By RoP:M p.54: "magical effects that would force a character to act against its Essential Traits always mysteriously fail."
So, if the Essentially Pious character is a Christian, he could not be forced by magic to commit a deadly sin, like suicide.
If taken as a flaw, it won't help.
RoP: M page 48.
" The effects of this Flaw are always detrimental to the character. "
However, you could demand he give you his daughters to do with as you wish, and that's fine. 
Sorry, it was too tempting to be a smart ass.......
1 Like
This is also 'smart ass'. RoP:M p.54: "... all Personality Flaws come with a corresponding Essential Trait as well.".ArM5 p.58 Pious is an (ArM5 p.37) Personality Flaw. "Always" certainly does not mean "in every single instance" here. See ArM5 p.37: "Note that Major Personality Flaws need not be characteristics that other people think poorly of."
Pious:
You are a fervent follower of your religion. You avoid the things it prohibits, and
enthusiastically do the things it commands.
is often enough detrimental to a magus, or a servant of one.
To accommodate 'smart ass': an Essential Pious does not protect from many other effects of Enslave the Mortal Mind.
Also keep in mind that the prohibitions on suicide for pious are not absolute. "save that woman from being dishonored by that band of brigands while armed only with your cross so that the world might glory in your martyrdom" is certainly a pious way to die suicidally.
2 Likes
Saint Adalbert's martyrdom can be told in many ways - also as a deliberate way to die a martyr.
I reckon that medieval Christians would not call it suicide, though.
I would think being a Pious christian is not detrimental often enough to be worth a -3. The world in most locations people play AM is devoutly Christian. Add in the side benefits of being near immune to any diabolic plot, it limits any coercive spell, etc.
I didn't remember the exact wording , however, I think something like this was first written in Champions. If a flaw does not limit you, it is not a flaw.
As a SG I would not allow Pious to be a major flaw, unless the religion is non-christian. Non christian, you get the -3. I'm not saying someone can't be incredibly devout, it's just minor , not major.
I'm sure other SGs would rule differently.
I'd rule differently. Firstly, there's no requirement for Personality Traits to be things people think negatively of - Compassionate and Generous can be Major Personality Flaws as well.
Secondly, being Majorly Pious can cause significant restrictions on a character's behaviour - personality flaws are fundamentally things that are going to make you behave in a non-situationally-optimal way, and not taking the easy course because it clashes with the tenets of your religion absolutely falls under that.
3 Likes
This is not in line with how flaws are treated in ars magica. Lots of flaws are not strictly limitations. Heir is a flaw, so is True love or being an optimist. I distinctly recall David chart explicitly stating that flaws are primarily things that force your character to take part in stories rather than being things that hinder your character but I am going to call Nobles parma on it.
To some degree, however a major flaw, just like a major virtue, should be character defining.
If someone wants to take pious as a major flaw for a magi, I'd expect them never to declare wizards war on a non-christian, for example. Thou shalt not kill. And similar kind of restrictions.
Personality flaws do have the situation where a SG may feel the need to say, "Actually, no your character doesn't do that", so all personality flaws are worth discussing before play begins so the SG and player knows how big an effect it will have.
Yep. They must fit into the saga a troupe plans, hence their definitions should be agreed with it.
In ArM it is important to separate True Faith and Pious cleanly, and in particular limit the requirements to the intellect of Pious persons. Fervent and voluntary obedience to the customs and tenets of one's religion, as expounded by its hierarchy, should be sufficient. If a SG insists on ahistorical behaviour of Pious people, he should make this clear beforehand.
1 Like
Even pious won't save you from a well crafted suicide. Pick any historical martyr/miracle, you'll find how a pious will die for his beliefs.
"God wants to test your faith, walk off the top of the tower and trust He will save you."
This might work to kill the Essentially Pious village idiot, but not a magus with the same Flaw, some education and positive Intelligence Characteristic: he will know and recognize the respective temptation of Christ.
But magical requests for pilgrimages, crusades, to convert the infidels, nurse the sick or reproach a sinning lord may all get an Essentially Pious target killed - or they may not, SG willing.
Confronting demons is also a potentially rapid way to your demise...
A less drastic way for Pious to cause you problems is if you have missed labtime - Covenants suggests the standard way of making up for lost days is to work on what would otherwise be rest days. Are you really going to break the Sabbath? Maybe, if the project is of sufficiently clear immediate import, but in general?
Also depending on what sort of pious you are there are lots of forbidden or questionable areas. Entities you won't deal with, materials you won't use, etc...
I know I'm a week late here, but I am curious as to how you all play the control for Enslave the Mortal Mind. It sounds like some people play it as 'I give a command, and you follow'. This can lead to a question about if the target has free will, and is following instructions, or if they are mind-puppets. Do they play loopholes?
My test scenario is a man who gets Enslaved by magic while standing in front of a desk covered with alchemical goods. Order: "Drink a potion."
Do they get to choose which potion on the desk to drink, using their unspoken knowledge of the potions?
Do they choose at random, because the ordering person doesn't know which is which?
Do they not do anything because the order wasn't specific enough and left ambiguity (I don't think so on this one, but included for completeness).
Do they ask the controller which potion to drink so they can complete it? (Not the way I'd do it, but I could see that argument.)
Does the caster, having cast the spell, define their new 'state' whether it's obedient or puppeted? (Probably this.)
Really, the specific answer depends on a mix of how the game runs it, and parameters set by the spellcaster on how the spell functions. Given a non-specific command, the target probably would do the fastest and most expedient way to fulfill it, with some acceptence towards the caster's knowledge of the situation affecting it. (Example, if the caster mind controlled through AC and ordered the target to jump off a cliff, and the target has no idea where nearby cliffs are.... But if the caster orders 'Go murder a child' to someone who's in front of them, the caster's situational knowledge would prevent the target from stabbing the caster's apprentice in the next room.)
I would let them choose which potion to drink, the same as if the thought and imperative had occurred to them naturally. Depending on their personality they might choose the one they believe is most beneficial or the one that they are most uncertain about...
3 Likes
I am gonna have to agree with @silveroak here.
I think it is worth noting that the situation you describe is (I assume intentionally) very vaguely worded.
I think the most reasonable interpretation of the spell is that the target fulfills the orders they are given to the best of their ability. They dont have a lot of wiggleroom when it comes to interpretation but neither do they go out of their way to try to infer the existence of any unspoken expectations on behalf of the caster.
In your example you present a whole host of potions and an order to "drink a potion", the caster might have had any number of intentions but since they didnt specify any desired outcome the target does their best to drink a potion as specified by the command rather than trying to guess what the caster intended for to happen. maybe the caster wanted to harm the target, maybe they wanted to benefit the target, maybe they wanted to find out what happens when someone drinks the blue potion, who knows? The target has no way to find out what the caster wanted, and in fact they are most likely unaware that there might even be an intention behind the command since they likely dont even know that they are being commanded as it happens. Though they are likely to realize it once the spell has passed.
2 Likes