Codes of Honor, Bogus Freebie for Will save?

[argo]

How do you guys deal with your barbarian PCs and their CoHs if they never want to return home and benefit their tribe?

Honor doesn't have anything to do with serving any particular group. Aside from the proviso in the CoH that you should honor promises made. IOW if your barbarian makes an oath to stay and perform a duty, then runs off for no good reason then he might be in trouble, not for leaving but for oath-breaking. Even then the Barbarian CoH has more leeway here than the Civilized CoH does.

If you want to represent "loyalty" to a particular group of people then you use the Alleigance rules to represent that. I can see an argument that you can't mantain an alleigance to your tribe if you haven't been home in 20 years. However I can also see an argument that you can mantain your alleigance so long as you continue to follow your tribe's customs and laws while abroad. YMMV

On flip side why shouldn't sorcerors who take the priest skill get a magic attack bonus against all these CoH and Faith based PCs. The logic of the majority here seems to be 'god is on your side' and 'gentlemen have it easier' so why not let the more devout scholar with the priest feat get a bonus after all he knows his magic more divinely inspired than the 'independent' scholar?

For a devout sorcorer the Rule of Success could easily be intrepreted as him seeing that "god is on his side" today and pushing him to greater limits.

As for why Honor doesn't offer a sorcorer a bonus to magic attack... again it is a genre convention. In Swords 'n Sorcery honor is for the guys with the swords while corruption and madness is for the guys with the sorcery :wink:

Later.

 

[Axerules]

IMHO a CoH or the Faith bonus to Will become "freebies" only if the roleplaying of those moral choices isn't played in the game. The GM need to do some work but it can also be an easy way to get the PC's in a story (a woman screams for help..) or to present an additional challenge during a game.

Their morality should be tested if they want to keep their Codes/Faiths. PC's shouldn't get thoses bonuses without risking their life/loosing something (an opportunity to earn money or helping the Mitran priest for free ?).

They are plenty of ways to make it difficult to retain Faith or Honor in a world as gritty and without mercy as Hyboria. IMHO they should DESERVE those bonuses. More work for the GM, but a lot of adventures/sidestories possibilities.

 

[Damien]

When your players announce an action that goes against their characters' CoH, how do you react?

I use a point system attached to my copy of their character sheets. What I do at the start of a campaign is assign each player with a CoH one point. Then I flip a coin -- heads they get a second point, tails they don't.

Every time a player acts against their best interests due to their CoH, they get a point added. Whenever they act against it - they lose one point (or more, depending on how grievous their action was in my estimation). Reaching 0 means immediate loss of your Code.

It's actually not at all difficult to keep track of, and it provides players some give with how they behave. Everyone makes mistakes. Make too many of them and obviously you aren't fit to have a Code to follow.

The only hard part is determining how many points are lost for poor behaviour. That's just something you have to abjudicate when/if it happens. The key is just to always make sure players have choices - like with the Paladin CoC in D&D, you don't force your players into a situation with only bad choices and then penalize them for it.

And since honour is more easily lost than gained, and players never know how much 'give' they actually have available, they're not at all tempted to test their limits. You might gain 4 points over the course of 2 or 3 levels, then lose it all with one bad decision. Or worse - one bad decision could still drop you down to 0. Just depends on how bad that decision was.

 

[Ichabod]

Well, I don't like alignment systems, especially ones that reward one alignment instead of another, and that's all the CoH rules are. Lawful is vastly, vastly superior to non-Lawful in Conan.

And, yes, it is a freebie. You didn't pay anything to get it in the first place, so even if you had it for only 5 minutes of your first adventure, you had benefits someone who never had one failed to have.

 

[Damien]

I think it's a little uhm. . hmm.. irrational, to call the CoH an 'alignment system.' It's absolutely nothing of the sort anymore than the allegience rules are an alignment system in the D&D sense.

A person does not have to be 'lawful' to hold themselves to a PERSONAL code of ethics. And just because a person has no ethics at all of their own does not mean they are not lawful. I would imagine some of the most lawful characters in any D&D game are those with absolutely no personal ethical system, as it allows them to very blindly follow whatever rules are set forth by authority figures.

Personal ethics and belief in a code are entirely separate concepts from alignment and cosmic concepts of 'Law' and 'Chaos.'

 

[Clovenhoof]

Codes of Honour aren't the same as Alignment, but if you absolutely want to draw parallels, the Civilized Code from the book would be Lawful Good and the Barbaric Code would be Chaotic Good. A Lawful Evil character would have a different Code. But again: it's not the same mechanism and thus the metaphor doesn't really work.

I like the Honour system because it gives me (as GM) some idea how a character will act in a conflict situation. And I also have some control, since I can warn the players if their characters are about to violate their CoH.
There's also no reason why Honour should be reserved for fighter-types. I have a honourable Pirate in my group, for instance.

 

[Bjorn the Barbarian]

I am with Axerules on this one. I believe in challenging my players' CoH on a consistant basis.

