He's already disgraced. Whats stopping a Trollslayer from wearing armour?

jh

I'd say that he won't redeem himself when he dies. Plus, to become a slayer is often a self-imposed quest for redemption with full knowledge of the consequences. So you do this thing right. If you can't even do this properly you will never ever be able to redeem your past mistakes, and should not have become a slayer in the first place, but stayed a shamed, loathed dwarf instead.

Emirikol said:

Jesus kills kittens until he takes it off.

The rules of the game stop him. For example, what's to stop a PC from buying a 10 in a characteristic, or using a Focus talent without having a Focus slot?

If the TS PC wants to wear armor, he needs to change careers.

If aTrollslayer decides to put armor on, against my advice, I would penalize the TS, not just in reducing the benefit of wearing the armor, but also dock them an XP point for the session. If it happens more than once, I would tell the PC to choose a new career, as he is immediately no longer a Trollslayer, and then charge the XP (this might put him negative causing him to "owe" XP) for the career change.

RP-wise ... a Trollslayer's mentality is such that they are trying to attone for their disgrace. That is why they became Slayers. If they are willing to disgrace themselves further, and break their Slayer Oath, then they no longer have the mentality or ability to be a Slayer.

If he doesn't care, then why become a Trollslayer in the first place?

Doc, the Weasel said:

Seconded. Being a Trollslayer is a state of mind. Wearing armour means he has abandoned his trollslayer oath. He is damned and then he is damned again. He is a disgrace to the Dwarf race, beyond redemption and a pitiful creature who is clearly insane.

The Troll Slayer Career Ability card clearly states that while in a Slayer career, you cannot wear armour.

mac40k said:

Yes, but it's not like the card is going to show up in game and stop it from happening.

I'd simply rule that a Slayer wearing armor is not a Slayer until he takes it off. Meaning he cannot use any Slayer cards (with Slayer trait) or abilities (Career ability, etc.). If the player is stupid enough to continue wanting to use armor and being a Slayer, i'd kick him off the group / award him no Exp at all / kill the character. Or maybe force him to change career card to take the Thug or Pit Fighter (not soldier, a Str / Tou one)

It's like if a player made a Priest of Shallya but, thru is play, pursue a warmonger path, gutting and beheading whatever comes his way like a berzerker. You make him change his career or his approach/play

Cwell2101 said:

A slayer who wears armour has broken his slayer oath. He can never be a slayer again. He will die disgraced, never to sit in honour with the ancestors. A state of damnation for which there is no recompence.

i'd rather use a "gradual response" depending on the player

There is nothing graduated about the Slayer Oath.

It's your game, but a nature of slayerhood is very well developed in the setting.

Fresnel said:

Yeah, but if no one sees him, or word doesn't get around then who will do anything about it?

Doc, the Weasel said:

Grungni will see it.

Doc, the Weasel said:

A dwarf's reaction would be one of contempt and/or pitty. Nothing they could do would or could be worst than what the ex-slayer has done to themself. A dwarf would send word to the Slayer keep that the ex-slayer's name is removed from the list - but this is primarily so a false record is amended.

Being a Slayer means keeping his Slayer oath. Part of this is facing combat unarmoured. If he breaks his oath - he will know - the dwarf gods will know - his ancestors will know.

A broken oath = Eternal Shame + No honourable place in the afterlife + Not being a slayer any more.

It seems to me that your PC is trying to PowerGame/Munchkin the Trollslayer career.

Choosing a 'slayer career isn't about being the biggest badass in combat. Slayers take the Oath in an attempt to restore their lost honor and the honor of their clan.

If I were the GM, the PC would begin encountering his kin (father, brothers, and cousins) who have all taken the Slayer Oath in an attempt to mitigate their shame, and all would be driven to kill the Oathbreaker.

Any dwarf he meets shortly after leaving the Slayer career would see his shaved head, and would immediately react negatively, refusing to business with him and actively shun him or try to kill him regardless of the number of successes and boons rolled.

Additionally, Slayers tattoo themselves extensively. Once his hair grew back, his slayer tattoos would betray his shame as well.

Finally, he would receive word from Karak Azgaraz that he is considered an "Oathbreaker", has had his name entered into the Book of Grudges, may never return to the Karak, and that his description has been sent to every major city in the Empire so that he may not find succor amongst men. The PC would have to live the rest of his days on the run.

Doc, the Weasel said:

If he willingly betrays his Oath, regardless if anyone sees it ... HE knows it, and thus is no longer a Slayer in mindset. He has betrayed the basic tenets of his profession, and can longer access or muster the same fanatical zeal required for a Slayer. After all, he obviously has no desire to atone for his shame, if he willingly (and frivolously) heaps more shame upon himself. As I said, the PC immediately must choose another career, spending the XP (perhaps even going negative) and cannot enter the Slayer career again. If a player wants to play a character that wears armor, then they shouldn't have chosen to play a Slayer.

monkeylite said:

isn't this an incentive to keep the armor on?

dvang said:

This seems like a bit much. I wouldn't allow him to move onto another Slayer career, but to bump him out of his current one seems a tad punitive. I mean, a character that has enough guilt to throw himself into a suicidal lifestyle is now suddenly too guilty to continue?

