@ Doc Weasel:

If, as the GM, you're willing to let a PC do something that goes not only against the rules as written, but counter to the roleplaying trope of the class, you're stepping onto a slippery slope.

What happens when a wizard wants to wear armor? What happens when a human wants to wear Gromril armor (big no-no BTW)?

Games are played on the unspoken agreement to follow the rules. Admittedly, some rules can be bent, some broken, and some completely thrown away, but I think that you can see here from the voracious disagreement with allowing any slayer career to wear armor, that this is a rule that needs to remain as written.

Consequently, your logic over the Agent losing his employer is flawed. After all, a Ratcatcher that never catches a rat doesn't cease to have a career. A Barber-Surgeon who lances no boils doesn't cease to be a doctor. The Agent is simply unemployed. A Free-Agent, if you will.

And one needn't suffer insanity to be a Witch-Hunter. You can start that career after successfully completing the Zealot career.

Wizards are welcome to wear armour: +1 misfortune per soak to Spellcraft and Channelling. This is RAW.

Gromril Armour is made for Dwarfs - you would have to be a very strangely shaped human to wear it. If you could somehow acquire it. there is no fundamental (non-social) mechanism that stops a dwarf-shaped human wearing it.

Witchhunters who enter witchhunter via the insanity route may have it cured - it's an entry requirement, not a conditional requirement for the career.

However, there is a fundamental mechanism that stops Trollslayers wearing armour and that is the Trollslayer oath. Breaking that oath means his is no longer a trollslayer. This is part of the metaphysical reality of the WFRP universe.

So... I think everyone got really heated and missed the joke.

Gromril armor worn by a non-Ironbreaker provides NO BENEFIT except for significant weight. Hence the Trollslayer/Giantslayer has put on physical substance, but isn't really wearing armor. I think it was some clever mechanics humor (he was asking if the trollslayer would still have his power mechanically since he's technically not gaining the benefits of armor - since he's theoretically just having 'training weight' on for an even bigger handicap in a fight).

As to the further discussion - I think everyone is forgetting that magic is part of the world. Trollslayer power is granted by their Oath sworn and heard by the Dwarf god Grungni. If they betray their oath, they lose their power. I'm not sure why a Trollslayer would ever put on armor (especially if there's an opportunity for a glorious death), but this is sort of a moot point. A mage being censured for something awful (say channeling Dhar) and having his magic severed, is no longer a mage. A priest having given up his calling to worship Nurgle - isn't iikely to have Sigmar still answering his prayers.

The system very much provides an out for this. If an Agent loses his employment he will probably be forced out of his class - but this leads to roleplay. Say he decides to drink and try to make funds by gambling since he's no farmer. He class transitions into Gambler (this may take a few Advances) and during those weeks of play that he's earning the advances, he's also roleplaying the transition. He buys some armor and toughens up to make a living as a sword for hire? Maybe a Thug is appropriate? If the colleges strip you of status, you lose your order card, and you're definitely transitioning into something else. Witch Hunters are sort of funny in this regard. If their insanity is cured ... is their zealousness still fiery enough to run around burning people? Enough so that their superiors won't notice a slacking off or a lack of faith an purpose? Then sure, they can stay a hunter.

I don't really see how the scene with the Slayer wearing armor would play out. A Slayer comes from a dwarf having broken an Oath in the first place (for the most part, I'm sure they could be shamed otherwise). To break another oath seems like he's going against the very core of his race. If his beliefs do change enough to support this - maybe he should exit the Slayer career voluntarily. I'm not sure I would use the MIGHTY GM FIST OF SMITING to force an immediate class change, but it would be a case of 'I'm pretty sure your character wouldn't do that' or the player having already started the transition, just move on to a different career (Pit fighter, Thug, Soldier maybe?).

This game is all about the 'flexible' and 'saying yes' with risk and cost. "I want my trollslayer to put on armor." GM: "Well you understand this means you won't be a trollslayer anymore?" Player: "I understand but I feel without the armor they'd stabbify my kidneys which I need for stuff, and I have to use it to hold this pass to save my friends lives." GM: "Ok then." Class transitions are part of the flow of the game that should be used organically to reflect the RP - you can use common sense rather than a hard and fast rule (ALL classes losing some prerequisite are immediately ejected with negative XP into something else!). Its just like party sheets. If your 'Swords for Hire' have to resort to banditry and general ruffianship (either for plot reasons, or through story arcing) you shift the card to 'Band of Thugs'. Same deal with careers.

