth and vote, because we're still riding high on the adrenaline of finishing a long haul and we literally think we can do everything right about now.
And now, off to shovel the house into decent working order, because we've got a game to run!
It contains plenty of sample Birthrights in all categories, examples of how to upgrade Birthrights over the life of a Scion, and, of course, a few of the Great Big Relics of the mythological gods, just as requested. Hopefully it'll have something for everybody, since everybody certainly pulled together to give us suggestions and requests!
Our next project will be brushing up the Bogovi, our Slavic pantheon, and adding them to the site so that they're easy to access and readily available for anyone who would like to play with them. In the meantime, the poll for next project has been reset; go forth and vote, because we're still riding high on the adrenaline of finishing a long haul and we literally think we can do everything right about now.
And now, off to shovel the house into decent working order, because we've got a game to run!
Deeds of Derring-Do
Question: Should Legendary Deeds be reserved? Or do you let players use them willy-nilly?
Honestly, how much of a premium you place on Legendary Deeds really depends almost completely on how long your stories run.
To begin with, we usually don't restrict players from using their Legendary Deeds unless they have absolutely no idea why what they're doing is cooler than usual. We're more likely to appreciate a Legendary Deed that is saved for a truly epic moment instead of just a convenient boost to make a roll succeed, and we're always going to award more dice for a cool stunt than just, "well, I really need to win, so I guess I'm Deeding this roll". If a player really wants to blow their deeds on lockpicking rolls to rob a safe or on a Charisma roll to convince an airline operator to give them a free flight, they can certainly do so. They're probably going to regret it later when they can't use a Deed to do something extremely difficult and urgent or when their smaller-roll Deeds result in a bunch of Fatebonds who think of them as the god of truck-driving or something, but we won't stop them if that's what they choose to do.
But whether or not a character runs out of Legendary Deeds is mostly a function of how long the story is. Deeds refresh every story, so if your story lasts only a session or two, I'd expect players to blow their Deeds like candy at every opportunity, while if your stories last for twenty-session marathons they're going to need to hoard them jealously or find that they've run dry long before they have any hope of getting them back. If your story lengths are fairly consistent, most players will probably figure out how much they want or need to reserve their Deeds within the first couple of stories.
Generally, reserving or blowing Legendary Deeds mostly depends on the player's personality. Some players are excited about Legendary Deeds and will use them all over the place until they run dry, and will then struggle through the rest of the story doing without; some players are incredibly conservative and end up wasting unspent Deeds because they're afraid of running out, which can be a problem in the other direction, and some players manage to find a good balance in between. We occasionally remind players who are blowing a lot of Deeds at the beginning of the story that they might want to keep in mind that they have a long way to go, but in the end it's always the player's choice.
And if they don't have a Legendary Deed left to make that crucial roll to escape certain death, well... they're the ones who decided something else was more important. Channel a Virtue, blow a Willpower for an automatic success, or just roll the dice and hope for the best.
Honestly, how much of a premium you place on Legendary Deeds really depends almost completely on how long your stories run.
To begin with, we usually don't restrict players from using their Legendary Deeds unless they have absolutely no idea why what they're doing is cooler than usual. We're more likely to appreciate a Legendary Deed that is saved for a truly epic moment instead of just a convenient boost to make a roll succeed, and we're always going to award more dice for a cool stunt than just, "well, I really need to win, so I guess I'm Deeding this roll". If a player really wants to blow their deeds on lockpicking rolls to rob a safe or on a Charisma roll to convince an airline operator to give them a free flight, they can certainly do so. They're probably going to regret it later when they can't use a Deed to do something extremely difficult and urgent or when their smaller-roll Deeds result in a bunch of Fatebonds who think of them as the god of truck-driving or something, but we won't stop them if that's what they choose to do.
But whether or not a character runs out of Legendary Deeds is mostly a function of how long the story is. Deeds refresh every story, so if your story lasts only a session or two, I'd expect players to blow their Deeds like candy at every opportunity, while if your stories last for twenty-session marathons they're going to need to hoard them jealously or find that they've run dry long before they have any hope of getting them back. If your story lengths are fairly consistent, most players will probably figure out how much they want or need to reserve their Deeds within the first couple of stories.
Generally, reserving or blowing Legendary Deeds mostly depends on the player's personality. Some players are excited about Legendary Deeds and will use them all over the place until they run dry, and will then struggle through the rest of the story doing without; some players are incredibly conservative and end up wasting unspent Deeds because they're afraid of running out, which can be a problem in the other direction, and some players manage to find a good balance in between. We occasionally remind players who are blowing a lot of Deeds at the beginning of the story that they might want to keep in mind that they have a long way to go, but in the end it's always the player's choice.
And if they don't have a Legendary Deed left to make that crucial roll to escape certain death, well... they're the ones who decided something else was more important. Channel a Virtue, blow a Willpower for an automatic success, or just roll the dice and hope for the best.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Immortal and Immovable
Question: Why can gods die? It seems like it would make more sense and be more dramatic if they were immortal entities who have to be captured or convinced just like Titans.
I'm a little bit with you my friend, because the truth is that I tend to love the gods as characters, and I hate to see one go down in a game and no longer be around to trail his or her awesomeness all over the landscape. I shed a little tear whenever a god dies, and when I see other peoples' games in which a plethora of deities have kicked the bucket, I always have a little knee-jerk horrified reaction at the idea that all those cool characters and their awesome plot hooks aren't around anymore.
But gods can die, and gods should die, and it makes much more sense that way than for them to be truly indestructible. To have a really useful conversation about gods and why they have to be able to shuffle off their not so mortal coils, we have to leave Greek mythology by the wayside for a bit; we all know and love them, but the Greek gods have the very singular honor in world mythology of being considered truly immortal by their worshipers. It's probably largely because they're the most well-known pantheon to most Scion players that the idea of widespread immortality seems natural (along with a healthy dollop of modern religious theory, in which the Big Monotheistic Godmonsters are of course entirely endless and indestructible).
But there are far, far, far more gods - both in the world of mythology and in Scion - that are not Greek than are, and with the notable exceptions of a few Stamina monsters, they are decidedly not immune to death. Gods die in mythological tales all the time; they give their lives for their people, or they fall in battle, or they betray and kill one another, and on and on and on. Gods don't die easily - they are, after all, gods - but they do die when it's appropriate, and it's important that they do so because their deaths usually serve necessary symbolic and mythic purposes. Guys like Adonis or Baal have to die in order to be resurrected, to mirror the cycle of death and rebirth that the world undergoes every winter. Guys like Osiris have to die to illustrate the concepts of betrayal and treason, forever doomed to the underworld by the actions of the unjust, while guys like Hod have to die to show that there are serious consequences for the betrayers as well as the betrayed and that justice can always find the wicked. Izanami has to die because the powers of death are not always available to or desired by the living and someone has to do the job, and Gugalanna has to die to illustrate the consequences of pride and in-fighting. Their deaths aren't random events that disrupt the story; they're extremely important parts of a story that without them wouldn't have as much meaning.
Death is and always has been a huge, important theme across all world myths, and that's mirrored by the fact that gods can and do die. They don't die spontaneously, like the wretched hordes of humanity, nor do they die often or easily, but they still do die if circumstances warrant it. And they die because, as the mirrors of humanity and the stories told and retold to reflect a culture's values and ideals, they must address and explain death just like they do everything else in the universe.
There are, of course, always loopholes. There are a few cultures, like the Greeks, that do consider their gods literally indestructible, and while that isn't true within the Scion framework because it would be horribly unfair to all other pantheons, it's still an idea that pops up now and then. Death gods sometimes manage to die but still remain active, putting them in a sort of "half-life" state in which their actions can still affect the world of the living but they are for the most part chained to the land of the dead. Some gods die and are later resurrected, as part of an illustrative cycle of death and rebirth. Scion provides rules and ways that all these things can happen within the setting and still make sense with one another.
But sometimes gods die, and they stay dead, permanently and forever. Sometimes they have to in order for the myth to make sense. Stories can't always end with all the heroes alive, and what are myths but the first stories upon which all the later ones are based?
So no, gods being unable to die wouldn't make more sense in Scion; just the opposite, in fact. The idea would invalidate some of their myths and steal the dramatic punch away from those rare times that a god does become deceased. Of course killing them should never be easy, but it also shouldn't be impossible; if a god can never die, his resurrection is meaningless, and if a goddess can never die, there's no courage in her incredible feats. Death is no longer a great and terrible consequence, a rite of incredible importance or a cosmic constant that even divinity can't always avoid. It's been demoted to the level of inconvenience.
That's not to say that gods should drop like flies, either, of course. They're hard to kill, and when they die it's a Big Fucking Deal and the divine and mortal worlds should respond accordingly. And even if a god does die, that doesn't mean he or she has to stay down; resurrecting a full-blown god is a lot harder than just jaunting down into Hades to pick up Eurydice, but it can still happen (and has, in our games!). And you also shouldn't have to feel like the fact that gods can die means that that's always the go-to solution for dealing with them; divine politics makes it an incredibly bad idea for other gods (or even some Titan Avatars, if they're trying to avoid multiple hostile fronts or ill-prepared to deal with the consequences) to kill gods outright, and gods are often just as useful to their enemies alive as dead. Very often they do need to be cajoled, tricked, trapped or otherwise non-lethally controlled; the fact that they can die doesn't mean that's the only approach anyone can take.
Gods - and the Scions who will become them - need the possibility of death. It's an important part of their universe and it allows for more dramatic possibilities, meaningful moments and motivation to succeed than you would have without it. Everything you can do with a Titan you can also do with a god, but gods have that possibility of death and consequence where the Titans do not. It's one of the things that makes them closer to humanity and each other than their disconnected, monstrous forbears; death always matters, and the death of a god matters that much more.
I'm a little bit with you my friend, because the truth is that I tend to love the gods as characters, and I hate to see one go down in a game and no longer be around to trail his or her awesomeness all over the landscape. I shed a little tear whenever a god dies, and when I see other peoples' games in which a plethora of deities have kicked the bucket, I always have a little knee-jerk horrified reaction at the idea that all those cool characters and their awesome plot hooks aren't around anymore.
But gods can die, and gods should die, and it makes much more sense that way than for them to be truly indestructible. To have a really useful conversation about gods and why they have to be able to shuffle off their not so mortal coils, we have to leave Greek mythology by the wayside for a bit; we all know and love them, but the Greek gods have the very singular honor in world mythology of being considered truly immortal by their worshipers. It's probably largely because they're the most well-known pantheon to most Scion players that the idea of widespread immortality seems natural (along with a healthy dollop of modern religious theory, in which the Big Monotheistic Godmonsters are of course entirely endless and indestructible).
But there are far, far, far more gods - both in the world of mythology and in Scion - that are not Greek than are, and with the notable exceptions of a few Stamina monsters, they are decidedly not immune to death. Gods die in mythological tales all the time; they give their lives for their people, or they fall in battle, or they betray and kill one another, and on and on and on. Gods don't die easily - they are, after all, gods - but they do die when it's appropriate, and it's important that they do so because their deaths usually serve necessary symbolic and mythic purposes. Guys like Adonis or Baal have to die in order to be resurrected, to mirror the cycle of death and rebirth that the world undergoes every winter. Guys like Osiris have to die to illustrate the concepts of betrayal and treason, forever doomed to the underworld by the actions of the unjust, while guys like Hod have to die to show that there are serious consequences for the betrayers as well as the betrayed and that justice can always find the wicked. Izanami has to die because the powers of death are not always available to or desired by the living and someone has to do the job, and Gugalanna has to die to illustrate the consequences of pride and in-fighting. Their deaths aren't random events that disrupt the story; they're extremely important parts of a story that without them wouldn't have as much meaning.
Death is and always has been a huge, important theme across all world myths, and that's mirrored by the fact that gods can and do die. They don't die spontaneously, like the wretched hordes of humanity, nor do they die often or easily, but they still do die if circumstances warrant it. And they die because, as the mirrors of humanity and the stories told and retold to reflect a culture's values and ideals, they must address and explain death just like they do everything else in the universe.