Yes, there should be consequences (and big ones, especially for any other dwarves that find out about it), but you're passing up a chance for some great multi-dimentional, "shades of grey" character moments, and replacing it with a one-dimentional, black-and-white worldview that I don't think adds as much to the game.

Doc, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree I guess. The Slayer career card says he can't wear armor. That means in order to put on armor, he has to leave the Slayer career. Being a Slayer means no armor, period. It's not okay as long as nobody catches him or some other nonsense. Player has to choose, be a slayer or wear armor. Can't do both.

mac40k said:

As a side note, I think there are two things we are looking at and assuming that they are one. The Troll Slayer career card and the Troll Slayer concept in the story. I think that the consequences are part of the roleplaying end, and less on the mechanical.

Should these two be equivalent? Do we do this with other careers? If the Agent looses his job, does he get booted from the career? If the Witch Hunter gets an insanity cured does he he lose his career card (assuming he got in with that and not the zealot career)? How about his in-game career as a witch hunter?

Doc, the Weasel said:

A Slayer is a quasi-religious career. As such it *is* tightly linked to what a character does.

If a Priest of Morr decided to earn a few silver on the side selling bodies to necromancers - would Morr still grant him blessings?

P.S. An insanity required to enter the Witchhunter career can be cured without becoming an ex-witchhunter.

Doc, the Weasel said:

I'm with Doc here. If the role-play justifies, armor up. It's his choice. A priest can make an oath not to drink, but if he drinks, should he be booted from a career. I'm not going to spank the bad-monkey for a great choice as long as the choice is justified. If he does put on armor, he has already chosen to give up the benefit of his career talent. Losing that talent, is a penalty onto itself as he has lost his "edge" for the sake of armor. Once he takes it off, the ability reactivates. The career card in itself is not all that different than soldier.

Additionally, I can see scenarios where a slayer regrets his choice. Where other factors may not make him want to die yet...he may still want to die, just some day in the future, but not today. These could create very interesting, grey, dynamic characters. As long as, one day, he takes off his shell and rushes in to die with his/her junk waving in the breeze, I'm all for it. He has full-filled his oath to die naked in combat. The build is what's key and it really depends on the story.

And no, if the player wanted to min-max, he'd play an iron-breaker over a slayer. Or any of the dozen or so bad-ass careers to get more benefits while in armor. It is clearly a strange choice, but one that could be very valid and is done with penalty onto itself.

Lastly, and this is very important, if a Witch hunter loses it's insanity, I don't see why it loses its career. He all of a sudden doesn't stop hunting and burning people at the stake because he's not insane. It's an RP choice to be a witch hunter, not a mechanical one.

I don't see how you can in any way feel that a Troll slayer wearing armor and getting away with it is consistent with the Warhammer lore. There are no "shades of grey" involved when it comes to dwarfs and oaths. Feel free to play how you want, but for me it would completely break any immersion, and I'd rather then play something else.

That saying, there is nothing that hinders you from using the conflict to play out a great story, perhaps with the PC troll slayer turning to chaos as he regrets his choice to swear the slayer oath (and getting a chaos knight armor rtaher than a gromril armor, which he will have problems using mechanically). The ideas of cliffetters would be great for this type of campaign. Mechanically speaking, he would no longer be a slayer though. There are chaos dwarfs in the Warhammer world after all, but I feel that it is either or for warhammer dwarfs, not some kind of human in between-mentality.

I'm normally for treating careers as more abstract concepts than as actual professions, but that doesn't really work for all careers, there are some careers that are just so intricately tied to the Warhammer world and lore that they limit the player choices. I would make sure that players wanting to play any of these careers understands what they sign up for (and perhaps even not let players take those careers unless they can come up with a good background/motivation for playing it). Some of the careers I think this would apply to are: Slayer careers, Witch hunter, Zealot careers, some priest careers, Iron breaker, Sword master, Wardancer, possibly the wizard careers.

I have to agree with the Grunti crowd. Troll Slayers can't and won't wear armour and wonder into battle because of convenience or because they really need armour this time. If they do so they are a disgrace to their oath and become oath breakers. Once a Slayer always a Slayer. The only true exists are Death or Chaos. That being said mechanically I'd allow a Slayer to change to a non-Slayer career if they complete all their exists. But they'd still be bound by the Slayer no-armour rules and still have to play with a Slayer mentality. Then again I also allow people to repeat careers so that also extends the life of people staying in a pure Slayer path.