I’m running my first saga soon and one of my player magi have taken the Major Delusional flaw and believes certain people are ‘tainted’ and should be ‘cleansed’. For reference, they are a Flambeau (also with no hands and the short-range magic flaw, but that’s another can of worms) so I imagine the ‘zealous fire-purging inquisitor trope’ will come to mind.
My query is how can I, as the GM, have this delusion play out at the table? Have them roll something to decide if they see them as ‘tainted’? If so, what should they be rolling?
There is not (in the copy of Core Rules that I have, page 53) a ‘Major’ Delusions flaw; it is a minor & non-story flaw. A rogue Flambeau purging random people with fire is going to cause stories, and that might be over-playing the flaw a bit.
Maybe ‘purging’ these people of their ‘taint’ should be difficult for the character; not something that plays to their strengths. Randomly dumping buckets of water over people’s heads (as one example) is likely to cause slightly less conflict than setting them on fire….
Ah indeed you’re right. We’re using roll20 for it and they had delusional down as a Major and I hadn’t checked in the book.
That seems a bit more reasonable than wanton arson, though how would you suggest determining who has this ‘taint’? Just mention whenever it may prove interesting or have them decide?
Story Flaws tend to be in the hand of the storyteller to some degree, but minor Personality Flaws tend to be mostly in the hands of the players to incorporate in their roleplay. I would let the player define what he considers taint and choose when to treat an NPC as tainted, unless he chose a relevant story flaw - say Visions.
A major flaw is meant to be resisted rarely. It is a defining characteristic of the character. Think of religious people who don’t renounce their faith when threatened with death. The person willing to lie about their faith, that is the minor flaw territory.
If it is a major flaw, then I would strongly counsel him away from it. It will dominate the story. Ars Majica is a setting where magi interact with the unusual. The problem he will get his covenant in due to cleansing undesirables will be high.
A minor flaw, he can be talked down by his coven buddies, sneak behind their back and do an occasional cleansing, etc.
I will put the onus on the player to explain how it affects his daily activities and interaction. Prompt him with some questions like: how did you spent your apprenticeship with such behaviour ? How people perceive you ? How do you treat grogs ? How can people earn your trust or change your opinion about themselves?
Often player pick up a flaw and leave the ST to handle it. Push back by asking how did he lived all those years with such flaw? How many “incidents” and “cover ups” ? Was it encourage by his master or was he horrified and wanted to get rid of this trouble-making apprentice ?
It will make the player think about his character’s behaviour and why people would accept to associate with such fanatic. He might have to rethink his approach and refine it. By default, one cannot reject a player, but a character that is insufferable? why would other PCs accept to have such trouble magnet / killing monster amongst them ? If he is hiding his flaw to be accepted within a covenant, how does he do that ? when can he not hold anymore and torch his neighbour ?
Make sure that everybody around the table is fine with such behaviour and check that it is not an excuse for poor role-play “murder-hobbo” style around and leaving the other to clean/hide the mess. If such behaviour is obvious, then other characters can legitimately refuse to be associated with him. Be mindful of player trying to shoehorn extreme behaviour under the pretense “but I am just RP my flaw” - how did he survive till now within the Order and his previous covenant ?
Point to the player that he cannot trust the crafter of his laboratory equipment nor the librarian, the copyist, the shield grog, etc… all those characters very crucial to the comfort of a mage.
To follow up on my previous message, there are ways to play this flaw in a more interesting way than just burn everybody: he is aware of his “condition”, and try to control his urge, but has relapse and his struggling.
What is the cause of his Delusion ? Does he hear voices, is it a childhood trauma while witnessing some horrific demonic manifestation ?
A Major Delusion is a mental condition (if you accept it as Major variant), you can lean on that if it is acceptable at your table. Overtime, the flaw could be replaced by something else, indicating that he is “healing” - Depressed or Oversensitive (about a relevant topic), or even Temperate (he overcame completely his urges, but he is almost living a monastic life as it is the only way he found to be in control).
To answer the question asked, for something as important as killing someone, it should always be the player choice, not a die roll. A character choosing a flaw should play it. If they don’t, they unfortunately misunderstood what major personality and or story flaws are about.
You also need to agree what “cleansing” means. If it's cast Pilum of Fire till they stop moving, that's Major (and, in my opinion, unworkable, for the reasons given already). If they pester the local priest to investigate, that could be a Minor flaw, depending on how often it happens.
The sample Delusions are all small in their consequences. This one probably isn't, so having a Major Delusion seems reasonable. Or it could be modelled by another flaw.
Homicidal Bigot is a major flaw. It makes you weird(er) and upsets the locals, especially when they’re the ones on the purge end.
Aggravating Bigot might be a minor flaw, depending on how aggravating the character is and how broad the target of bigotry is.
Bigots might target a narrow band (a specific group of a class) or a broad one (everyone in an ethnic group), of course, or maybe he’s delusional and can just see ‘impurity’.