There are, of course, always loopholes. There are a few cultures, like the Greeks, that do consider their gods literally indestructible, and while that isn't true within the Scion framework because it would be horribly unfair to all other pantheons, it's still an idea that pops up now and then. Death gods sometimes manage to die but still remain active, putting them in a sort of "half-life" state in which their actions can still affect the world of the living but they are for the most part chained to the land of the dead. Some gods die and are later resurrected, as part of an illustrative cycle of death and rebirth. Scion provides rules and ways that all these things can happen within the setting and still make sense with one another.
But sometimes gods die, and they stay dead, permanently and forever. Sometimes they have to in order for the myth to make sense. Stories can't always end with all the heroes alive, and what are myths but the first stories upon which all the later ones are based?
So no, gods being unable to die wouldn't make more sense in Scion; just the opposite, in fact. The idea would invalidate some of their myths and steal the dramatic punch away from those rare times that a god does become deceased. Of course killing them should never be easy, but it also shouldn't be impossible; if a god can never die, his resurrection is meaningless, and if a goddess can never die, there's no courage in her incredible feats. Death is no longer a great and terrible consequence, a rite of incredible importance or a cosmic constant that even divinity can't always avoid. It's been demoted to the level of inconvenience.
That's not to say that gods should drop like flies, either, of course. They're hard to kill, and when they die it's a Big Fucking Deal and the divine and mortal worlds should respond accordingly. And even if a god does die, that doesn't mean he or she has to stay down; resurrecting a full-blown god is a lot harder than just jaunting down into Hades to pick up Eurydice, but it can still happen (and has, in our games!). And you also shouldn't have to feel like the fact that gods can die means that that's always the go-to solution for dealing with them; divine politics makes it an incredibly bad idea for other gods (or even some Titan Avatars, if they're trying to avoid multiple hostile fronts or ill-prepared to deal with the consequences) to kill gods outright, and gods are often just as useful to their enemies alive as dead. Very often they do need to be cajoled, tricked, trapped or otherwise non-lethally controlled; the fact that they can die doesn't mean that's the only approach anyone can take.
Gods - and the Scions who will become them - need the possibility of death. It's an important part of their universe and it allows for more dramatic possibilities, meaningful moments and motivation to succeed than you would have without it. Everything you can do with a Titan you can also do with a god, but gods have that possibility of death and consequence where the Titans do not. It's one of the things that makes them closer to humanity and each other than their disconnected, monstrous forbears; death always matters, and the death of a god matters that much more.
ADORABLE!
Huge thanks to Belltrap for sending us these AMAZING little critters!
Check out the dudes tumbler at the bottom for more art(baby griffin and cockatrice).
http://inwardscreams.tumblr.com/post/35796179924/dragons-dogma-chimera-griffin-cockatrice-cubs
With Mind Bullets!
Question: Why is Telepathy an Intelligence knack? Seems to me that projecting thoughts with your powerful brain is not really from mythology, and has its roots in modern ESP claims and mentalism. I get that it can be cool and thematic to "speak without speaking," but that seems less like a "my brain is huge" situation than "I have a potent and imposing divine presence" (which would say to me: possibly a Charisma knack, or maybe just a regular feature of being a god). The same goes for Grant Visions, etc.
Whether or not Telepathy fits mythically depends entirely on which direction you approach it from, I think, and part of the problem is its name; "telepathy" is very specifically a modern word invented to describe the idea of paranormal activity in modern terms, which of course makes most of us think of science fiction or crazy pseudo-psychiatrists in the nineteenth century. "Telepathy" makes us think of the kids from Akira, the Jedi mentalists of Star Wars, Professor X from X-Men or the bald children from The Matrix. And under those terms, it's easy to see why it doesn't feel like it belongs in the same category as the myths of the ancient and all-powerful gods. Compared to driving the sun around in a chariot, that kid from Heroes is very small, very modern, very science-fictiony potatoes.
But telepathy does happen in ancient myth; it just isn't called that, and doesn't always occur in the same way that modern science fiction uses it. Gods frequently communicate divinely with their worshipers (or with other gods, who also sometimes call on each other) without actually doing so physically, most often in order to respond to prayer; of course, the mortals are praying to talk to the god, but the god certainly isn't praying back. Sometimes a god just shows up in person to talk directly to a worshiper (praying to Devas, in particular, seems to be like just going out and putting out the welcome mat to invite them over for coffee), but just as often they merely answer through unexplained eldritch means, as disembodied or internal voices, or simply as "and then God X answered him the following". If you add in the concept of granting visions, you'll see the idea abound - sometimes it's to designated oracles, which would be more accurately covered by Prophecy, but often it's in a distinctly non-oracular setting, from Arjuna being granted a vision of Vishnu's full glory by his earthly avatar Krishna to the knights of the round table receiving visions of the Holy Grail.
Not that visions and communication from gods or other beings always need to be mind-to-mind, since like most things in Scion there are multiple ways to do what you want. But it's definitely a legitimate idea for a divine power; it's merely one that's also been approached in the modern day by the scientific and speculative fiction communities.
Which brings us back around to Intelligence! While it's true that the knack's placement under Intelligence by the original authors was probably mostly due to Telepathy's modern connotations of being a psychic power motivated by the power of the mind, we've kept it there because as far as we can tell there really isn't anywhere better for it to go. It's not really about the god's force of presence; Telepathy can be used even if the god is successfully hiding from the person he's talking to, and it's definitely something that has to do first and foremost with communication, not with just being impressive at people (Charisma people usually tend to just have in-person conversations; Telepathy would be gilding their lily a bit). Hear Prayers comes from Perception, but Telepathy clearly isn't about perceiving things but rather acting upon them. It's not really Manipulation, it doesn't have anything to do with Wits, the physical Attributes are right out, and there really aren't any purviews it could fall under except possibly for Magic, but trying to parlay it into some kind of Fate-related thing is a bit of a stretch.
So it has remained in Intelligence largely because, while it isn't a perfect fit, it is still the best place we thought it made sense. And while we don't want to accidentally invoke more visions of people with hypnotism wheels and bent spoons or anything, it's not actually entirely invalid to think of Telepathy as a mental power, even in mythic terms. The idea of The Power of the Mind is certainly a modern one when applied to mortals, but the idea that a god's mind is so powerful that it can simply overwhelm and communicate with those of others without the barriers of bodies interfering isn't all that dissonant. You probably could move it to Charisma if you really wanted to, but we think the fit is worse.
I have to wonder if we would get this question quite so much if the power were called something less evocative of science fiction, like "Communion". We have occasionally considered changing its name, but we've always decided not to bother; it's a little annoying sometimes, but the word "telepathy" tells players immediately, simply and perfectly exactly what the power does, so we figure if it ain't really broke, we probably shouldn't worry too much about fixing it.
Whether or not Telepathy fits mythically depends entirely on which direction you approach it from, I think, and part of the problem is its name; "telepathy" is very specifically a modern word invented to describe the idea of paranormal activity in modern terms, which of course makes most of us think of science fiction or crazy pseudo-psychiatrists in the nineteenth century. "Telepathy" makes us think of the kids from Akira, the Jedi mentalists of Star Wars, Professor X from X-Men or the bald children from The Matrix. And under those terms, it's easy to see why it doesn't feel like it belongs in the same category as the myths of the ancient and all-powerful gods. Compared to driving the sun around in a chariot, that kid from Heroes is very small, very modern, very science-fictiony potatoes.
But telepathy does happen in ancient myth; it just isn't called that, and doesn't always occur in the same way that modern science fiction uses it. Gods frequently communicate divinely with their worshipers (or with other gods, who also sometimes call on each other) without actually doing so physically, most often in order to respond to prayer; of course, the mortals are praying to talk to the god, but the god certainly isn't praying back. Sometimes a god just shows up in person to talk directly to a worshiper (praying to Devas, in particular, seems to be like just going out and putting out the welcome mat to invite them over for coffee), but just as often they merely answer through unexplained eldritch means, as disembodied or internal voices, or simply as "and then God X answered him the following". If you add in the concept of granting visions, you'll see the idea abound - sometimes it's to designated oracles, which would be more accurately covered by Prophecy, but often it's in a distinctly non-oracular setting, from Arjuna being granted a vision of Vishnu's full glory by his earthly avatar Krishna to the knights of the round table receiving visions of the Holy Grail.
Not that visions and communication from gods or other beings always need to be mind-to-mind, since like most things in Scion there are multiple ways to do what you want. But it's definitely a legitimate idea for a divine power; it's merely one that's also been approached in the modern day by the scientific and speculative fiction communities.
Which brings us back around to Intelligence! While it's true that the knack's placement under Intelligence by the original authors was probably mostly due to Telepathy's modern connotations of being a psychic power motivated by the power of the mind, we've kept it there because as far as we can tell there really isn't anywhere better for it to go. It's not really about the god's force of presence; Telepathy can be used even if the god is successfully hiding from the person he's talking to, and it's definitely something that has to do first and foremost with communication, not with just being impressive at people (Charisma people usually tend to just have in-person conversations; Telepathy would be gilding their lily a bit). Hear Prayers comes from Perception, but Telepathy clearly isn't about perceiving things but rather acting upon them. It's not really Manipulation, it doesn't have anything to do with Wits, the physical Attributes are right out, and there really aren't any purviews it could fall under except possibly for Magic, but trying to parlay it into some kind of Fate-related thing is a bit of a stretch.
So it has remained in Intelligence largely because, while it isn't a perfect fit, it is still the best place we thought it made sense. And while we don't want to accidentally invoke more visions of people with hypnotism wheels and bent spoons or anything, it's not actually entirely invalid to think of Telepathy as a mental power, even in mythic terms. The idea of The Power of the Mind is certainly a modern one when applied to mortals, but the idea that a god's mind is so powerful that it can simply overwhelm and communicate with those of others without the barriers of bodies interfering isn't all that dissonant. You probably could move it to Charisma if you really wanted to, but we think the fit is worse.
I have to wonder if we would get this question quite so much if the power were called something less evocative of science fiction, like "Communion". We have occasionally considered changing its name, but we've always decided not to bother; it's a little annoying sometimes, but the word "telepathy" tells players immediately, simply and perfectly exactly what the power does, so we figure if it ain't really broke, we probably shouldn't worry too much about fixing it.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Opinions Run Amok
In celebration of the holiday that gives us much more time to run around our house waving books and yelling about sourcing, and to make up for the lack of vlog earlier this week when we were sick, here's a super extra-long vlog. It's like a double-feature, except it's just us waving our arms and shouting about the same subject for forty minutes.
Our question today was a loaded one, so maybe it's not too surprising.
Question: In your opinion, how much of the core books should you actually listen to and use?
See? Shit. We could have spent hours more answering that - all the things we like, all the things we don't like, all the things we find completely fucking nuts about the original game material, and so on. So you guys are pretty lucky that we did a quick and dirty of only most of an hour.
If anyone was feeling a distinct lack of time to enjoy watching John yell about stuff, we've just filled that void in your life.
Our question today was a loaded one, so maybe it's not too surprising.
Question: In your opinion, how much of the core books should you actually listen to and use?
See? Shit. We could have spent hours more answering that - all the things we like, all the things we don't like, all the things we find completely fucking nuts about the original game material, and so on. So you guys are pretty lucky that we did a quick and dirty of only most of an hour.
If anyone was feeling a distinct lack of time to enjoy watching John yell about stuff, we've just filled that void in your life.
Ye Many Beasts
Question: When a relic comes with the Animal purview attached to it, can that relic be used to channel any Animal boons that you have purchased?
Nope. You'll need a different Animal relic for each different animal you have - or you'll need more than one dot of Animal purviews on the same relic, either one. Because we treat Animal as a specialized purview, not a general one, your specialization applies to your relic as well; you'll never have a relic with Animal on it, but rather one with Animal (Jaguar) or Animal (Bear) or whatever your totem happens to be. If you want to then go ahead and pick up Animal (Shark), you'll need a relic with that on it to get the full benefits of the purview.