 

[slaughterj]

All my PCs had Codes of Honor, and I would warn them about contemplated actions that would infringe it, and as they wanted to keep it, would adjust their actions accordingly. So it didn't let them act amoral, and in exchange, they got the will save bonus. It might be a bit high, but as noted earlier, it fits the genre. I have no problem with it, and actually like it because I like to see the characters get run Conan-like, which this promotes.

 

[Daz]

What I did in my campaign is give people a +3 will save for having a code of conduct and let them choose whatever kind of code of conduct they wanted as long as it would place a significant restriction on their behavior.

One character was a Muslim who avoided alcohol and pagan religion which caused social problems and resulted on him missing out on a variety of pagan-related buffs/magic charms.

Another chracter played according to standard Viking warrior honor which kept him from doing a number things that less honorable members of the party did to gain profit.

Most of the party didn't take any code of conduct which resulted in them acting like a bunch of thugs. I think what's important to realize is that in the Conan system players are expected to act a lot more thuggish than in D&D so to pass up some of the benefits of thuggery deserves some kind of reward. My party found this to be balanced.

 

[Majestic7]

I like Codes of Honor, very much in fact. Mercenary Code of Honor is a bit too easy to maintain though. The way I see the +3/+6 will bonus is that is describes the self-confidence of the character. A character with intact Code of Honor feels that he is a good guy, morally superior to many other folks and thus has almost unwavering belief in that what he does is right. This a wholly subjective thing, but it gives reinforcement to his willpower, steeling him against both mental manipulation and fear. A character that had a Code of Honor but lost it is doubting himself and his motives, perhaps feeling a bit depressed and thus more open to bending before others. A character with No Honour acknowledges that he is a villain and gains certain feeling of superiority from it - the kind of "I'm beyond all morality!" way to think.

Of course, all this could be done just by roleplaying, but having mechanical bonuses from the Codes gives players incentives to try to act honorably whenever they can. In my current campaign, two characters had Civilized Code of Honor but both lost it. One has No Honour. Two others didn't have any Code of Honor to start with.

What comes to game mechanics - receiving +3 will "free" for character classes with weak will save - I think they really are going to need it anyway! Many sorcerous stuff, not to mention terror checks, are practically save or die -stuff. Even if the result of failure is not death, it will end the encounter for the character. He might run away screaming in the case of terror check or suggestion, or fall down in to a mass of quivering flesh in the case of Gelid Bones. In practice, CoH is a "good guy bonus" that will usually apply more in the benefit of player characters than against them, if they can keep their Codes of Honor intact.

 

[Spectator]

I think you are absolutely right in characterizing it as a 'good guy bonus'
Notice to get the "No Honour" anti-CoH, you actually have to spend a feat?!!? The Bonus is also a freebie, in comparison with the "No Honour" feat.
Why can't my Darfurian Baby Taster just proclaim "I have No Honour" and spend a feat on Lightning reflexes instead.
This is the inequity, not to mention the statistical imbalance of +3/+6.
I think I'm a pretty honorable guy and in my life and stuff aint easier for me?

REH was similar Lovecraft in the respect that Good Guys did not get breaks, rather they were beaten down by evil wizards, sadistic satraps, and savages.

Again, CoH fine in some respects, just overblown and inbalanced.

 

[Majestic7]

I think you should not take CoH as just mechanical freebie bonus, but rather take in to account all the trouble having one will cause. This is a bad example but first that comes in to mind - characters are in Stygia and there's a Son of Set sliding on the street that has decided to eat a certain female slave for breakfast. The slave girl comes begging for help from the strangers. (Maybe she isn't Stygian or something, so she doesn't know better.) Let's say that there are three guys, one without CoH, one with a Barbarian CoH and one with No Honour. The two guys without CoH will have no trouble just letting the snake eat her, since interfering would cause huge amount of trouble.The guy with No Honour might even enjoy the sight, you don't see that kind of stuff every day. The third guy, on the other hand...

Barbaric Code of Honour states that one must protect those weaker than himself, at least from physical dangers, if such protection is requested. The slave girl is obviously weaker person, is in mortal danger and begging for help. If the character decides to try to save her, he will be putting himself in very dire danger. Not only the snake might eat him for dessert, but the reaction from the priests of Set will be very ugly. If he doesn't help her, well, there goes his Code of Honour.

The point is, although Codes of Honour do give free mechanical bonuses, sticking to them will cause terrible amount of trouble in a variety of situations. This, I think, fits very well in to both Hyboria and Lovecraftian horror. The "good guys" just have to do what they think is right and end up facing dangers for it. It is so much easier to just walk away and let bad things happen without interfering, only doing something when it gives direct benefit. So, even if CoH gives a character "freebie" bonus compared to No Honour that costs a feat, it will cause much more trouble if the GM will keep throwing moral dilemmas at the face of the characters. Good guys are beaten by evil wizards, sadistic satraps and savages because they are good guys. If they were not, they could just step aside and avoid trouble.