Also. Remember to laugh at the humor of the original mechanics question!

Well my opinion on this is that considering mechanics part of the debate FFG should have evaded to put rule which forbids something that is physically easily achievable. Yes, Troll-Slayer is able to put armor on himself. They could said that troll-slayer carrier card ceases to work if he dons armor.

He also cant able to use slayer cards anymore. Also he cant go to next slayer carrier, end of story. For the roleplaying part there are lots of suggestions on this thread what would happen to poor guy.

But important thing to notice is that you SHOULDN'T forbid something that is physically possible. As Doc said, card wont pop out and forbid donning of armor.

But cmon penalizing him, as dvang proposed, with xp is just plain stupid imo. I dont have words of how disgusted I am with idea of it.

dvang said:

You are comparing incomparable here. You cant but 10 in characteristic, ok, thats a rule. But I havent seen the rule that explicitly prevents pc's from flying.

It says that moving shortens distance between you and whicherver you are going to and by what degree. It doesnt mention horizontaly and verticaly moving. Why?

Because it is common sense that people use their legs to move and can only travel on ground. BUT also it is common sense that anybody could put armor onto themselves. Saying your players that they cant do something which is really possible to do because rules says it just showes your shortcomings as gm.

dvang said:

If a player wants to play a character that wears armor, then they shouldn't have chosen to play a Slayer. Hmm...

If you wants to gm your games with so narrow-minded attitude, then you shouldn't have chosen to be gm.

Roleplaying is game of endless possibilities and choices, each of produce different effect and consequence on playing world. To kill such one choice, which is imo interesting and dangerous one, is just plain wrong.

Of course, I would as the GM try to persuade the TS PC from putting on armor in the first place. I would warn him that TS cannot wear armor and remain a TS, as it is fundamentally part of who they and their career, are. I would warn the PC that doing so would cause a major character shift, and they would no longer be a Slayer.

But cmon penalizing him, as dvang proposed, with xp is just plain stupid imo. I dont have words of how disgusted I am with idea of it.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. After all, the RULES say a Slayer cannot wear armor. He's not really being "penalized", as the PC isn't losing any XP, they are just making a transition to a new career earlier than normal. The only thing he is "losing out" on, really, is the chance to complete the Slayer career and buy the career ability.

You are comparing incomparable here. You cant but 10 in characteristic, ok, thats a rule. But I havent seen the rule that explicitly prevents pc's from flying.

You're the one comparing the incomparable. The rules say a Trollslayer (or any slayer) cannot wear armor. Period. It's just like putting a Focus talent in a Tactics slot. Or, its like the rules only allowing dwarfs to enter the Slayer career. You cannot do it (unless you've got a special ability that gives you an exception to the rule). The fact is that a Slayer's mindset and OATH forbids him from even seriously THINKING about putting on armor, let alone wearing it. Wearing armor is anathema to Slayers. It's a totally foreign concept that Slayers are even laothe to consider, and probably would never even consider themselves as an option in the first place (someone would need to suggest it to them). A Slayer would probably have a violent (and negative) physical reaction to any attempt to have armor put on him, and would never be able to physically bring themselves do so. It isn't psychologically (and even somewhat physically) possible for a Slayer to voluntarily put on armor. They just can't.That is supported in the rules.

If a Slayer can seriously consider wearing armor, then they have lost not just the divine blessing, but the fervor and drive and mentality required for them to act and learn as a Slayer. I.e, they are no longer a Slayer.

If a player wants to play a character that wears armor, then they shouldn't have chosen to play a Slayer. Hmm...

If you wants to gm your games with so narrow-minded attitude, then you shouldn't have chosen to be gm.

Roleplaying is game of endless possibilities and choices, each of produce different effect and consequence on playing world. To kill such one choice, which is imo interesting and dangerous one, is just plain wrong.