You may occasionally see a Birthright on one of our players' sheets that simply says it has "Animal". That doesn't actually mean that they have a relic with unspecialized Animal, however - it's just a space-saving measure so they have more room to write about the other things the relic does. Vala's sheet doesn't really need to say Animal (Raven); we all know what her animal totem is. You probably don't need to bother with always writing it out unless you're heavily invested in multiple animals.
Of course, once your Scion is a Demigod, he can pick up other animals without needing a relic to use those boons as long as he's willing to accept the disadvantages of doing so. We've found that most Scions don't pick up a second or third animal until Demigod anyway, which is the point that most characters start branching out and exploring new purviews.
As always, there are as many ways to run Animal out there as there are individual Storytellers, it seems. All the Animal stuff you'll see on our site is balanced and optimized for a single-totem way of running the purview, but various other games may do it differently, so make sure you always check in with your Storyteller to see what he or she allows.
Nope. You'll need a different Animal relic for each different animal you have - or you'll need more than one dot of Animal purviews on the same relic, either one. Because we treat Animal as a specialized purview, not a general one, your specialization applies to your relic as well; you'll never have a relic with Animal on it, but rather one with Animal (Jaguar) or Animal (Bear) or whatever your totem happens to be. If you want to then go ahead and pick up Animal (Shark), you'll need a relic with that on it to get the full benefits of the purview.
You may occasionally see a Birthright on one of our players' sheets that simply says it has "Animal". That doesn't actually mean that they have a relic with unspecialized Animal, however - it's just a space-saving measure so they have more room to write about the other things the relic does. Vala's sheet doesn't really need to say Animal (Raven); we all know what her animal totem is. You probably don't need to bother with always writing it out unless you're heavily invested in multiple animals.
Of course, once your Scion is a Demigod, he can pick up other animals without needing a relic to use those boons as long as he's willing to accept the disadvantages of doing so. We've found that most Scions don't pick up a second or third animal until Demigod anyway, which is the point that most characters start branching out and exploring new purviews.
As always, there are as many ways to run Animal out there as there are individual Storytellers, it seems. All the Animal stuff you'll see on our site is balanced and optimized for a single-totem way of running the purview, but various other games may do it differently, so make sure you always check in with your Storyteller to see what he or she allows.
Baktun Basics
Question: With December 21 on the way, what are your opinions on the 2012 hype? I was into it for a little when it was about a transition to a more enlightened age, but now all the apocalyptic stuff used to sell books and and movies seems like a different flavor of the Left Behind series.
Sigh. I seriously cannot wait for 2013 when we can stop hearing this question.
The 2012 hype is exactly that: hype, and nothing else. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Maya myth or ancient religion; it has nothing to do with the Maya gods or indeed anything happening in their spiritual universe. It has nothing to do with anything, because the concept of the world ending on December 21st, 2012 because that's the end of a particular example of the Long Count calendar is completely made up.
As far as anyone in the world can tell, the Maya didn't have the slightest inclination toward thinking that the world was going to end in 2012. That idea was invented by modern people who, seeing that the most famous of the Long Counts ended in 2012, were confused and theorized that this must mean that the Maya thought time itself was ending then. Of course, they didn't; like many other religious motifs in ancient Maya culture, the calendar is cyclical, meaning that when you get to the end of it, you just start over at the beginning again. Maya calendars - in fact, Mesoamerican calendars in general - are almost always round and cyclical in this way, and the idea that for some reason the end of one of the Long Counts signifies the end of the world when the ending of bazillions of other round calendars doesn't is more than a little silly.
And even if you do subscribe to the theory that the Maya believed that the Fourth World would end at the end of the calendrical cycle, that isn't now. December 21st is just the end of a baktun, a period of roughly 394 years; those theories generally refer to the end of the piktun, a period of 7,885 years, of which a baktun is only a twentieth. So if you want to worry about the Maya-forecasted end of the universe, you have plenty of time to do so before it hits in approximately the year 4772.
But I wouldn't hold my breath. The piktun is far from the largest unit of time measurement in the highly complex Mesoamerican calendar, examples of which have been known to measure time in monolithic spans of millions and millions of years; the piktun is seriously small potatoes when compared to the kinchiltun (about 3.2 million years) or the alautun (about 63.1 million years). Mesoamerican calendars have been found that are orders of magnitude further in the future than December 21st of this year, and it would be pretty silly for a culture that thought their world was going to end to bother making calendars that included dates after that time.
Okay, I think I'm done now. Sometimes the Mesoamerican ranting needs to be free. Sorry.
But back to Scion! The modern myth of December 21st, while it has no grounding in ancient Maya myth, could still be used in your games if you want to explore it. It might be a ruse designed to distract attention from something else; it might be that no prophesied event was scheduled then, but that some mischievous god or Titan with a sense of the ironic is planning to spring their Evil Plot on that day just for the dramatic potential; it might be that gods use the imminent "disaster" as an excuse to get Scions and other gods who don't know any better to do things for them; it might even be that some of the less bright gods have been confused into believing the urban legend themselves. The Maya gods probably have little to no concern over the routine end of a baktun, something they've seen many times before, but that doesn't mean that their Scions will share their nonchalance or that someone unsavory won't attempt to make the hearsay a reality.
Maya myth, like its calendars, tends to be cyclical; worlds do eventually end and restart, just as they do for the Aztecs, and while there may not be any "schedule" for this, that doesn't mean that the Maya gods are unaware of the ever-present possibility. The worry that the world might theoretically end at any moment is just as real for them as it is for other pantheons with similar ideas, like the Devas, Aztlanti or Pesedjet; depending on which scholars you prefer to believe, the only difference is that they might or might not have a generally set timebound way of knowing when that's about to happen. If you have Mesoamerican Scions in the game, exploring the repetition of cyclical myths and the possibility of a new world are always awesome places to go, and you can use the 2012 mania as a sort of gateway to get them there, whether because they have to learn what it's all about or find a way to debunk it or discover that someone is trying to make it happen after all.
So, in general, we don't have any thoughts on December 21, 2012; it's the start of a new baktun, so there will probably be a lot of partying and chanting and sacrifices to the gods, but that's probably the extent of it. Everyone will roll their calendars over to one side, food and drink will be had all around, and unless you're running a chronicle that's distinctly Maya-heavy, I don't know that anything else really needs to happen unless your plot calls for it to.
We leave you with this last tidbit for further thought: the Maya and Aztec pantheons share a few gods in common and both have similar concepts of cyclical time and successive worlds. The Maya, during their heyday, believed that they were in the Fourth World, but their empire collapsed due to mysterious causes. About three hundred years later, the Aztec empire rose to prominence with meteoric speed, and they claimed they were living in the Fifth World. Food for Mesoamerican god-political thought, indeed.
Sigh. I seriously cannot wait for 2013 when we can stop hearing this question.
The 2012 hype is exactly that: hype, and nothing else. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Maya myth or ancient religion; it has nothing to do with the Maya gods or indeed anything happening in their spiritual universe. It has nothing to do with anything, because the concept of the world ending on December 21st, 2012 because that's the end of a particular example of the Long Count calendar is completely made up.
As far as anyone in the world can tell, the Maya didn't have the slightest inclination toward thinking that the world was going to end in 2012. That idea was invented by modern people who, seeing that the most famous of the Long Counts ended in 2012, were confused and theorized that this must mean that the Maya thought time itself was ending then. Of course, they didn't; like many other religious motifs in ancient Maya culture, the calendar is cyclical, meaning that when you get to the end of it, you just start over at the beginning again. Maya calendars - in fact, Mesoamerican calendars in general - are almost always round and cyclical in this way, and the idea that for some reason the end of one of the Long Counts signifies the end of the world when the ending of bazillions of other round calendars doesn't is more than a little silly.
And even if you do subscribe to the theory that the Maya believed that the Fourth World would end at the end of the calendrical cycle, that isn't now. December 21st is just the end of a baktun, a period of roughly 394 years; those theories generally refer to the end of the piktun, a period of 7,885 years, of which a baktun is only a twentieth. So if you want to worry about the Maya-forecasted end of the universe, you have plenty of time to do so before it hits in approximately the year 4772.
But I wouldn't hold my breath. The piktun is far from the largest unit of time measurement in the highly complex Mesoamerican calendar, examples of which have been known to measure time in monolithic spans of millions and millions of years; the piktun is seriously small potatoes when compared to the kinchiltun (about 3.2 million years) or the alautun (about 63.1 million years). Mesoamerican calendars have been found that are orders of magnitude further in the future than December 21st of this year, and it would be pretty silly for a culture that thought their world was going to end to bother making calendars that included dates after that time.
Okay, I think I'm done now. Sometimes the Mesoamerican ranting needs to be free. Sorry.
But back to Scion! The modern myth of December 21st, while it has no grounding in ancient Maya myth, could still be used in your games if you want to explore it. It might be a ruse designed to distract attention from something else; it might be that no prophesied event was scheduled then, but that some mischievous god or Titan with a sense of the ironic is planning to spring their Evil Plot on that day just for the dramatic potential; it might be that gods use the imminent "disaster" as an excuse to get Scions and other gods who don't know any better to do things for them; it might even be that some of the less bright gods have been confused into believing the urban legend themselves. The Maya gods probably have little to no concern over the routine end of a baktun, something they've seen many times before, but that doesn't mean that their Scions will share their nonchalance or that someone unsavory won't attempt to make the hearsay a reality.
Maya myth, like its calendars, tends to be cyclical; worlds do eventually end and restart, just as they do for the Aztecs, and while there may not be any "schedule" for this, that doesn't mean that the Maya gods are unaware of the ever-present possibility. The worry that the world might theoretically end at any moment is just as real for them as it is for other pantheons with similar ideas, like the Devas, Aztlanti or Pesedjet; depending on which scholars you prefer to believe, the only difference is that they might or might not have a generally set timebound way of knowing when that's about to happen. If you have Mesoamerican Scions in the game, exploring the repetition of cyclical myths and the possibility of a new world are always awesome places to go, and you can use the 2012 mania as a sort of gateway to get them there, whether because they have to learn what it's all about or find a way to debunk it or discover that someone is trying to make it happen after all.
So, in general, we don't have any thoughts on December 21, 2012; it's the start of a new baktun, so there will probably be a lot of partying and chanting and sacrifices to the gods, but that's probably the extent of it. Everyone will roll their calendars over to one side, food and drink will be had all around, and unless you're running a chronicle that's distinctly Maya-heavy, I don't know that anything else really needs to happen unless your plot calls for it to.
We leave you with this last tidbit for further thought: the Maya and Aztec pantheons share a few gods in common and both have similar concepts of cyclical time and successive worlds. The Maya, during their heyday, believed that they were in the Fourth World, but their empire collapsed due to mysterious causes. About three hundred years later, the Aztec empire rose to prominence with meteoric speed, and they claimed they were living in the Fifth World. Food for Mesoamerican god-political thought, indeed.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
The Cycle
Question: Do you think the cycle of gods and titans repeats itself? Titans beget gods who overthrow them, then the titans win again until they beget more gods who overthrow them?
Actually, no - or at least, not in that way. The struggle of the gods and Titans is indeed cyclical, but not quite in the way you're suggesting.
Part of the problem with the idea is that Scion's very setting does something that is entirely contrary to the setup in most world mythologies: it allows the Titans to escape. While it makes for an excellent framework in which Scions are needed and can face many challenges in their rise to apotheosis, it isn't actually something that happens in most world myth. Titans are huge, dangerous and destructive beings, so when humanity tells a story about the gods conquering them, they stay conquered. They have to, in order for humanity to be safe and continue existing. The role of the gods is not to constantly fight escaping Titans, but to kill or imprison them permanently; as long as they keep that going, they maintain the universe. Because, sociologically speaking, we as humanity partially invent deities to reassure ourselves that the universe is in order and everything is okay, those deities have to have the power to save the universe and make it habitable. The Greek Titans are imprisoned, never heard from again unless occasionally let out on parole by Zeus; the Japanese Titans are killed and their bodies turned to useful materials for the World; the Egyptian Titans are constantly held at bay and eternally unable to gain a foothold. In the great story of most world mythologies, the Titans lost a long time ago - and that's the end of it.
