My group likes to run away. I'm thinking of having the gods of Law curse them or have the Gods of Chaos mark them. Which chaos god would be patron to the shamed and cowards?
jh
Which chaos god would be patron to cowards?
Emirikol said:
My group likes to run away. I'm thinking of having the gods of Law curse them or have the Gods of Chaos mark them. Which chaos god would be patron to the shamed and cowards?
Running away? We prefer to call it a strategic withdrawal!
I would say Ranald.
Well… I'd say Tzeentch or Slaanesh. Tze because he is ever changing, so hard to say which direction his plans take his followers… and Slaanesh first of all because he's opposite Khorne, and second because he was never about combat, but more about enjoyment.
Yeah, agreed. Ranald seems the closest. For the chaos gods, not sure. Tzeentch perhaps?
Being a coward isn't evil, I guess. But the "good" gods might take offence with the consequences of their cowardice.
Also local authorities might start to prosecute them, or peasants will pick up the pitchforks and drive them out of town and settlements. I think reputation could be an educational tool here. Like fame, shame also travels fast and people will sneer or worse when your adventurers show up.
Not sure why you'd want to punish players for running away, or indeed why the Gods would get involved.
Running away doesn't feel like an act that particularly advances the cause of Chaos. Nor is it an act that particularly offends the sensibilities of the Lawful. Given WFRP's grim n' gritty feel, it actually strikes me as an entirely rationale response (especially given the number of opponents with Fear / Terror abilities).
Maybe they're running away because they feel overwhelmed, in which case my response would be to slightly weaken the combat encounters. Tackle the cause, not the symptom.
phild said:
Not sure why you'd want to punish players for running away, or indeed why the Gods would get involved.
Running away doesn't feel like an act that particularly advances the cause of Chaos. Nor is it an act that particularly offends the sensibilities of the Lawful. Given WFRP's grim n' gritty feel, it actually strikes me as an entirely rationale response (especially given the number of opponents with Fear / Terror abilities).
Maybe they're running away because they feel overwhelmed, in which case my response would be to slightly weaken the combat encounters. Tackle the cause, not the symptom.
+1
Reminds me of our old Roleplaying group that used play Runequest & Cyberpunk. We always tried to have a cunning plan A + B & if they did not work we ran away. Our GM even once rewarded us for clever play because we ran away. Of coarse if a slayer runs away it would be a bad thing.
Reminds me of our old Roleplaying group that used play Runequest & Cyberpunk. We always tried to have a cunning plan A + B & if they did not work we ran away. Our GM even once rewarded us for clever play because we ran away. Of coarse if a slayer runs away it would be a bad thing.
Slaanesh! As excessive god of running away.
I agree that retreating/running away it itself has no moral component. It won't please Ulric or Sigmar a whole lot (or Khorne) or your Dwarf Slayer companion but that's their particular issues.
It's what at stake in the running away that matters. Running away to save own life and that's all that is involved doesn't attract anyone's notice really. Running away to avoid risks in stopping undead from over-running a town, a disease from wiping out village, skaven from enslaving people etc. those all involve more moral issues and attract more attention.
The perverse thing to do if they "run away" and let the plans of a Chaos Power other than Khorne succeed is that the Chaos Power will "reward them" (Tzeentch, Slaanesh or Nurgle's idea of reward being not very wholesome, the Skaven deciding that whoever you guard is a good target because you always run away etc.).
if they have been running away without a theme, in a Burning Wheel/challenge beliefs/make use of preferred instinctual reaction interesting fashion, I would set up situations in which running away has such a moral dimension and does attract attention.
I would not, however, punish strategic withdrawal per se.
valvorik said:
The perverse thing to do if they "run away" and let the plans of a Chaos Power other than Khorne succeed is that the Chaos Power will "reward them" (Tzeentch, Slaanesh or Nurgle's idea of reward being not very wholesome, the Skaven deciding that whoever you guard is a good target because you always run away etc.).
Interesting thoughts here. I like Valvorik's approach. It is also thinkable that the pcs start to receive rewards of whatever kind (money, favors, etc.) from an anonymous chaos worshipper who wants to thank them for not ruining some the evil schemes. Which itself could initialize some true corrupting influence on the players.
