Flaws - How vexatious should a major personality flaw be?

Games Discussion Ars Magica
1

The general major flaws are really limiting. Deaf, Blind, Enfeebled, Crippled are all terrifying bad. I can't see anyone but the most dedicated player choosing these flaws, with some exceptions. Can you have a characters with premonitions without choosing blind?

This brings me on to the crux of this topic. Personality flaws. I appreciate the Core Rule book states
"a Major Personality Flaw is much less of a hindrance to the character than a Major General Flaw, at least most of the time", however, even with that qualifier, I think it should be a very strong element.

I'm interested in other people's thoughts. I'll posit some examples and how I'd rule.

Flaw - Honest.
Scenario. Quaesitor asks "Do you know where your husband is?" {apologies for the pop culture reference, I watched The Incredibles recently}

-1 flaw. They can dance around the fact. "No, I do not know where my husband is." {I suspect he is in his lab, but I do not know}

-3 flaw. They answer to the intent. "I do not know, however, he is likely in his lab." "I do not know, and I have absolutely no interest in helping you."

Flaw - Compassionate.
Scenario. Enemy magi has a failed attack in a wizard war, and is running away. He casts a group spell called Fish out of Water, turning a bunch of Grogs in to fish.

-1 Flaw. The magi can justify leaving them. The magi may hope someone else can save them; or go a bit dark, the magi accepts they will die, but if he doesn't stop this villainous magi even more will die. The SG may ask for a roll, if it is reasonable to assume death is the only outcome if the magi doesn't intervene.

-3 Flaw. Immediately stops. Magi casts the biggest create water he has. Perdo Vim to turn them back, whatever, every Grog must live.

2 Likes
2

Is there not the possibility that he agonises over whether to put the Grogs out of their misery?

3

Being honest is not being helpful. Even under quaesitorial inquisition, you have no reason to answer anything.

  • Honest: it shows when you lie
  • Very honest: it shows when you lie by omission

If you know your hubby is cheating on you, you might breakdown and confess where they might be. That's because the lie of your life has built over time and is now too heavy.

2 Likes
4

I look at the question in a way that may appear slightly "off" (just as the question, as posed, appears slightly "off" to me).

Major Personality Flaws are a little like Story Flaws: they push the character into action. But while Story Flaws are generally external stimuli (yes, even Visions) Personality Flaws are internal. A Major Personality Flaw Avaricious is a way of telling the troupe: my goal in playing this character is to accumulate money. Lots of money! More money than the world has!!! One should think: playing this character, my character's "victory points" are measured in money; everything else is a means to that end. Hatred? My "victory points" are measured in how much harm I cause to the object of my Hatred. Lecherous? Ok, you get it.

In general, such a character is not stupid, so he's willing to go against his Personality Flaw in the short term (albeit perhaps agonizing about it) if it means the chance of greater gains in the future. An Avaricious (Major) character is certainly willing to spend money to secure the hand of a rich heirress. The compassionate character in the OP example will not automatically stop pursuing the fleeing enemy to help the grogs, if he thinks that putting him down will prevent many more deaths. Incidentally, I am not sure if there is an "Honest" Major Personality Flaw. I do not see it in the core book. I suspect it would be a bad Major Personality Flaw, because it's hard to see how Honest would drive a character into action in most cases.

It's not really clear whether that would be "vexatious". I mean, you could argue that such traits hinder the character. But from the point of view of the character (and of the player correctly playing such a character) it's more like everything else is hindering the character. If you feel a Major Personality Flaw is "vexatious", I'd say you have probably chosen the wrong Personality Flaw.

5 Likes
5

It was an easy one to do an example for. Choosing a personality flaw not in core rules isn't a big stretch.

Maybe, however, I would suggest a -3 avarice, hatred, lecherous, wrathful, would be vexatious for those around you....

A better term then vexatious may have been "controlling". Hopefully the players play a flaw correctly, however, asking when does the SG step in and say, your flaw means you do not do that is maybe what I'm really looking for.

6

Well, here's the catch. While every Major Personality Flaw implies an exaggerated Personality Trait, the converse is not true. A Major Personality Flaw is something that can actively drive the character into long-term action season after season. Compassionate definitely qualifies. "Driven (to always uncover Truth)" does too. Honest? Not really. It would definitely work as a Minor Flaw, though.

Oh, sure. Virtually every Major Personality Flaw can be vexatious to those around you. Because it dramatically skews your life goals. Compassionate and Generous just as much as Avaricious or Lecherous - imagine being the father of (the future) Saint Francis of Assisi, and discovering he's given away all your wealth to the poor. At the same time, it makes it in some sense easier to work with you, for people who know you. Because you only have one, big, goal in life you can be counted on to support any plan that will advance that goal, and oppose any plan that will hinder it.