Scion, by allowing the Titans to escape and start being their Titany selves all over the landscape again, raises interesting new questions that are part of the game rather than part of Scion; how often does this happen? Did it ever happen before, and if not, why now? Could it happen again in the future, even if the gods succeed in putting them away again? The greater Titans themselves, of course, can never be truly eradicated, only harnessed by the gods and kept quiescent by the imprisonment of their Avatars, but does that mean that all any god has to look forward to is the constant threat that they'll turn back up again? Is this even really a different Titanomachy, or has this been an ongoing process that never really ended, as new Titan Avatars take the place of imprisoned ones?
Scion gives us black and white answers, of course. No, this is the only time it's happened, no, we don't know what caused it, no, if the gods and their Scions succeed they will have saved the universe. And there's nothing wrong with those answers if you'd rather run your game without sweating the weird macro questions; the Scions themselves won't care much, right?
But myth is full of cycles, and the cycle of gods and Titans is one of them. It's just that it's not traditionally a cycle involving the Titans escaping and being put back over and over again; it's a cycle that asks exactly who the Titans are in the first place.
The truly central cycle behind the struggle of the gods against the Titans is that of the new generation usurping the position of their elders. Ouranos is defeated by his son Cronus, who is in turn defeated by his son Zeus, who in turn lives in fear of the prophesied son who will one day defeat him as well. Alalu is defeated by Anu, who is in turn defeated by Kumarbi, who is in turn defeated by Teshub. Shu is usurped by Geb, who is removed from power to make way for Osiris, who in turn dies to make way for his son Horus. Ymir is defeated by his progeny Odin, Vili and Ve, and Odin is destined to in turn perish to make way for his sons Vidar and Baldur. The cycle of the younger generation defeating or replacing the elder repeats itself over and over again.
This, too, is a symptom of human belief and religion; the younger gods must always overthrow the older, because the older a god is, the more they are part of the natural forces of the world instead of the civilized universe that is friendly to humanity. Each generation of gods creates a new, better world for themselves and for humanity, and each previous generation becomes relegated to obscurity or villainy as Titans, who were not necessarily evil but who were not the friends of humanity that the current gods clearly are. And the implication that this cycle may continue - that Zeus should worry about being overthrown by his son, because that's going to happen inevitably - is there because, as human society changes and evolves to have new needs and ideas, they need new gods who embody those.
And that's really actually what Scion is all about; Scions are that new generation of gods, rising to power as products of the new World, more inclined to embody the ideas and needs of the current races of humanity than the outdated or barbaric customs of their forefathers. Scions look at spear-and-shield warfare and find it outmoded, at human sacrifice and find it horrendous, at letter-writing and find it hilariously slow. Oh, they're still impressed by their incredible parents and relations, but the gods they will become are often just as likely to carry a tablet computer as a stone tablet, or to choose cyberspace as their domain instead of the mountains and wildernesses. Scions are the beginning of the next new order of gods; they are the forerunners of a new age of mythology.
So is it any wonder that their divine parents ride herd on them, that they don't make more than they need, that they sometimes crush their ambitions ruthlessly in favor of their own gain? They know this game; they've played it before. They won last time, but they're not on the winning team this time. Scions are coming to become the new order of gods - they can't help it, because it's in their very nature - and the old order of gods, while they need them and may even love them, are not necessarily comfortable with that.
Now, this doesn't mean that Scions have to be out to overthrow their pantheons or anything like that; they can embrace traditional ways instead of new ones, or integrate themselves into the pantheon despite being of much younger stock, and everyone can keep on doing what they've been doing. The escape of the Titans, being a strange, non-mythic event invented expressly to make the game work, actually helps them with this; the Titans provide an ancient foe for Scions to fight other than their parents, and because Scions were created in a concerted effort to respond to the Titans rather than occurring naturally, it may not be "time" yet for that cycle to repeat itself. Or perhaps the cycle will never repeat itself again, because the Scions themselves will choose to refuse it; they can do that if they want to. Scions can do just about anything if they want to.
Not every mythology involves the cyclical overthrow idea, especially the far eastern pantheons; not every Scion chronicle needs to, either. The Big Ideas of a given game always depend on the Storyteller's goals and the actions of the players, and no one should feel like they're forced to act against their pantheon or like they have to write stories that involve the destruction of beloved divine figures. Scion is a big game with an infinitely big store of possibilities to be explored and adventured through. The possibility of the new gods overthrowing the old ones is only one of them.
But the cycle is still always there, standing just behind every divine parent's shoulder.
Actually, no - or at least, not in that way. The struggle of the gods and Titans is indeed cyclical, but not quite in the way you're suggesting.
Part of the problem with the idea is that Scion's very setting does something that is entirely contrary to the setup in most world mythologies: it allows the Titans to escape. While it makes for an excellent framework in which Scions are needed and can face many challenges in their rise to apotheosis, it isn't actually something that happens in most world myth. Titans are huge, dangerous and destructive beings, so when humanity tells a story about the gods conquering them, they stay conquered. They have to, in order for humanity to be safe and continue existing. The role of the gods is not to constantly fight escaping Titans, but to kill or imprison them permanently; as long as they keep that going, they maintain the universe. Because, sociologically speaking, we as humanity partially invent deities to reassure ourselves that the universe is in order and everything is okay, those deities have to have the power to save the universe and make it habitable. The Greek Titans are imprisoned, never heard from again unless occasionally let out on parole by Zeus; the Japanese Titans are killed and their bodies turned to useful materials for the World; the Egyptian Titans are constantly held at bay and eternally unable to gain a foothold. In the great story of most world mythologies, the Titans lost a long time ago - and that's the end of it.
Scion, by allowing the Titans to escape and start being their Titany selves all over the landscape again, raises interesting new questions that are part of the game rather than part of Scion; how often does this happen? Did it ever happen before, and if not, why now? Could it happen again in the future, even if the gods succeed in putting them away again? The greater Titans themselves, of course, can never be truly eradicated, only harnessed by the gods and kept quiescent by the imprisonment of their Avatars, but does that mean that all any god has to look forward to is the constant threat that they'll turn back up again? Is this even really a different Titanomachy, or has this been an ongoing process that never really ended, as new Titan Avatars take the place of imprisoned ones?
Scion gives us black and white answers, of course. No, this is the only time it's happened, no, we don't know what caused it, no, if the gods and their Scions succeed they will have saved the universe. And there's nothing wrong with those answers if you'd rather run your game without sweating the weird macro questions; the Scions themselves won't care much, right?
But myth is full of cycles, and the cycle of gods and Titans is one of them. It's just that it's not traditionally a cycle involving the Titans escaping and being put back over and over again; it's a cycle that asks exactly who the Titans are in the first place.
The truly central cycle behind the struggle of the gods against the Titans is that of the new generation usurping the position of their elders. Ouranos is defeated by his son Cronus, who is in turn defeated by his son Zeus, who in turn lives in fear of the prophesied son who will one day defeat him as well. Alalu is defeated by Anu, who is in turn defeated by Kumarbi, who is in turn defeated by Teshub. Shu is usurped by Geb, who is removed from power to make way for Osiris, who in turn dies to make way for his son Horus. Ymir is defeated by his progeny Odin, Vili and Ve, and Odin is destined to in turn perish to make way for his sons Vidar and Baldur. The cycle of the younger generation defeating or replacing the elder repeats itself over and over again.
This, too, is a symptom of human belief and religion; the younger gods must always overthrow the older, because the older a god is, the more they are part of the natural forces of the world instead of the civilized universe that is friendly to humanity. Each generation of gods creates a new, better world for themselves and for humanity, and each previous generation becomes relegated to obscurity or villainy as Titans, who were not necessarily evil but who were not the friends of humanity that the current gods clearly are. And the implication that this cycle may continue - that Zeus should worry about being overthrown by his son, because that's going to happen inevitably - is there because, as human society changes and evolves to have new needs and ideas, they need new gods who embody those.
And that's really actually what Scion is all about; Scions are that new generation of gods, rising to power as products of the new World, more inclined to embody the ideas and needs of the current races of humanity than the outdated or barbaric customs of their forefathers. Scions look at spear-and-shield warfare and find it outmoded, at human sacrifice and find it horrendous, at letter-writing and find it hilariously slow. Oh, they're still impressed by their incredible parents and relations, but the gods they will become are often just as likely to carry a tablet computer as a stone tablet, or to choose cyberspace as their domain instead of the mountains and wildernesses. Scions are the beginning of the next new order of gods; they are the forerunners of a new age of mythology.
So is it any wonder that their divine parents ride herd on them, that they don't make more than they need, that they sometimes crush their ambitions ruthlessly in favor of their own gain? They know this game; they've played it before. They won last time, but they're not on the winning team this time. Scions are coming to become the new order of gods - they can't help it, because it's in their very nature - and the old order of gods, while they need them and may even love them, are not necessarily comfortable with that.
Now, this doesn't mean that Scions have to be out to overthrow their pantheons or anything like that; they can embrace traditional ways instead of new ones, or integrate themselves into the pantheon despite being of much younger stock, and everyone can keep on doing what they've been doing. The escape of the Titans, being a strange, non-mythic event invented expressly to make the game work, actually helps them with this; the Titans provide an ancient foe for Scions to fight other than their parents, and because Scions were created in a concerted effort to respond to the Titans rather than occurring naturally, it may not be "time" yet for that cycle to repeat itself. Or perhaps the cycle will never repeat itself again, because the Scions themselves will choose to refuse it; they can do that if they want to. Scions can do just about anything if they want to.
Not every mythology involves the cyclical overthrow idea, especially the far eastern pantheons; not every Scion chronicle needs to, either. The Big Ideas of a given game always depend on the Storyteller's goals and the actions of the players, and no one should feel like they're forced to act against their pantheon or like they have to write stories that involve the destruction of beloved divine figures. Scion is a big game with an infinitely big store of possibilities to be explored and adventured through. The possibility of the new gods overthrowing the old ones is only one of them.
But the cycle is still always there, standing just behind every divine parent's shoulder.
White Wolf is the Gaming Group Killer!
Question: Hm... Sorry, but I just got into Scion a couple weeks ago and while bouncing around for info, ideas and so on, I have a question. Well, I have a couple. I notice with White Wolf games that there is a lot of in-party fighting when it comes to things, at least with my group. It is impossible to do much of anything without one player trying to dick the other over, either because their Abyssal is setting up their own Shadowland, or this tibdit of knowledge is "too powerful" for weaker mages, etc. Would this happen in Scion?
Scion, like all White Wolf games, is part of the Storytelling system; it's a game that allows players to do anything and everything they want to when roleplaying a character and writing a story, and that encourages fully-fleshed personalities that may sometimes clash with others in the group. But - and I hate to tell you this, question-asker, but it's true - I don't think you're having a problem with White Wolf games; I think you're having a problem with your players.
White Wolf games don't cause intra-party conflict; sure, they make it possible, but so does almost every other game in existence. It's always the player's choice whether or not they decide to cooperate gainfully with each other or instead plot to stab one another in the back. Your players always trying to screw one another isn't a symptom of the game; it's a symptom of the players. You have players that like to screw with each other. That's not going to happen less in Scion than it does in any other game.
You sound frustrated, and I don't blame you; player conflict is always hard. Is this a situation in which the players seem happy to roleplay against one another and it's just you, as the Storyteller, who are frustrated that they aren't more on-task and discovering the plots you've written for them? If so, I sympathize, because it's always hard to feel like players aren't paying attention to the campaign you so lovingly crafted, but this may be something you shouldn't try to police too hard. If the players are enjoying their roleplaying and having a fun time at the game, it's not fair to tell them that that's not okay and they have to stop. Instead, look for ways to try to use their roleplaying yourself; see what they're doing and weave it into your story so that they'll be more involved, or watch for good moments where you can have the plot you have planned intrude on what they're doing so that they become involved despite doing their own thing. Work with them instead of against them; party harmony isn't always necessary for a game to succeed, and you might be surprised how well some characters pull together when push comes to shove.