Now that's just a rude comment. I don't see anything narrow-minded about it. It's like saying because I don't allow a human scribe to transition into a Slayer career that I'm killing that PC's roleplaying possibilities. This still can be a roleplaying opportunity, as they transition out of the Slayer career and into their new one. No RP'ing lost. If the PC wants to try to role-play and try to regain his Slayer career ... well, I'd warn them it would be extremely difficult but I might allow the attempt. It would depend on the player, and the reason they were adamant on breaking the rules/their career in the first place. So, anyway, no lost RPing possibility, like you so falsely claim. I am just imposing reasonable consequences to roleplaying such a radical divergence from a player's career, which you apparently don't care about doing other than a "can't use slayer abilities while wearing armor".

So is Warhammer a dark and gritty distopia where corruption is rampant, or is it a moralistic one where people who break oaths find immediate retribution?

Personally, I'd just say that the slayer career abilities don't work while wearing armor. Beyond that it's a roleplaying/story issue.

I think it's more interesting to have a dwarf avoiding the glances of his peers for fear they may see the weakness in his heart than just saying "that's not how it's supposed to be" and shutting the character down. If one of my players did something like that, I would be overjoyed with the great story device they just handed me to make their character's life complicated.

I like my world to be dark and menacing, though.

<shrug> Might as well allow Elven Trollslayers, Dwarven Wizards, Human Ironbreakers, etc. which would be the pretty much the same as allowing a Trollslayer to wear armor. GMs, of course, are free to alter the rules/make house rules for any RPG, but the rules are there for a reason.

So is Warhammer a dark and gritty distopia where corruption is rampant, or is it a moralistic one where people who break oaths find immediate retribution?

The former, but as far as I am concerned the second, which I assume you are labelling as my approach, is not correct. It is not based on morals or "immediate retribution", although I can see why you think it is so. The point is that by voluntarily wearing armor (against the rules), ignoring the tenets of the career, and ignoring the warnings from the GM, the player has made it clear that the PC is no longer willing to be a Slayer. The choice to wear armor is essentially a declaration of the PCs intent to exit the Slayer career. It is a definitive character change. It is, in essence, the last step of the change and not a spurious thing. If the PC Slayer can even consider wearing armor, then the character has been changing their outlook away from being a Slayer for a period of time to come to that realization. I'm not talking about the gods spontaneously smiting the PC for uttering a swear word. I'm talking about the PC having a total change in personality, even if it wasn't roleplayed well up to the point that the decision was made.

dvang said:

"Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! MASS HYSTERIA!"

*

What I'm trying to get across is that there is more than one way to enforce "can't wear armor" thing. Hitting the player with the "No You Can't!"-hammer doesn't really add much to the game or to the story.

Hyperbolic, slippery-slope arguments aside, allowing a oath-broken slayer to stay in career is not going to break anything. When you take away the career, the ultimate justification is "because I (or a book) said so." If you leave it be and pursue story-based consequences, it allows the player to find out for him/herself why that rule shouldn't be broken.

In fact, the story-based consequences can be much worse than just being booted out of a career. The continual guilt of living a lie, or fear of discovery and reprisal from others is often much worse than any actual punishment. These types of consequences also further engage the story and the setting, and can involve everyone at the table. It reinforces one of the core setting tropes: people are flawed, and those flaws help ruin the world.

If your first reaction is to immediately punish a character for something like this, then you are missing out on a great story arc that can really screw them up, and can lead to some great roleplaying at the table.

I am with Doc, the weasel here.

His arguments are sound. There is nothing in a "storytelling" aspect that prevents anyone who plays a trollslayer to wear armour. But it is a moral issue for the character, and can have great consequences in storytelling terms. In game terms that player have violated and broken a rule, in the same way a Shallya priest will have done if she refuses to heal a wounded man (both in game terms and storytelling). So in game terms the troll-slayer is likely to loose the effects of his career ability card. But the heavens will not likely smite him with ligthing bolts till he drop the armour, (unless of course you play a more nasty variant of TGS).

But letting the whole world react on such an small insignifcant rulebreak, with book of grudges, whole communites in shock. Now that is an overraction of the worst kind, and a bad GM call.

good gaming

Mal Reynolds said:

Only one poster mentioned the book of grudges and the PC being hunted down - this is indeed an overreaction.