What I was trying to say was that a Major Personality Flaw should not be seen as something that forces some behaviours upon your character in certain situations, no matter how incovenient those behaviours might be. Instead you are effectively playing a variant of Ars Magica, where you earn more "victory points" the more your character can indulge his personality. Avaricious (Major) means you are effectively playing Ars Pecuniae. If you enjoy that, playing a character with such a Personality Flaw will not feel "vexatious" any more than the lack of computers in Ars Magica does. If you don't ... well, why did you choose to play Ars Pecuniae?

When you play a Compassionate (Major) character, you will be willing to harm others or let them be harmed, albeit perhaps agonizing about it ... as long as it means helping people more. I contend that a Compassionate (Major) character is one of the most likely characters to kill an innocent prince if it is the only way to avoid a war. So, I disagree with the example in the OP: the character will leave grogs to their fate, if he thinks that allowing the other wizard to flee will entail more death and suffering. On the other hand, vis, enchanted objects, reputation, friendships etc. are all fundamentally irrelevant to his choice unless they are obvious, irreplaceable means to help others.

5 Likes
7

"I contend that a Compassionate (Major) character is one of the most likely characters to kill an innocent prince if it is the only way to avoid a war." I don't think this is true of most Compassionate characters. It might be right for someone with "Calculating +3" on their sheet, but most people aren't ruthlessly logical about their emotional desires. I would expect most Compassionate characters to refuse to kill the prince and search for another way to prevent the way. I guess it's a bit like the Trolley Problem, which people have spent a lot of time debating.

Also, as it happens, I used to know someone with Major Flaw: Honesty. The point where he said "I want to tell you that people have invited me to join them for dinner, but not you as they don't like you" generated a few stories. But I take your point that is is unusual.

4 Likes
8

Essentially, everyone agrees that someone with a Major Personality Flaw of, say, Avaricious will put money before everything else.

However, there seem to be opposite views about whether such a person will put a little money now before a much larger amount of money later. Frankly, in my experience people who are really obsessed with something - be it fame, money, looks, solving a difficult math problem, or the happiness of their kids - tend to look at it with a much longer-term view that other stuff. They are more calculating about it, because willing or not they are constantly thinking about it.

This is the fundamental difference between Major Personality Flaws and the Minor Personality Flaw Weakness for X. The Major Personality Flaw does not make you stupid or emotionally weak or anything; it simply defines what you consider at all times the only important thing in your life. You are certainly able to strategize about it - in fact, you are probably constantly strategizing about it.

A Weakness, on the other hand, does make you stupid in the short term: when confronted with the object of your Weakness, you succumb to your temptation there and then, even if you know you should not, even if it would mean sacrificing greater indulgence in the future. On the other hand, you are probably not constantly strategizing about indulging your Weakness.

3 Likes
9

The problem with deferring personality flaw gratification is it's very hard to be certain if depriving now will mean a benefit later. A magi with avarice doing extensive investments and being frugal so there will be lots of money later, especially knowing a long life span is part of the magi deal, is relatively easy to justify.

The compassionate flaw example, deciding to let the grogs die to take out the villainous magi to prevent more deaths is a lot more flaky. It is assuming the villainous magi will kill more. That's not guaranteed. It also assumes the compassionate magi can't save the future targets either, and the compassionate magi will also succeed in neutralising the villainous magi. All not guaranteed.

Deferred -3 personality flaw gratification is possible, however, it needs a serious justification.

1 Like
10

That's true of many situations in life. At the same time, there are many situations in which the better long-term bet is fairly evident. A loving parent who disciplines his child to educate him ("No homework? No TV!") when it would be much easier to just let go is a common example.

That's why I tried to emphasize in my examples the contrast between a small immediate benefit, and very large, certain benefit later in the future. In those situations, I contend that the character will not succumb mindlessly to the immediate temptation, but will weigh pros and cons.

And let me stress: a Major Personality Flaw is generally not so much about "gratification", inasmuch about a different (and much narrower) set of life values: such a character is not in general weaker-willed, or more emotional, or less capable of judgement. So I tend to disagree with:

It does not need "serious" justification, any more than any other choice one makes in which one sacrifices a little now for a lot (or even just a little more) later. If anything, a character who deeply cares about something is likely to weigh present vs. future with much more care, and thus is less likely to succumb to "immediate gratification".