We've often found that characters sparking off one another can create good development and motivations for them, so you may end up with more interesting characters than you would have if they had all been cooperating from the beginning. Character conflict is also difficult to sustain, especially if everyone has common goals, so you may just need to wait a few sessions for them to settle down and figure out how to cooperate (even if it's grudgingly). Keep in mind that conflict between characters in the same party isn't always a bad thing; it's part of the story, too, and it can create new situations and possibilities that wouldn't have existed otherwise. If it's a constant thing, it's going to make it hard to play, but don't panic if there's strong dissent now and then.
If, on the other hand, your game is suffering because the players are fighting in-character and that's not fun for them - as in, they wish it weren't happening or are getting frustrated at the table instead of having fun - then you have a more difficult problem to solve. Unhappy player fighting happens for a variety of reasons. Sometimes there're just one or two players who are contentious and always push back against the rest of the group, and there's not much you can do about that. Sometimes some players have radically different playstyles from the others - if one is heavily into roleplaying with the NPCs they cherish and the other likes to cause trouble and blows up the first one's carefully-crafted plots, that can often piss the characters off at one another (and the players, too). Sometimes nobody in the group is trying to be difficult at all, but they all have such strong ideas of the personalities and goals of their characters that they inevitably clash and then don't know what to do about it.
As the Storyteller, you have a few tools to deal with this sort of thing. While you never want to take creative control away from your players, you can still give them a few goals in common - things they want to do or achieve that coincide with the things the other characters want to do or achieve - so that they have a good reason to work together beyond "welp, we're in an RPG". You can use NPCs they like and trust to encourage them to work together; a Scion's divine parent saying, "Oh, and I know you don't like him, but try to keep X Other Character in one piece because he has skills you'll need" goes a long way toward fostering cooperation. And while you don't want to horn in on the game too much when roleplaying is going on, once in a while a gentle reminder - "Remember, you all need to do X thing, so you're going to have to find a way to resolve this" - can help the players get out of their heads a little bit and reach a consensus.
If you're just starting out with a new chronicle, now is actually the perfect time to work toward group harmony; when your players sit down to make characters, take a minute to mention that you've noticed a lot of in-fighting in previous games and you want to see what this chronicle would be like with a more cooperative theme, so that they can build their characters to suit. Players making characters in a vacuum often don't plan for the possible shenanigans of others and therefore end up with characters who may not get along with everyone; players who know they're making characters to get along with others can work together to figure out how they want their group dynamics to shake out and how everybody will fit together. From a purely mechanical standpoint, I'd also suggest limiting them to creating characters from pantheons with similar Virtues; nothing torpedoes group harmony faster than the guy with Vengeance murdering a lot of people in front of the guy with Valor, or the girl with Courage taking out half the police force in front of the lady with Order.
But, in the end, I can't promise all that will work. You can work with your players until kingdom come, but if they enjoy in-fighting amongs themselves or just have personalities that refuse to unclash, you may have to accept that they're going to keep secrets and sell others down the river and snarl at one another when they disagree, and start trying to make that something that your game is designed to handle instead of something that disrupts it.
Scion, like all White Wolf games, is part of the Storytelling system; it's a game that allows players to do anything and everything they want to when roleplaying a character and writing a story, and that encourages fully-fleshed personalities that may sometimes clash with others in the group. But - and I hate to tell you this, question-asker, but it's true - I don't think you're having a problem with White Wolf games; I think you're having a problem with your players.
White Wolf games don't cause intra-party conflict; sure, they make it possible, but so does almost every other game in existence. It's always the player's choice whether or not they decide to cooperate gainfully with each other or instead plot to stab one another in the back. Your players always trying to screw one another isn't a symptom of the game; it's a symptom of the players. You have players that like to screw with each other. That's not going to happen less in Scion than it does in any other game.
You sound frustrated, and I don't blame you; player conflict is always hard. Is this a situation in which the players seem happy to roleplay against one another and it's just you, as the Storyteller, who are frustrated that they aren't more on-task and discovering the plots you've written for them? If so, I sympathize, because it's always hard to feel like players aren't paying attention to the campaign you so lovingly crafted, but this may be something you shouldn't try to police too hard. If the players are enjoying their roleplaying and having a fun time at the game, it's not fair to tell them that that's not okay and they have to stop. Instead, look for ways to try to use their roleplaying yourself; see what they're doing and weave it into your story so that they'll be more involved, or watch for good moments where you can have the plot you have planned intrude on what they're doing so that they become involved despite doing their own thing. Work with them instead of against them; party harmony isn't always necessary for a game to succeed, and you might be surprised how well some characters pull together when push comes to shove.
We've often found that characters sparking off one another can create good development and motivations for them, so you may end up with more interesting characters than you would have if they had all been cooperating from the beginning. Character conflict is also difficult to sustain, especially if everyone has common goals, so you may just need to wait a few sessions for them to settle down and figure out how to cooperate (even if it's grudgingly). Keep in mind that conflict between characters in the same party isn't always a bad thing; it's part of the story, too, and it can create new situations and possibilities that wouldn't have existed otherwise. If it's a constant thing, it's going to make it hard to play, but don't panic if there's strong dissent now and then.
If, on the other hand, your game is suffering because the players are fighting in-character and that's not fun for them - as in, they wish it weren't happening or are getting frustrated at the table instead of having fun - then you have a more difficult problem to solve. Unhappy player fighting happens for a variety of reasons. Sometimes there're just one or two players who are contentious and always push back against the rest of the group, and there's not much you can do about that. Sometimes some players have radically different playstyles from the others - if one is heavily into roleplaying with the NPCs they cherish and the other likes to cause trouble and blows up the first one's carefully-crafted plots, that can often piss the characters off at one another (and the players, too). Sometimes nobody in the group is trying to be difficult at all, but they all have such strong ideas of the personalities and goals of their characters that they inevitably clash and then don't know what to do about it.
As the Storyteller, you have a few tools to deal with this sort of thing. While you never want to take creative control away from your players, you can still give them a few goals in common - things they want to do or achieve that coincide with the things the other characters want to do or achieve - so that they have a good reason to work together beyond "welp, we're in an RPG". You can use NPCs they like and trust to encourage them to work together; a Scion's divine parent saying, "Oh, and I know you don't like him, but try to keep X Other Character in one piece because he has skills you'll need" goes a long way toward fostering cooperation. And while you don't want to horn in on the game too much when roleplaying is going on, once in a while a gentle reminder - "Remember, you all need to do X thing, so you're going to have to find a way to resolve this" - can help the players get out of their heads a little bit and reach a consensus.
If you're just starting out with a new chronicle, now is actually the perfect time to work toward group harmony; when your players sit down to make characters, take a minute to mention that you've noticed a lot of in-fighting in previous games and you want to see what this chronicle would be like with a more cooperative theme, so that they can build their characters to suit. Players making characters in a vacuum often don't plan for the possible shenanigans of others and therefore end up with characters who may not get along with everyone; players who know they're making characters to get along with others can work together to figure out how they want their group dynamics to shake out and how everybody will fit together. From a purely mechanical standpoint, I'd also suggest limiting them to creating characters from pantheons with similar Virtues; nothing torpedoes group harmony faster than the guy with Vengeance murdering a lot of people in front of the guy with Valor, or the girl with Courage taking out half the police force in front of the lady with Order.
But, in the end, I can't promise all that will work. You can work with your players until kingdom come, but if they enjoy in-fighting amongs themselves or just have personalities that refuse to unclash, you may have to accept that they're going to keep secrets and sell others down the river and snarl at one another when they disagree, and start trying to make that something that your game is designed to handle instead of something that disrupts it.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Je ne sais quoi
Question: Could you possibly give a deeper explanation of Charisma and Manipulation? I have a character who is a bit nerdy but still open, friendly and likeable. Can I give him a high level 5 Charisma score? And does Manipulation always have to be malignant? It seems like that in the books.
"Open, friendly and likeable" sounds like a dude with Charisma to me!
Charisma is easiest to conceive of as the star football player sort of quality; everyone loves you, nobody hates you, you effortlessly dominate social situations and so on, and for some people that makes it difficult to conceive of an introverted or bookwormish person with Charisma. But Charisma doesn't mean you can't be a nerdy scientist; it just means you're a nerdy scientist with great force of personality, or a nerdy scientist who's beloved by all the other nerdy scientists. Pretty much any character concept can use and benefit from Charisma.
You should also bear in mind that Charisma comes in different forms; it doesn't always have to mean being beloved and romantically pursued by everyone around you. A commander whose soldiers snap to attention the second he walks in the room is also displaying Charisma; a hulking bodyguard whose mere presence inspires awe and fear is also displaying Charisma; a ridiculous class clown who always inspires his classmates to laugh is showing Charisma, too. Charisma doesn't necessarily mean fluffy love, but rather that your personality is so strong that it affects others around you. The opinions of people with Charisma matter; when they enter a room, other people notice them and care what they say or do. That might be because they automatically like them or because they recognize greatness when they see it or even because they fear them, but it always happens regardless. People with Charisma Matter with a capital M.
So when you're getting people to do things with your Charisma, they're doing it mostly because they're kind of overwhelmed by you. They do it because they're magnetically attracted to you, or because they're terrified of what might happen if they don't; they do it because they're falling in love or they just want to see you happy or they trust implicitly that someone as awesome as yourself must know best. People respond to Charisma by wanting to please the person who has it, which is considerably helpful to the Scion on the go.
Manipulation, on the other hand, is a more subtle quality and something that, I think, is a lot harder for many people to play in a character. The classic image is of someone who spins a web of lies, deceit and smokescreens to fool others into doing what they want, turning friend against friend and using various fall guys to prevent the trail from leading back to himself. And while you certainly can play Manipulation that way and be exceptionally good at it, you don't have to. Just like Charisma, it has different expressions.
People with Manipulation aren't necessarily deceitful, but they are persuasive. Whatever they're talking about, they sound legit. They make great liars, but they also make great debaters when trying to convince someone of the truth; they hide things well, but that doesn't necessarily mean they hide them in order to hurt someone else. A skilled diplomat helping prevent war in the Middle East is using Manipulation; so is a teacher attempting to open the minds of her students to new possibilities or a spy infiltrating to foil a dangerous terrorist plot. People with Manipulation are good at convincing others to believe them, at recognizing shenanigans when they see them and at doing things that go unseen or unremarked. Where others do what a guy with Charisma says because they want to please him, they do what the guy with Manipulation says because he has convinced them to genuinely believe that it's a good idea.
Now, you're right; the Scion books generally tend to paint Manipulation as a sort of "evil" stat, possessed by the Lokis of the world and generally used to get away with being the biggest bastard around. Some of this is because the word "manipulation" itself has a lot of negative connotations in English; it almost always implies "against my will" or "for selfish gain" when it's used, and further tends to often imply that the person manipulating others was cowardly for not using a different method to get their job done. If someone says they were manipulated, most English-speakers instinctively know that that was a Bad Thing and that whomever did it is a Bad Person. And then there's also the fact that Manipulation makes it so very easy to be a bad person; it's the perfect stat for putting up fronts, covering your tracks and getting away with murder, so it's not too surprising that many players tend to think of Manipulation as the Bad Guy Stat.
But, while most sneaky bad guys do have Manipulation, all Manipulation users are not sneaky bad guys. Manipulation, in and of itself, is no more an evil stat than Charisma; both of them can be used to great effect for either good or evil, depending on what a Scion chooses to do with them. The Scion with Manipulation could puppeteer some poor schmuck into killing his brother and taking the fall for him, but he could also use his subtle influence to steer those whose tempers won't let them take good advice into doing what's best; the Scion with Charisma could be an easygoing friend who returns in kind all the love and respect he's given, or he could be a tyrannical bastard who takes shameless advantage of the fact that others will literally give him the shirt off their backs. It's the personality of the character and player that determine the behavior of a Scion; and while it's true that you will often see people tending toward trickster or betrayer archetypes buying up all their Manipulation, you should never assume that having a high Manipulation score automatically means that that character is in fact a traitor.