Not trying to question your willingness to mark the players for anything, I'm thinking:
Running away from battles could offend Ulric and Sigmar. From applying the law, Sigmar, and from justice (not exactly the same thing), Verena. Maybe coward behaviour could also offend Mannan, for any reason you could think of. Such stormy God.
Running away could bring the good will of Ranald, for sure (cleverness, tricks and avoiding violence), and maybe Shallya (mercy and avoiding violence) and Myrmidia (tactical thinking and acting).
About Chaos Gods, I think it could get the attention of all of them, the rage of Khorne for being cowards and avoiding conflict, and the "good" will of Slaanesh (live to fight another day and enjoy and spread life in all it's imorality) and of Tzeentch (to live, to strike from the shadows, to see your plans come to fruition in time etc etc). I also think it could fit Nurgle as a patient and playful God, and diseases are something that are always passing through any barrier…
Nurgle, because his whole bailwick is those who fear their own mortality.
..it's not so much running away from combat, but running away from 'saving people/the innocent', that is at issue here.
Punishment wouldn't be the factor either so much as catering rewards based upon their actions. A mark in this case would be relevant.
jh
Emirikol said:
..it's not so much running away from combat, but running away from 'saving people/the innocent', that is at issue here.
Punishment wouldn't be the factor either so much as catering rewards based upon their actions. A mark in this case would be relevant.
I find it odd that you feel the need to punish players for not doing what you think is the morally stand up thing, I always thought of the dynamics behind the warhammer world as being not so much about good and evil as the various shades of grey. Whats in it for them to want to save the innocent "good will?" perhaps they don't have any motivation to be bothered with going above and beyond the call of duty. Just because a player or party may be mercenary in their desire to help people I'm not sure if that is "evil" behavior, after all its a grim dark world and there are not many shiny paladins in it. Even the peasants own nobles would barely notice if they ran the over while mounted and many nobles would just keep going, life's cheap in the old world and all…
Heretek, So, would it be Slaanesh then if it came down to punishing (as it seems to have been labeled by some, rather than roleplaying opportunity) PCs for choosing to turn their back moral standards? To clarify: yes, I'm inflicting the concept of using moral standards from my world into the wfrp world (the same way we have guns, D&D goblins, Tolkein hobbits, andnames from Germany in there..there's nowhere else to start 
Repeating: in this case, it has little/nothing to do with combat cowardice, but instead lack of action due to fear and i want to find a use for all this "stuff" piled in my gaming room. Temporary use of Marks seems like rat-bastard way for a GM to emphasize the choices that characters make.
Nurgle really seems to have some moral implications with lack of action, but it seems to be case-specific.
Khorne is a blood-thirsty god, so probably not there except in cases of back-stabbing (until a replacement mark is discovered for Khaine)
Tzeentch seems to be one of machinations, where cowardice seems to play a role, and I suppose insanity would work.
I do like the idea of some kind of omen or something from a god of law (the old ones, not the current ones), but I think that would be too vague to make an effective presentation..as well as the fact that there aren't any rewards from the gods, but there are easy mechanics that can be put into place from the Chaos gods (Marks).
This kind of stuff is rarely permanent in my games, however it does present roleplaying opportunities and adventure springboards. My players aren't whiners so I'm not worried about them bemoaning helplessly, "Not fair! Oh meanie GM, you've made my character no fun to play." The roleplaying opportunities presented by being temporarlily marked or temporarlily mutated seem to work well. Now, permanent stuff, like permanent wounds, that's just plain mean.
jh
Emirikol said:
I do like the idea of some kind of omen or something from a god of law (the old ones, not the current ones), but I think that would be too vague to make an effective presentation..as well as the fact that there aren't any rewards from the gods, but there are easy mechanics that can be put into place from the Chaos gods (Marks).
Oh man, tonight's session should be interesting… 
It went exactly as planned … 
How will he ever get the stain out of..his soul?
what happened? please tell us!
Cowardice? Really depends on the context.
If the GM REALLY wants his players to take a specific course of action (ie, saving some people), then try to give each character some kind of motivation other than the desire to do good.
Greedy characters might anticipate a reward.
Vain characters might see a potential increase in fame.
That sort of thing.