A proportional responce imo would be as below.

A PC who breaks his Trollslayer oath is no longer a slayer:

• Mechanically: The portionate response is to take the career ability away and forbid further career advances in the Slayer career.
• Socially: The character has transgressed the norms of his society. Individuals reactions to an ex-slayer will vary (assuming his status is known).
• Spiritually: The character has lost his chance at an honourable place in the afterlife - he has no way to redeem himself.

Mal Reynolds said:

there do seem to be posters who do think that there are storytelling considerations that should prevent all Trollslayers from wearing armor:

1) intense shame over the loss of one's honor

2) hope of redemption and recovery of honor in the afterlife by dying in glorious combat

I think these are story necessities for all trollslayers and putting on armor would be a violation of the "trollslayer story." This is not to say that there can't be variance in a how players use this guideline to make their own story, but wearing armor and other acts of cowardice should be out of the question. and I think the GM should warn the player that they will have to spend experience and make a career shift. This doesn't erase the fact that they were trollslayers, they just took a very very uncommen path and I think they should pay storywise and mechanically unless it is a brand new player who had no idea how crazy trollslayers are. If they survive a campaign they are either not being played right (IMO) or they are extremely luck dice rollers.

I believe what we are all missing here is the question why and the cont ext.

A lot of answers to this conundrum come down to play style. We all play things differently. Some are very story focused, character driven, while others are system driven, mechanically driven, where players don't invest a great deal into characterization. I have played with all sorts of groups, players, and GM's. I AM ALSO NOT saying anyone's responses here leans to one camp or the other. I am merely suggesting it is hard to say how to penalize a Troll Slayer in armor unless we know why they chose to do it in the first place. Is the player someone in the corner, who never pays attention except when their is a combat and flippantly decides to put on armor? Is it a player who has chosen to armor up for numerical "win" scenarios. Have they donned that armor after playing a rather flat and boring Slayer? Have they played a great Slayer up until that point and then, out of the blue, threw on armor? All of these would make me, as a GM react differently. The guy who never paid attention, I might take Dvang's approach. The guy who is doing it for the "win" conditions, time to force him to switch careers. The flat roleplayer, I'd suggest maybe a complete regenerate because he doesn't seem into his career. If they'd been playing a great Slayer, I'd call a rally step and ask why they chose it? Obviously, there had to be a great reason in that player's mind. The answer to that question seems more important to me than having a flat-out penalty rule...because there is no RULE in the game for the penalty for putting on armor. This is obviously left for us to decide through the course of our own games. And if a great player chose to do it, I imagine there would be a great reason and I want to know what direction they see the story going from this point forward with their character. I could even imagine them saying to me, "I think I should switch careers" at that point in time.

The second factor is the context. Are we playing a comical fun game with no real investment? Why bother. Is my game about Slayers or is it about something else? Something else...does it matter all that much to take a complete aside for it and rip a character to shreds. Do I see great narrative possibility that can arise from the Slayer doing this action? If I do, why engage in mechanical "level-drain" when I could simply use this to my advantage. I'd look at my current story and ask, for the sake of that one story, is a Slayer a straight-die hard fanatic path, or can I give it wiggle room and growth. For example, there are advanced options to Troll Slayer, so would a redemption story before being able to advance to Giant Slayer be more interesting for the story than simply setting it on fire. Is my story about Troll Slayers redemption and how would I like to play with that this time around. The context of the game in which it happens means everything to this question's answer.

Is there a story reason (for example: as a bad example time: If the slayer dies, the world implodes). Well, maybe he would consider armor at that moment once learning that fact. Sure he still wants to die, he should probably just find a better day to do it on, LOL. Man, that example is horrible, LOL!

My point is it all comes down to the context of why he chose to do it, my play group and the conditions of the game. Like everything in gaming, it comes down to story and play-mode and there are no hard and fast RULES to tell you how to do that. Secondly, a Warhammer RULE and a gaming RULE is, don't let the system ever, ever, ever stand in the way of a great story. With that being said, if it's worse for your story that the Slayer put on armor, penalize away. If it's not a big deal and doesn't really matter if he does or doesn't, why bother. OR if you think you and the player think you can do something great for the story with you or a player wants to explore it, by all means, simply cut the talent card while he's in armor and let the story thrive from it. Though it may not match some pre-conceived world design, it is only one game out of the dozens you will play with Warhammer, so it could be something exciting to explore for a little bit. The only people who can answer that is your group.