A useful comparison we often use for our players is that of a king and his trusted vizier. The king is the guy with Charisma; he's the figurehead, the center of attention, beloved by his people and constantly in the public eye. The vizier is the guy with Manipulation; he takes care of the politicking, keeps an eye on the social interactions and suggests the wisest courses of action to manage both. Both of them are extremely effective at affecting others, but they do it in very different ways; the king is the center of attention, while the vizier is the one who moves levers behind the scenes.
And not every king is either a benevolent ruler or an evil tyrant, and not every vizier is either an altruistic kingdom-builder or Jafar. Either stat can be used either way; it's all about what kind of social interactions and power you want your character to have. If you have Charisma, people will do what you want because they want to make you happy, whatever it takes; if you have Manipulation, they'll do it because they legitimately believe they want or need to.
"Open, friendly and likeable" sounds like a dude with Charisma to me!
Charisma is easiest to conceive of as the star football player sort of quality; everyone loves you, nobody hates you, you effortlessly dominate social situations and so on, and for some people that makes it difficult to conceive of an introverted or bookwormish person with Charisma. But Charisma doesn't mean you can't be a nerdy scientist; it just means you're a nerdy scientist with great force of personality, or a nerdy scientist who's beloved by all the other nerdy scientists. Pretty much any character concept can use and benefit from Charisma.
You should also bear in mind that Charisma comes in different forms; it doesn't always have to mean being beloved and romantically pursued by everyone around you. A commander whose soldiers snap to attention the second he walks in the room is also displaying Charisma; a hulking bodyguard whose mere presence inspires awe and fear is also displaying Charisma; a ridiculous class clown who always inspires his classmates to laugh is showing Charisma, too. Charisma doesn't necessarily mean fluffy love, but rather that your personality is so strong that it affects others around you. The opinions of people with Charisma matter; when they enter a room, other people notice them and care what they say or do. That might be because they automatically like them or because they recognize greatness when they see it or even because they fear them, but it always happens regardless. People with Charisma Matter with a capital M.
So when you're getting people to do things with your Charisma, they're doing it mostly because they're kind of overwhelmed by you. They do it because they're magnetically attracted to you, or because they're terrified of what might happen if they don't; they do it because they're falling in love or they just want to see you happy or they trust implicitly that someone as awesome as yourself must know best. People respond to Charisma by wanting to please the person who has it, which is considerably helpful to the Scion on the go.
Manipulation, on the other hand, is a more subtle quality and something that, I think, is a lot harder for many people to play in a character. The classic image is of someone who spins a web of lies, deceit and smokescreens to fool others into doing what they want, turning friend against friend and using various fall guys to prevent the trail from leading back to himself. And while you certainly can play Manipulation that way and be exceptionally good at it, you don't have to. Just like Charisma, it has different expressions.
People with Manipulation aren't necessarily deceitful, but they are persuasive. Whatever they're talking about, they sound legit. They make great liars, but they also make great debaters when trying to convince someone of the truth; they hide things well, but that doesn't necessarily mean they hide them in order to hurt someone else. A skilled diplomat helping prevent war in the Middle East is using Manipulation; so is a teacher attempting to open the minds of her students to new possibilities or a spy infiltrating to foil a dangerous terrorist plot. People with Manipulation are good at convincing others to believe them, at recognizing shenanigans when they see them and at doing things that go unseen or unremarked. Where others do what a guy with Charisma says because they want to please him, they do what the guy with Manipulation says because he has convinced them to genuinely believe that it's a good idea.
Now, you're right; the Scion books generally tend to paint Manipulation as a sort of "evil" stat, possessed by the Lokis of the world and generally used to get away with being the biggest bastard around. Some of this is because the word "manipulation" itself has a lot of negative connotations in English; it almost always implies "against my will" or "for selfish gain" when it's used, and further tends to often imply that the person manipulating others was cowardly for not using a different method to get their job done. If someone says they were manipulated, most English-speakers instinctively know that that was a Bad Thing and that whomever did it is a Bad Person. And then there's also the fact that Manipulation makes it so very easy to be a bad person; it's the perfect stat for putting up fronts, covering your tracks and getting away with murder, so it's not too surprising that many players tend to think of Manipulation as the Bad Guy Stat.
But, while most sneaky bad guys do have Manipulation, all Manipulation users are not sneaky bad guys. Manipulation, in and of itself, is no more an evil stat than Charisma; both of them can be used to great effect for either good or evil, depending on what a Scion chooses to do with them. The Scion with Manipulation could puppeteer some poor schmuck into killing his brother and taking the fall for him, but he could also use his subtle influence to steer those whose tempers won't let them take good advice into doing what's best; the Scion with Charisma could be an easygoing friend who returns in kind all the love and respect he's given, or he could be a tyrannical bastard who takes shameless advantage of the fact that others will literally give him the shirt off their backs. It's the personality of the character and player that determine the behavior of a Scion; and while it's true that you will often see people tending toward trickster or betrayer archetypes buying up all their Manipulation, you should never assume that having a high Manipulation score automatically means that that character is in fact a traitor.
A useful comparison we often use for our players is that of a king and his trusted vizier. The king is the guy with Charisma; he's the figurehead, the center of attention, beloved by his people and constantly in the public eye. The vizier is the guy with Manipulation; he takes care of the politicking, keeps an eye on the social interactions and suggests the wisest courses of action to manage both. Both of them are extremely effective at affecting others, but they do it in very different ways; the king is the center of attention, while the vizier is the one who moves levers behind the scenes.
And not every king is either a benevolent ruler or an evil tyrant, and not every vizier is either an altruistic kingdom-builder or Jafar. Either stat can be used either way; it's all about what kind of social interactions and power you want your character to have. If you have Charisma, people will do what you want because they want to make you happy, whatever it takes; if you have Manipulation, they'll do it because they legitimately believe they want or need to.
Wintry Woman
Question: What do you think about the Irish winter goddess Cailleach? She is mentioned as having associations with Frost and Earth, and to usher in the winter in Ireland. The same source also talks about her counterpart, Brigid, who rules the summer months. Could Cailleach be a Legend 9 or 10 god of the Tuatha?
The Cailleach is an amazingly cool figure, and her origins and stories are scattered all across Ireland, Scotland and the outlying islands. She's an ancient giant hag-witch who does a million things; various accounts have her carving out cliff faces, causing deformities in children, running through Ireland with supernatural stamina, speaking so loudly that everyone on the island hears her at once, creating entire islands and landmarks, bathing in the waters of immortality, hiding or dispensing arcane knowledge, arbitrarily choosing to save some mortals and leave others to perish on a whim, and generally being older than dirt and dirt's mother combined. There are as many differing stories of the Cailleach as there are communities in the areas of her influence, though they can be difficult to track down thanks to the fact that she's a figure largely preserved through oral retellings and local folklore.
The Cailleach is not, however, one of the Tuatha de Danann. This is pretty obvious; she goes completely unmentioned in all the literature surrounding the rowdy progeny of Danu, and is said in some accounts to have been in Ireland at least since the time of the Fir Bolg, which means she was already present before the Tuatha ever set foot on Irish soil. Her myths have little in common with the Tuatha as well; she's not a heroic figure in any sense of the word, being more prone to doing things like causing rampant diseases to kill off all cattle in Ireland, and she has no part in the battles of the other Irish gods or the struggles with the Fir Bolg and Fomorians, being concerned with ancient elemental things like crags and blizzards.
But there are certainly options for using the Cailleach in Scion; she's pretty goddamn interesting, after all, so it would be a crime to ignore her. If you don't want to go the whole hog and make her a deity, she's an excellent cronelike antagonist in the same vein as other famous Celtic witches like Black Annis; there is still spirited debate in the scholarly community as to whether there is one Cailleach or a whole bunch of them (since the name is more properly a title), and if you chose the former there could be an entire race of hag-witches infesting the isles. If you do want to view her as a goddess - which, despite the continual Christian-inspired campaign against indigenous deities in Ireland, she probably was - she is likely of an older and more feral order than the Tuatha, more similar to the likes of Cernunnos or Crom Cruach than the bright and shining pantheon that conquered the isles, and probably most strongly associated with Fertility and Magic. The final option, and the one we're currently using, is to set the Cailleach up as a Titan Avatar; she is certainly ancient and generally antagonistic, and her powers are of the cosmic, feared variety. We're currently running her as an Avatar of the Titanrealm of Frost, based on her Scottish incarnation as the bringer of winter, but she could also be a good candidate for Ourea or the realms of Fate or Earth.
So seriously, go forth and hang out with the Cailleach. She's awesome.
As far as her possible connections to Brigid go, alas, much of that is mere speculation, or at worst New Age conflation nonsense based on the idea of Brigid as the preeminent goddess of the Celts (which is itself mostly nonsense, considering her incredibly tiny role in actual Irish myth) and the Cailleach therefore being merely an aspect of her. Scottish myth has the Cailleach, as winter, give way each year to spring in the form of Bride, who is a folkloric figure sometimes conflated with Brigid; but you could also just as easily associate the Cailleach with other Irish goddesses, including the Morrigan, who shares her predilection for cattle, or Danu, as both ladies literally embody the landscape. Regardless, any connection to Brigid is pretty tenuous, so I'd avoid trying to invent a dualistic theory where we aren't sure there ever was one and stick to the Cailleach as her own, indubitably singular self. She's a badass lady. She doesn't need Brigid to confirm that.
Celtic mythology is one of the hardest to do really good independent research on, simply because it's so popular in modern religions like Wicca and is such a favorite subject for New Age writers, which means that a good percentage of the websites and books on it out there are largely made up. If you're interested in the Cailleach specifically, I'd recommend the excellent The Book of the Cailleach: Stories of the Wise-Woman Healer by Gearoid o'Crualaoich, and suggest that you avoid anything that spells the word "magic" with a K at the end like the plague.
The Cailleach is an amazingly cool figure, and her origins and stories are scattered all across Ireland, Scotland and the outlying islands. She's an ancient giant hag-witch who does a million things; various accounts have her carving out cliff faces, causing deformities in children, running through Ireland with supernatural stamina, speaking so loudly that everyone on the island hears her at once, creating entire islands and landmarks, bathing in the waters of immortality, hiding or dispensing arcane knowledge, arbitrarily choosing to save some mortals and leave others to perish on a whim, and generally being older than dirt and dirt's mother combined. There are as many differing stories of the Cailleach as there are communities in the areas of her influence, though they can be difficult to track down thanks to the fact that she's a figure largely preserved through oral retellings and local folklore.
The Cailleach is not, however, one of the Tuatha de Danann. This is pretty obvious; she goes completely unmentioned in all the literature surrounding the rowdy progeny of Danu, and is said in some accounts to have been in Ireland at least since the time of the Fir Bolg, which means she was already present before the Tuatha ever set foot on Irish soil. Her myths have little in common with the Tuatha as well; she's not a heroic figure in any sense of the word, being more prone to doing things like causing rampant diseases to kill off all cattle in Ireland, and she has no part in the battles of the other Irish gods or the struggles with the Fir Bolg and Fomorians, being concerned with ancient elemental things like crags and blizzards.
But there are certainly options for using the Cailleach in Scion; she's pretty goddamn interesting, after all, so it would be a crime to ignore her. If you don't want to go the whole hog and make her a deity, she's an excellent cronelike antagonist in the same vein as other famous Celtic witches like Black Annis; there is still spirited debate in the scholarly community as to whether there is one Cailleach or a whole bunch of them (since the name is more properly a title), and if you chose the former there could be an entire race of hag-witches infesting the isles. If you do want to view her as a goddess - which, despite the continual Christian-inspired campaign against indigenous deities in Ireland, she probably was - she is likely of an older and more feral order than the Tuatha, more similar to the likes of Cernunnos or Crom Cruach than the bright and shining pantheon that conquered the isles, and probably most strongly associated with Fertility and Magic. The final option, and the one we're currently using, is to set the Cailleach up as a Titan Avatar; she is certainly ancient and generally antagonistic, and her powers are of the cosmic, feared variety. We're currently running her as an Avatar of the Titanrealm of Frost, based on her Scottish incarnation as the bringer of winter, but she could also be a good candidate for Ourea or the realms of Fate or Earth.
