[size=75]However It is important to bear in mind the dictum that "it's not a Flaw if it doesn't hamper you" -- a character should not be allowed to enter a campaign and immediately have a Flaw removed - the Flaws should be assessed in the context of "just after starting".
Thus a crippled leg is only a Flaw if it's going to remain a crippled leg for some time.[/size]
Now, bear in mind that I am not trying to offer challenge here, as I only further discussion:
I don't see a logical standrd there. What is 'some time'? WHat is the effective difference bewteen having a remedy to a problem at game start and using it vs. having said remedy and not applying it until game time + x time?
I would think that if one wanted to give PCs a hard time one would encourage them to use the resources early - as that is when resources tend to be scarce.
I can see a point to saying to a player "Well my friend, can you explain why you have a maimed leg (for example) and have not used your ritual magic to fix it permanently?"
But the player could, quite resonably come back with "My Master did not have / want to spend the rather large amount of vis required to fix my leg." Where the player would correctly be recalling that (at least in a cannon game) vis is scarce.
Thus not having a large amount of vis (even 3 or 4 pawns is alot for a spring covenant's stores) is a flaw. Admitedly it is a lesser flaw than a maimed leg, but without the ability to perform the ritual magics (which not every magus can do) this outcome would also not be possible.
I would tend to think this player's solution to dealing with a flaw is valid. I would also note that setting vauge standards like "some time" is going to lead to misunderstandings between people - and potential conflict / feelings of unfairness, etc.
Goodness knows I have been charged with being an unfair SG - sometimes because players often have unrealistic ideas of how the world works (sometimes because I make mistakes - being human and all )
The only thing here is that I am not seeing the logical differences between the Faerie Gift or Elder Magus Intervention and the PC Ritual approach - please clarify.
There is none, ultimately.
Caribet's point was (IMHO) that flaws should translate to fun. It's perfectly good to milk a flaw dry with funness and then remove it - quest for two years to get that faerie/archmagus/vis you need to remove it. That's what game mehcanics are for.
It's not cool to have the flaw removed too swiftly in-game (instantly or just fast), creating a disparity between magi and discomfort between players. That's not fun.
IMC we have developed a simple system for buying/erasing virtues and flaws.
A virtue/flaw is worth 5* its normal value. Hence something like adept student (+1) is worth 5 xp and can be bought by expentidure of such.
This must of course be roleplayed and have SG permission.
Certain flaws and virtues cannot be bought/erased. Most of these are self evident, others are forbidden for roleplaying reasons. i.e. i want a magus to do something about his "tormenting master", not just expend xp to get rid of him.
What we have found is that the Magi are buying occasional virtues but never very expensive ones. One magi has picked up and affinity after changing the kind of magic he has been focused on, another bought book learner after spending a huge amount oif time in the library.
I see no resone why one can't loose/gain virtues and flaws during the game. The game I am storytelling for I already have several charicters that have, such as a grog that has lived long enough to become a custos. On the stance of magus missing limbs, my take has alway's been that if they take the flaw it must be part of thier essential nature in thier back story. It is far to easy for a charicter to start out able to heal himself with a high creo corpus. This has led to many interesting charicters and backstories with one of out magus's whos hand got blown off during his aprentiship by a riaval and was warped during the process making it part of his essential nature has begun custruction of a gauntlet that he is researching a new form of magic item for to alow him to move the hand as reflex without consentration. This is heading up a mess of stories. This just shows that a flaw should not be removable without improving the storyline. But that is just my opinion.
Yes it was a 4th edition game. So far we haven't found it to be over balanced. We also use the rule (might be a house rule) that you can't put more than one xp point into anything per session.
Since we meet once a week, this means that for a magi to get a virtue such as Flawless magic (if its a +3 virtue, serfs parma) would take 15 sessions, or just under 4 months.
I would point out that pretty much any Flaw except the social ones can be removed by doing an appropriate Initiation (use the same rules as for gaining a Minor/Major Virtue). Most Flaws would be treated as unknown, since the Mystagogue isn't likely to have one (but if you self-initiate, you do). An example of an Initiation that removes a Flaw (blatant Gift) can be found in a Criamon path.
This is especially likely to happen for those Flaws that are stumbling blocks making impossible to use or perform the kind of magic or activities a mystery cult focuses about.
Since Initiations aren't subject to the Limit of Essential Nature, this isn't an issue.
I too have often been annoyed with trying to find suitable flaws for my companions and even my magi.
I think maybe 3 points of virtues free would be a good idea. Thats enough for one major or 3 minor virtues. Enough to give your character a good positive concept without having to find flaws to balance them out.
For instance.
I'm creating ted the necromancer.
He is a bonisagus and gets the puissant magic theory virtue for free. I give him a major focus of ghosts, corpses and the undead. Thats his 3 virtue points spent.
Now if i also want him to be a bit of a book worm, maybe i can balance that out by having him be very social withdrawn, especially about magic (incomprehensible magic flaw). If i go further and give him some more virtues, maybe i'll balance them out with blatant gift.
The point is that i get the concept without having to pick a nasty/bunch of flaws just to make the basic idea.
I'm sure we've all had the experience of picking your virtues and a few excellent flaws, then having to search through the book to find more relevant flaws. This feels unnecessary and a few free virtues might go a long way to help.
I don't know, I rather like the idea of balancing flaws with virtues, and your Bonisagus is missing his Hermetic Flaw anyway: no one should have a perfect Gift, yes?
The option of having a character have more Virtues than Flaws however, should be possible IMO.
Perhaps translating points spent in abilities as virtues? Or maybe years of life? There ought to be a counterpoint to having more Virtues than Flaws, but I am not sure what it could be.
The best solution when one cant find flaws to one's chracter, IMHO, is to review the Virtues one by one and remove those not absolutely necessary to the concept, paying particular attention to those that can be achieved during play.
If that fails, one can always get more Hermetic flaws or Weak Characteristics to compensate (few people are willing to take Weak Characteristis though).
I too found the lack of non-hermetic flaws a problem when designing a character, so I compiled a list of my own. I have listed them in my Flaws thread [url]https://forum.atlas-games.com/t/new-flaws/2203/1]
My SG lurks on these forums, so I can discuss them with him at my next session.
)