 

[Bjorn the Barbarian]

Majestic7,

That was very well put! I need to have a couple of my players read this.

 

[Spectator]

Although, I'm not sure why the No Honor anti-COH should cost a feat, you certainly made a very good argument for the CoH.

I guess the No-Honor thing certainly puts players at a disadvantage when it comes to player longevity (via Corruption), certainly a trade off similar to the CoH characters having to react certain ways that might not encourage their longevity.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Although, I'm not sure why the No Honor anti-COH should cost a feat,

Isn't it obvious? CoH comes with strings attached, and No Honour does not. It allows you to behave any way you like. THIS would be a freebie bonus.
As a feat, it's balanced again Iron Will. IW gives +2 to all Will Saves including Corruption saves, and NH gives +3 to all Will saves except Corruption. As simple as that. Neither forces you to intercede if a luckless slavegirl is about to be eaten by a snake in a city that worships snakes. Which is the cost of CoH.

 

[Spectator]

To say No Honour comes with no strings attached is missing a key point. You are screwed everytime you face corruption checks. The more corruption you get the sooner you (a player) will have to give up your PC to the GM, becasue a NPC Demon controls your PCs soul.
So very similarly to a CoH, your lifespan as a PC is reduced, statisticly speaking. I would say that is a very big string attached.

For example: in a previous post, it was mentioned in the Son of Set example the CoH dude will intervene, the one character who never thought about getting or losing honor may not feel compelled, and your character who has No Honor, well he doesn't exist anymore since 3 gaming sesssions ago, he lost his final corruption save and was taken to Hell by a rider of Ollam Onga.

That's a big string attached, IMHO.

Now I don't advocate people going out and becoming No-Honor types, I just think what is good for the goose is good for the gander when it comes to gaining or losing honor.

 

[Majestic7]

That really depends on the GM and the players. If they are constantly summoning demons, then they will be facing corruption checks all the time. During my campaign of over twenty gaming session, there has been on the average three corruption checks per character, often with rather low DC's. Most of these have happened because the characters have actively got themselves in to a situation where they are practically asking for corruption. So, I really don't see it like that.

On the other hand, in someone elses game, there might be ten corruption checks each session. I think that would be kind of lame, though. The way I see corruption, it is a slowly creeping mental and spiritual degeneration, not something that turns men in to monsters overnight. (There is Awful Curse of the Werebeast for that.) Corruption is the kind of stuff that can turn a character in to a monster during a long campaign, while following CoH can get him potentially killed in all sessions of the same campaign.

Corruption can be bought away with fate points anyway, while getting rid of trouble caused by following your Code of Honour can be much harder to accomplish. I really don't see corruption turning No Honour in to a bad feat, or CoH bonuses in to unbalanced freebies.

Off-topic edit: Talking about corruption, I've been thinking about a character that would pretty much be all about it. The point would be that the guy would have very high corruption, something like 8-9, but had realized the nature of the corruption - that it is some outside force trying to turn him in to a puppet. Thus, although a bad guy by any measurement, he'd be forced to go on doing heroic deeds in a desperate attempt to save his own soul. (Gain fate points to spend to cure corruption.) The idea of "evil guy is a hero against his will" has always been one of my favorite character concepts.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Corruption checks aren't THAT frequent in most games. As we discussed in another thread, you make a check when you deal peacefully with a demonic entity, and when you handle magically tainted treasure. The latter is probably the more probable cause for fighter-type characters, and probably doesn't occur every session either.

You are screwed everytime you face corruption checks. [...] I would say that is a very big string attached.

That's like saying you're screwed when you take Lighting Reflexes because it doesn't improve your Corruption save. The fact is true, but beside the point. If you want a feat that helps you against Corruption, you take Iron Will. This _feat_ gives you a +2 to all Will saves including corruption. Why should No Honour be more powerful than Iron Will?

Honourable characters have a great resilience against Corruption, and dishonourable characters do not. I don't see the problem.

 

[slaughterj]

Yeah, given the difficulty in getting corruption, I don't generally even bother with it, without party sorcerer at least. So succumbing to it more easily is not significant.

 

[argo]

To say No Honour comes with no strings attached is missing a key point. You are screwed everytime you face corruption checks. The more corruption you get the sooner you (a player) will have to give up your PC to the GM, becasue a NPC Demon controls your PCs soul.
So very similarly to a CoH, your lifespan as a PC is reduced, statisticly speaking. I would say that is a very big string attached.

Well, as Clovenhoof pointed out, you can always take Iron Will instead. +2 to all Will saves vs +3 to Will except for Corruption is balanced.

More to the point though is that, generally speaking, having to make a Corruption save is a player choice. Yes there are a few "enviormental factors" that cause corruption, however the primairy source of corruption is having peacfull contact with a corrupting influence. Even if your GM takes the house rule that you can gain corruption through "evil acts" then it still becomes a player choice to perform an act that risks corruption.

There is a vast middle ground between men of Honor and the Corrupt evildooer that leaves plenty of space for your typical, amoral, mercenary adventurer.