So seriously, go forth and hang out with the Cailleach. She's awesome.
As far as her possible connections to Brigid go, alas, much of that is mere speculation, or at worst New Age conflation nonsense based on the idea of Brigid as the preeminent goddess of the Celts (which is itself mostly nonsense, considering her incredibly tiny role in actual Irish myth) and the Cailleach therefore being merely an aspect of her. Scottish myth has the Cailleach, as winter, give way each year to spring in the form of Bride, who is a folkloric figure sometimes conflated with Brigid; but you could also just as easily associate the Cailleach with other Irish goddesses, including the Morrigan, who shares her predilection for cattle, or Danu, as both ladies literally embody the landscape. Regardless, any connection to Brigid is pretty tenuous, so I'd avoid trying to invent a dualistic theory where we aren't sure there ever was one and stick to the Cailleach as her own, indubitably singular self. She's a badass lady. She doesn't need Brigid to confirm that.
Celtic mythology is one of the hardest to do really good independent research on, simply because it's so popular in modern religions like Wicca and is such a favorite subject for New Age writers, which means that a good percentage of the websites and books on it out there are largely made up. If you're interested in the Cailleach specifically, I'd recommend the excellent The Book of the Cailleach: Stories of the Wise-Woman Healer by Gearoid o'Crualaoich, and suggest that you avoid anything that spells the word "magic" with a K at the end like the plague.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Orphaned Annie
Question: What do you think about a scenario in which a messenger comes to a Scion in a rush, drops off his Birthrights, tells him nothing more but to get to work for the gods, and just leaves without even telling him who his divine parent is?
I think it sounds inconvenient for everyone involved. But it certainly could happen; it really depends on what you're trying to do with the character and the story.
Not telling a Scion what's going on usually results in an ineffective Scion; if they have no direction, they're going to revert to what they think someone with superpowers should be doing, which won't necessarily match up to what the gods might have in mind. Some Scions might decide to take it upon themselves to be superheroes, which may bring the local law enforcement down on them; others, if they happen to have darker personalities, might cause as much damage and confusion in the World as the Titanspawn that nobody told them they were supposed to be stopping. They have new Virtues that will push them to do things they never would have done before, and new powers that they're likely not to have great control over or knowledge of until something accidentally goes bang. In short, you're dropping a grenade into the World without knowing whether or not the pin's in.
This could certainly happen, though. Some gods may be incredibly busy with the war against the Titans and have no time to go visit the kid in person, and sending a messenger can often lead to said messenger not quite getting the message across as the parent might have hoped. They might forget something, not mention something because they assume the Scion already knows, intentionally give the Scion no help if they resent this duty being thrust upon them; whatever the reason, messengers always have the potential to mess things up. African myth, in particular, loves the motif of the messenger who fails at his job, showing up late, getting killed on the way or accidentally losing whatever information or item he was supposed to deliver, so I suspect this sort of thing probably happens to Scions of the Loa almost inevitably when their parents choose not to come in person.
Then, too, gods who tend more toward chaos and destruction might have no problem with unleashing a directionless Scion to see what kind of mess he makes. Gods who treat their offspring like interesting science projects might do it just to see what they do, possibly as part of a grand Scion-studying experiment. Gods who are particularly stupid might entirely forget they have children and pay no more attention to the matter, while gods who tend more toward wanting their children to prove themselves may view it as a necessary trial by fire. Some gods may even want to hide the fact that the Scion exists for a while, perhaps because he's a bastard child or they have a reputation to maintain. It's entirely possible for the Scion who has no clue what is going on to be the result of a god's intentional negligence.
Most gods probably don't do this, of course; if you don't tell your Scion what to do, well, he probably won't do what you want, and the last thing you need is some rambunctious kid busting up your worshipers, throwing in with Titanspawn or working as an unwitting catspaw for your enemies among the other gods. I'd imagine Scions with absolutely no knowledge or direction are a fairly rare occurrence for that reason; they exist to help the gods out, not to be a pain in the ass, so most gods will let them know the score so that they get some return on their investment.
But I'd say that if you think it's a fun option for your character's backstory, totally go for it. It's unlikely he'll stay in the dark for long; if he has decent Intelligence and/or Occult he's going to figure out who his pantheon and parent are unless his relics are totally clean of any reference to them and he never runs into anyone else from the pantheon's home turf, and if he's in a band with other Scions, the fact that their divine parents, relatives and powers are around is going to give him a lot of information pretty quickly. The Storyteller would pretty much have to be involved in intentionally keeping him from finding any of this out, or the natural course of being a Scion will do it. But how he discovers his heritage and what it means to him that he had to do it himself could be a fun layer of character development, so I'd say enjoy it and see where it leads you!
I think it sounds inconvenient for everyone involved. But it certainly could happen; it really depends on what you're trying to do with the character and the story.
Not telling a Scion what's going on usually results in an ineffective Scion; if they have no direction, they're going to revert to what they think someone with superpowers should be doing, which won't necessarily match up to what the gods might have in mind. Some Scions might decide to take it upon themselves to be superheroes, which may bring the local law enforcement down on them; others, if they happen to have darker personalities, might cause as much damage and confusion in the World as the Titanspawn that nobody told them they were supposed to be stopping. They have new Virtues that will push them to do things they never would have done before, and new powers that they're likely not to have great control over or knowledge of until something accidentally goes bang. In short, you're dropping a grenade into the World without knowing whether or not the pin's in.
This could certainly happen, though. Some gods may be incredibly busy with the war against the Titans and have no time to go visit the kid in person, and sending a messenger can often lead to said messenger not quite getting the message across as the parent might have hoped. They might forget something, not mention something because they assume the Scion already knows, intentionally give the Scion no help if they resent this duty being thrust upon them; whatever the reason, messengers always have the potential to mess things up. African myth, in particular, loves the motif of the messenger who fails at his job, showing up late, getting killed on the way or accidentally losing whatever information or item he was supposed to deliver, so I suspect this sort of thing probably happens to Scions of the Loa almost inevitably when their parents choose not to come in person.
Then, too, gods who tend more toward chaos and destruction might have no problem with unleashing a directionless Scion to see what kind of mess he makes. Gods who treat their offspring like interesting science projects might do it just to see what they do, possibly as part of a grand Scion-studying experiment. Gods who are particularly stupid might entirely forget they have children and pay no more attention to the matter, while gods who tend more toward wanting their children to prove themselves may view it as a necessary trial by fire. Some gods may even want to hide the fact that the Scion exists for a while, perhaps because he's a bastard child or they have a reputation to maintain. It's entirely possible for the Scion who has no clue what is going on to be the result of a god's intentional negligence.
Most gods probably don't do this, of course; if you don't tell your Scion what to do, well, he probably won't do what you want, and the last thing you need is some rambunctious kid busting up your worshipers, throwing in with Titanspawn or working as an unwitting catspaw for your enemies among the other gods. I'd imagine Scions with absolutely no knowledge or direction are a fairly rare occurrence for that reason; they exist to help the gods out, not to be a pain in the ass, so most gods will let them know the score so that they get some return on their investment.
But I'd say that if you think it's a fun option for your character's backstory, totally go for it. It's unlikely he'll stay in the dark for long; if he has decent Intelligence and/or Occult he's going to figure out who his pantheon and parent are unless his relics are totally clean of any reference to them and he never runs into anyone else from the pantheon's home turf, and if he's in a band with other Scions, the fact that their divine parents, relatives and powers are around is going to give him a lot of information pretty quickly. The Storyteller would pretty much have to be involved in intentionally keeping him from finding any of this out, or the natural course of being a Scion will do it. But how he discovers his heritage and what it means to him that he had to do it himself could be a fun layer of character development, so I'd say enjoy it and see where it leads you!
Wise Old Pig
Question: Reading the write-up you've made on the Tuatha De Dannan, I've noticed that you associated the Dagda with Epic Intelligence. Although I skimmed through some myths about him, I am still not sure about why you chose to do so. Could you please explain the reasoning behind this association?
Absolutely! We've had this question asked before in a few different places, actually, and we never mind talking about reasoning.
Giving the Dagda Epic Intelligence was actually a decision that we struggled with for a long time when working on the Tuatha de Danann. While he certainly has a good amount of pragmatic good sense in myths, he also doesn't really appear to be wildly more intelligent than everyone else in any story, so initially we decided to completely leave that idea out. But source after source and book after book insisted that he was the patron of wisdom and thought - Green, Fleming, Sjoestedt, Monaghan and so forth, they were all big fans of the Dagda and his mighty wisdom. We didn't have a story basis for this unless you want to consider his good sense in not pissing off the Morrigan or conquering dudes with his harp to be examples of high Intelligence, but the scholars seemed arrayed against us.
From what we've gathered, the Dagda's association with wisdom is a quintessentially Irish one; it's not that he's more academically inclined or book-learned than anyone else (obviously), nor that he possesses that much more thinking power, but that he's the keeper of otherworldly and unfathomable knowledge, the sorts of things that mortals can't know and even other gods often don't. He's presented as a god of the wisdom of the unseen rather than the wisdom of the smartypantses.
So we were left trying to figure out how to express that in Scion terms. We considered just associating him with really high Occult, but that didn't seem to quite cover how pervasive the idea appeared to be in all our sources; we also considered giving him Mystery, but with Ogma right there being super Mystery-centric, he didn't seem to match up there, either. So in the end, after much debate, we decided to give him Epic Intelligence rather than leave this idea out.
We've been talking about it again lately, though, and the more we do, the more I start leaning back toward Mystery, or even maybe saying, "no deal, scholars, show us some sourcing!" despite how many of them are repeating the idea. The Dagda is certainly determined to be something of a square peg - what do you guys think?
Absolutely! We've had this question asked before in a few different places, actually, and we never mind talking about reasoning.
Giving the Dagda Epic Intelligence was actually a decision that we struggled with for a long time when working on the Tuatha de Danann. While he certainly has a good amount of pragmatic good sense in myths, he also doesn't really appear to be wildly more intelligent than everyone else in any story, so initially we decided to completely leave that idea out. But source after source and book after book insisted that he was the patron of wisdom and thought - Green, Fleming, Sjoestedt, Monaghan and so forth, they were all big fans of the Dagda and his mighty wisdom. We didn't have a story basis for this unless you want to consider his good sense in not pissing off the Morrigan or conquering dudes with his harp to be examples of high Intelligence, but the scholars seemed arrayed against us.
From what we've gathered, the Dagda's association with wisdom is a quintessentially Irish one; it's not that he's more academically inclined or book-learned than anyone else (obviously), nor that he possesses that much more thinking power, but that he's the keeper of otherworldly and unfathomable knowledge, the sorts of things that mortals can't know and even other gods often don't. He's presented as a god of the wisdom of the unseen rather than the wisdom of the smartypantses.
So we were left trying to figure out how to express that in Scion terms. We considered just associating him with really high Occult, but that didn't seem to quite cover how pervasive the idea appeared to be in all our sources; we also considered giving him Mystery, but with Ogma right there being super Mystery-centric, he didn't seem to match up there, either. So in the end, after much debate, we decided to give him Epic Intelligence rather than leave this idea out.
We've been talking about it again lately, though, and the more we do, the more I start leaning back toward Mystery, or even maybe saying, "no deal, scholars, show us some sourcing!" despite how many of them are repeating the idea. The Dagda is certainly determined to be something of a square peg - what do you guys think?
Monday, November 19, 2012
Skiing to Glory
Question: Where did you find the story of Sinmora killing Ullr on Ragnarök displayed on your Pantheons subpage? The only mention of her I knew was guarding Laevateinn (Svipdagsmal). Are there any more stories on her?
Ooh, I'm sorry, our bad. There is no mythical story of Sinmore killing Uller and Skadi; rather, that's something that actually happened in our chronicle, kicking off Ragnarok with a prophesied doom, a rather dramatic fight scene and the meteoric destruction of most of the Californian coast. We included it in his god page because there's precious little out there about him, and because it was written a few years ago when we first set this site up and only our players were using it. It's "canon" for the Better Next Time and Skeins of Fate games, but not from any mythological source.