The answer is all in the play.

Happy gaming,

Commoner

BTW: Curse you Mal for having a similar tag line as me! Curses! CURSES!!! (LOL!!!)

Doc, the Weasel said:

We have of course strayed quite a bit from the initial question (which may or may not have been meant seriously), nonetheless I find this discussion quite interesting.

The problem with allowing players to do whatever they want (going "against" the setting) is that it may take your campaign into a place where you (or, even worse, the other players) do not want it to go. If your player truly want to roleplay a troll slayer putting on armour and forsaking his oath, this is not only his choice. If you as GM and/or the other players came into the campaign wanting to play something completely different I don't think it's fair letting one player decide what the focus of your campaign is going to be. But of course, if the entire group is willing to play something like this, it could become a great story. Some meta-game talking is probably a good thing when deciding if you want to do something like this.

I'd compare the act of putting on armour as a slayer to things like developing visible mutations, murdering an innocent in front of witnesses, using Dhar openly, publicly preaching for the gods of Chaos. These kind of acts will, in my opinion, transform any campaign into a story revolving about that single act instead of anything else. Some people like that kind of games, some do not.

Of course, some might (Fresnel and Mal from what I could see) do not think that a slayer putting on armour is such a big thing. That is their opinions and they can of course play as they want. My point still stands though, before the player commit this heinous crime , he should make sure that he's not ruining the fun (immersion) of the GM and other players. Personally I would probably disapprove (unless there's a truly great story hidden there).

gruntl said:

Hey! My position is that the ex-slayer has committed a heinous act - one that dooms his immortal soul to eternal damnation. There is nothing more serious than this. Imo this a position firmly attested by the setting canon and the core setting fiction on Slayers.

Whether breaking the Slayer oath is a crime in dwarfen law is open to debate. I am not aware of any canon position on this. A GM who wishes to play within a nominally canon setting, is therefore entirely justified taking it either way. The situation may be so unprecedented that no law is written to cover it. Or dwarfen society might view such people as so pitiful that no sanction is needed. Or it might be a capital offense.

Those who wish to keep a nominally canon setting can agree that the act is heinous but disagree on whether it is a crime.

Fresnel said:

You're correct of course, I seem to have misunderstood you somewhat. It all just depends how you want the setting to be.

I'd say the offense is capital enough to warrant at least one of his relatives taking the slayer oath themselves to try and purge the abominable ex-slayer from the face of the earth (and in that way try to attone both for this sin and the original sin perpetrated by the ex-slayer) . In my opinion, it would certainly be recorded in the Book of Grudges. It may seem like a small thing, but I think dwarf culture and traditions are all about honour even in the smallest of details. It's not putting on an armor that is the problem, it's actually leaving the troll slayer career that does it.

Some good points, certainly. I also believe that the story comes first. However, there *are* rules.

My point is that the rules say a Slayer cannot wear armor. Period. This means that they CANNOT wear armor. Describe it in story, however you want. That's why I was suggesting that psychologically/physiologically the Slayer would not wear/consider wearing armor. One rp-way to represent the rule is that a Slayer has an exteme physical reaction to wearing armor, and literally CANNOT put armor on. He cannot make his muscles move to complete such an act. It's as good as any rp reason to represent the rule. Don't look at it like "oh, a Slayer *can* wear armor, they'll just feel bad about it, maybe." Heck no. They literally CANNOT make themselves wear armor. For example, they have an intense phobia of being encased in armor (likely they'll lash out in anger, rather than freeze, but it's still a phobia). Or, come up with another reason for the rule if you don't like that one. Anyway, since I see the rule easily represented in game, if a Slayer wanted to wear armor against my warnings, I would take that as a desire to no longer be a Slayer (I would tell my player so as part of my argument), since a real Slayer would not physically be able to bring himeself to the point of actually putting on the armor. If he insists, and is able to wear the armor, then he is obviously no longer a Slayer since he no longer has the "phobia" to wearing armor that defines all Slayers.

dvang said:

A slayer cannot dress himself in armour, simply because in making that decision (with free will) he has broken his oath - he is an ex-slayer as he dons the armour.