We totally didn't realize it was still there, or we would have removed it - sorry! Please don't get confused; there ain't no prophecy of Uller's death at Sinmore's hands, so nobody has to get all anxious over their favorite frosty god. Uller actually goes completely unmentioned in the Ragnarok prophecies, so Storytellers are free to do whatever they like with him when the ol' Goetterdaemerung hits.
We've removed the offending pseudo-myth and replaced it with Uller's only legitimate mythic story - that of his brief sojourn as king of the Aesir. Sinmore, alas, really does have no role in myth other than as the guardian of Laevateinn.
Ooh, I'm sorry, our bad. There is no mythical story of Sinmore killing Uller and Skadi; rather, that's something that actually happened in our chronicle, kicking off Ragnarok with a prophesied doom, a rather dramatic fight scene and the meteoric destruction of most of the Californian coast. We included it in his god page because there's precious little out there about him, and because it was written a few years ago when we first set this site up and only our players were using it. It's "canon" for the Better Next Time and Skeins of Fate games, but not from any mythological source.
We totally didn't realize it was still there, or we would have removed it - sorry! Please don't get confused; there ain't no prophecy of Uller's death at Sinmore's hands, so nobody has to get all anxious over their favorite frosty god. Uller actually goes completely unmentioned in the Ragnarok prophecies, so Storytellers are free to do whatever they like with him when the ol' Goetterdaemerung hits.
We've removed the offending pseudo-myth and replaced it with Uller's only legitimate mythic story - that of his brief sojourn as king of the Aesir. Sinmore, alas, really does have no role in myth other than as the guardian of Laevateinn.
Winter Blues
Hey, everybody!
Unfortunately, the joyous season of winter colds is upon us and John and I are sick and sniffly. We're pretty sure no one wants to hear us sneeze our way through a few questions or peer blotchily at the camera, so we're going to postpone the vlog today. Hopefully we'll be able to get it out in a day or two.
We'll keep on diligently working on other Scion-related stuff from our sick ward in the meantime, though!
Unfortunately, the joyous season of winter colds is upon us and John and I are sick and sniffly. We're pretty sure no one wants to hear us sneeze our way through a few questions or peer blotchily at the camera, so we're going to postpone the vlog today. Hopefully we'll be able to get it out in a day or two.
We'll keep on diligently working on other Scion-related stuff from our sick ward in the meantime, though!
Beat as One
Question: Why did you take the Heart of Mine spell out of the game? I thought it was really great for plot hooks.
You know, we really tried to come up with reasons to keep Heart of Mine; it was one of few high-level Magic spells in the original game, and it was trying to use some cool ideas. But we ended up removing it mostly because it was horribly abusable and because it didn't really make sense, even with itself.
Heart of Mine did two things: it allowed you to share Fatebonds with someone else, and it tied your Fates together so that if one of you died, the other kicked the bucket as well. Unfortunately, neither of these things work as intended. Nor are we entirely sure how they were intended to work in the first place.
The sharing of Fatebonds is the only useful part of this spell - at least, it would be in our system, in which Fatebonds matter. In the original system, where Fatebonds were pretty much totally negligible and you couldn't get this spell until you were Legend 10, it was a totally useless facet of the power. Nobody on earth is going to spend 10 Legend and a Willpower to get a maximum bonus of +3 dice to some stats, especially when it comes with the danger of getting slammed with the inability to spend Legend or a loss of Willpower if things go wrong for that mortal. If you happened to be using our Fatebond system or some other homebrew in which Fatebonds weren't about as important to gods as gnat sneezes, this would definitely have more of an impact, but it would be something you needed on a very specialty basis; that is, only if you knew you were going to need a Fatebond bonus (or to cancel out a negative) and knew someone else who you could bind yourself to to do that. We can see situations in which that would be useful... but it's definitely not useful enough to be a level 9 spell.
And then there's the death-binding facet of the power, which is ridiculously broken and prone to abuse. We really don't get what the writers were trying to do with this spell, because not only does it lend itself to abuse, they suggest in the spell's writeup that it should be used abusively. If you tie yourself to another person, they die when you die; you can use it at any time to force anybody to go down with you. If you know you're going to die, you can take someone else with you, no strings attached; and, as the book suggests, if you have Ultimate Stamina or Samsara or Fertility, you can actually tie yourself to someone else, kill yourself (and thus them), and then just resurrect yourself and run off consequence-free.
Now, sure, dying sucks, you're not coming out of that with all your resources intact. But anything that allows you to literally kill someone automatically is a bad, bad, unbalanced idea for the game. What makes it worse is that the spell has no resistance whatsoever - the target doesn't even get to try to shrug it off, and is instead at the mercy of your suicide attempts or stupid decisions whether or not they want to be tied to you. It may be a rare situation indeed when a god would use this spell to abuse it by murdering people without consequences from anywhere on the globe, but it's still a possible situation, and it shouldn't be in the game.
Use the If-It-Were-Me test: if it's something that you would feel was absolutely unfair, unwarranted and unbalanced if it happened to a PC, it probably shouldn't be in the game. If Freya decided she didn't like you and just offed you with no resistance, warning or possibility of escape, probably without even leaving Asgard or going anywhere near you, and then just popped back out of her Circle of Life seed good as new, that would not be cool. Even worse, a random Scion of Freya (say, in a Shinsengumi-like rival band) could do the same thing, which would be massively not cool.
And if you're not planning to abuse it, what good is it to you? If your friend dies, you die, which is really only desirable if you are so attached to them that you simply can't go on living after they're gone (and are too lazy to try to rescue them from the Underworld or carry out their legacy or anything else). If you die, you'll be killing your friend, which you probably won't want to do. And what do you get for these dangerous possible double-deaths? That +3 dice Fatebond bonus. Oh, well, hallelujah.
To be fair, the thematic idea of tying your fate and death to someone else does occur in mythology here and there; wives die when their husbands die, enemies fight until mutual death, and coincidental deceasement happens when it's dramatically necessary. But this spell isn't really encouraging those sorts of situations; it's not encouraging two Scions to fight to the death and barely kill one another, but instead allowing one Scion to get trounced but magically kill the other anyway. It's not tying spouses together so strongly that one of them chooses to die rather than live alone; it's just making her drop dead when hubby goes down with the ship. Those things are story vehicles, and while there's definitely a lot to be said for how Fate influences them, this spell is doing a terribly clumsy job of trying to mechanically illustrate that idea (if that's what it's trying to do at all, which I don't know if I really believe considering the gleeful suggestions to intentionally commit suicide to murder your enemies).
So: this is a spell that is both useless and horribly broken, somehow at the same time, and that doesn't seem to know what it's trying to do in the gameworld. We talked about trying to fix it to keep it in, but there were really no good ways to do so; you could take out the if-I-die-you-die thing, but that's the major reason anyone would bother with the spell in the first place, and while the Fatebond bonus is more useful in our system than the original, it's also very specifically situational and not particularly powerful for a level 9 spell. We could always move it to a lower level, of course...
...but then we realized we were trying too hard. Sometimes a spell needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery, and Heart of Mine is one of those spells. It's a pretty perfect example of something that is written badly and doesn't help either the game or the characters, so there was no reason to keep it instead of letting it go to bad spell hell where it belongs.
You know, we really tried to come up with reasons to keep Heart of Mine; it was one of few high-level Magic spells in the original game, and it was trying to use some cool ideas. But we ended up removing it mostly because it was horribly abusable and because it didn't really make sense, even with itself.
Heart of Mine did two things: it allowed you to share Fatebonds with someone else, and it tied your Fates together so that if one of you died, the other kicked the bucket as well. Unfortunately, neither of these things work as intended. Nor are we entirely sure how they were intended to work in the first place.
The sharing of Fatebonds is the only useful part of this spell - at least, it would be in our system, in which Fatebonds matter. In the original system, where Fatebonds were pretty much totally negligible and you couldn't get this spell until you were Legend 10, it was a totally useless facet of the power. Nobody on earth is going to spend 10 Legend and a Willpower to get a maximum bonus of +3 dice to some stats, especially when it comes with the danger of getting slammed with the inability to spend Legend or a loss of Willpower if things go wrong for that mortal. If you happened to be using our Fatebond system or some other homebrew in which Fatebonds weren't about as important to gods as gnat sneezes, this would definitely have more of an impact, but it would be something you needed on a very specialty basis; that is, only if you knew you were going to need a Fatebond bonus (or to cancel out a negative) and knew someone else who you could bind yourself to to do that. We can see situations in which that would be useful... but it's definitely not useful enough to be a level 9 spell.
And then there's the death-binding facet of the power, which is ridiculously broken and prone to abuse. We really don't get what the writers were trying to do with this spell, because not only does it lend itself to abuse, they suggest in the spell's writeup that it should be used abusively. If you tie yourself to another person, they die when you die; you can use it at any time to force anybody to go down with you. If you know you're going to die, you can take someone else with you, no strings attached; and, as the book suggests, if you have Ultimate Stamina or Samsara or Fertility, you can actually tie yourself to someone else, kill yourself (and thus them), and then just resurrect yourself and run off consequence-free.
Now, sure, dying sucks, you're not coming out of that with all your resources intact. But anything that allows you to literally kill someone automatically is a bad, bad, unbalanced idea for the game. What makes it worse is that the spell has no resistance whatsoever - the target doesn't even get to try to shrug it off, and is instead at the mercy of your suicide attempts or stupid decisions whether or not they want to be tied to you. It may be a rare situation indeed when a god would use this spell to abuse it by murdering people without consequences from anywhere on the globe, but it's still a possible situation, and it shouldn't be in the game.
Use the If-It-Were-Me test: if it's something that you would feel was absolutely unfair, unwarranted and unbalanced if it happened to a PC, it probably shouldn't be in the game. If Freya decided she didn't like you and just offed you with no resistance, warning or possibility of escape, probably without even leaving Asgard or going anywhere near you, and then just popped back out of her Circle of Life seed good as new, that would not be cool. Even worse, a random Scion of Freya (say, in a Shinsengumi-like rival band) could do the same thing, which would be massively not cool.
And if you're not planning to abuse it, what good is it to you? If your friend dies, you die, which is really only desirable if you are so attached to them that you simply can't go on living after they're gone (and are too lazy to try to rescue them from the Underworld or carry out their legacy or anything else). If you die, you'll be killing your friend, which you probably won't want to do. And what do you get for these dangerous possible double-deaths? That +3 dice Fatebond bonus. Oh, well, hallelujah.
To be fair, the thematic idea of tying your fate and death to someone else does occur in mythology here and there; wives die when their husbands die, enemies fight until mutual death, and coincidental deceasement happens when it's dramatically necessary. But this spell isn't really encouraging those sorts of situations; it's not encouraging two Scions to fight to the death and barely kill one another, but instead allowing one Scion to get trounced but magically kill the other anyway. It's not tying spouses together so strongly that one of them chooses to die rather than live alone; it's just making her drop dead when hubby goes down with the ship. Those things are story vehicles, and while there's definitely a lot to be said for how Fate influences them, this spell is doing a terribly clumsy job of trying to mechanically illustrate that idea (if that's what it's trying to do at all, which I don't know if I really believe considering the gleeful suggestions to intentionally commit suicide to murder your enemies).
So: this is a spell that is both useless and horribly broken, somehow at the same time, and that doesn't seem to know what it's trying to do in the gameworld. We talked about trying to fix it to keep it in, but there were really no good ways to do so; you could take out the if-I-die-you-die thing, but that's the major reason anyone would bother with the spell in the first place, and while the Fatebond bonus is more useful in our system than the original, it's also very specifically situational and not particularly powerful for a level 9 spell. We could always move it to a lower level, of course...
...but then we realized we were trying too hard. Sometimes a spell needs to be taken out back and put out of its misery, and Heart of Mine is one of those spells. It's a pretty perfect example of something that is written badly and doesn't help either the game or the characters, so there was no reason to keep it instead of letting it go to bad spell hell where it belongs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)