However, is would be physically possible to be a Slayer in armour if he was incapacitated or mind-controlled and dressed in armour against his free will. However, as soon as he is able he would remove it. This would not break his oath.

If he suffered memory loss and didn't remember he was a slayer he might also wear armour. As soon as he recovered his memory or was told he was a slayer be a trusted source - he would remove it (the tatoos are helpful here). This would not break his oath.

If you as a GM forbid these possibilities becauses THE RULES SAY HE CANNOT WEAR ARMOUR you are playing a very strange game imo.

Fresnel said:

I think this is the most elegant interpretation.

Certainly works for me anyway.

I will say though (and not aimed at you efidm), calling peoples GMing abilites into question over their interpretation of something is a bit harsh. This is usually a friendly place, you guys need to chill out a bit.

Troll Slayers can wear armour just as Warrior Priests can wear icons of the chaos gods.

There's nothing physically stopping them from doing it, but unless you don't want to roleplay a reason why (and if you don't, why the heck are you playing an RPG?) and are ready to accept the consequences in both rules and story, you really shouldn't do it.

Bindlespin said:

You're absolutely right. What I actually meant what "physical", there nothing that can physically prevent a trollslayer to wear armour. Sorry for the mistake. Your points are very good, these can be conesquences if the Trollslayer decide to wear an armour.

commoner said:

Again your analytic mind is at work Commoner (that's why I love you). You seem to be covering all possible ways how a Trollslayer could don an armour. And your summary (the last paragraph), is gold. never ever let the rules come in the way of a great story. I agree in principle. But if the GM knows the rules well enough, he shouldn't need to bend or break the rule in order to create an wonderful story. You don't break any game rules by letting a trollslayer wear armour if the context allow it. But you will break any rules and the purpose of the game if you for instance let the trollsayer be able to levitate by mere thought.

The difference here is that while the it may seem to "break" the rules by allowing the trollslayer to wear armour it doesn't break the boundaries of the game or place it outside the limits of what to expect in the warhammer world. A psionic trollslayer with leviation would break any rules and expectations (unless you prefer cross-overs, and multiverses).

Breaking the Rule or Violation of Intention?

That is the question every GM should ask themself when such things happen. A trollslayer wearing armour is that just a rulebreak or is it in direct violation of the intention of the game? Those it promotes good roleplaying or is it cynical thinking of a powergamer? is it within the boundaries of the fantasy world? or does it violate the intention of the game?

In this instance it merly break a rule, so natural the GM must penalize him in some way. But it does not violate the world in general? It's not unthinkable that in the right context a trollslayer would wear armour. And any good GM could make a story based upon a trollslayer wearing armour. "your dwarf will have to wear this ancestral armour to get through the magical gates and gain access by the guardian, in order to reach the other side of the mountain where the goblin king lives", a plausible story. But could be uncomfortable for the dwarf in the party if he is a trollslayer.

That said, a trollslayer usually will not wear any armour at all.

and commoner I didn't know we had a similar tag line, before you reminded me of it. LOL

Good AND happy gaming

Ralzar said:

I would disagree. Since the actual rules say that a Trollslayer cannot wear armor, and nothing in the rules says that a WP cannot wear an icon of the chaos gods, they are actually quite different.

IMO, deeply ingrained in the Slayer is an extreme physical aversion to wearing armor, such that it is actually PHYSICALLY impossible for him to voluntarily put on armor. His muscles lock up, or spasm, or he flies into a murderous unthinking uncontrollable rage, etc (however the player wants to RP it). This is part of the inherent make up of a Slayer, like the Talent Slots or the starting characteristic bonuses. It is not optional (without house ruling of course) for a Slayer to voluntarily wear armor. Don't get me wrong, I'll talk with the player and try to either talk him out of it, or suggest alternative RP ideas, but IMO there is no need to break the rules to let a Trollslayer voluntarily wear armor, and plenty of reasons why they couldn't physically perform the act of doing so.